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

Monckton to Turnbull: Challenge to an absolute banker

Christopher Monckton is toying with Turnbull. It would be beautiful to watch :-)

 

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, following what the great Alan Jones has described as his “6-0, 6-0, 6-0 victory” over the director of the Australia Institute in a debate about the climate at the National Press Club in Canberra early this week, has today issued the following challenge to Malcolm Turnbull, the former leader of the Liberal/National Coalition, whom his party recycled last year for his naïve belief that “global warming” is some sort of “global crisis” –

 

Whereas one Malcolm Turnbull, Member of Parliament for Goldman Sachs, self-appointed leader of the Absolute Bankers’ Get-Rich-Quick, Gimme-the-Money, Subsidy-Junkies’, Profiteers’-of-Doom and Rent-Seekers’ Vested-Interest Coalition Against Hard-Working Taxpayers, has this day demonstrated wilful but indubitably profitable ignorance of elementary science by declaring that since all relevant matters of climatology are settled no one should pay any heed to a mere Peer of the Realm who dares to question the imagined (and imaginary) scientific “consensus” to the effect that unless the economies of the West are laid waste and destroyed we are all doomed;

 

And forasmuch as it is easy to identify the said Turnbull’s aircraft when it arrives at Canberra Airport because when the engines are turned off the whining carries on;

 

Now therefore I, The Right Honourable Christopher Walter, by the Grace of God and Letters Patent under the Hand and Seal of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second (whom God preserve) Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, do by these presents challenge the said Absolute Banker to a Debate on live television, during which each party shall have the opportunity to state his case and to examine the other’s case, with a view to informing Hard-Working Taxpayers and allowing them to decide for themselves whether the truth is being told by me or by the said Member for Goldman Sachs, upon whom I call to take up this challenge, if he dares.

 

Given under my sign manual this twenty-second day of July in the Year of our Lord Two Thousand and Eleven,

 

VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY

 

Further information from Leon Ashby: 04 3542 3636

270 Chambers Rd Mt Gambier SA 5290

See also: The reason they have to stop Skeptics speaking (posted today too)


VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 6.8/10 (6 votes cast)
Monckton to Turnbull: Challenge to an absolute banker, 6.8 out of 10 based on 6 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/4xy3ex3

283 comments to Monckton to Turnbull: Challenge to an absolute banker

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    there is not a snowflakes chance in a catastrophically warming world that Malcolm Turnbull would accept this challenge.
    The member for Goldman Sachs is, afterall, a coward.

    20

  • #
    Melburnite

    Malcolm the potential turncoat? Might as well have his mate whats-is
    -name who stuffed up on his GST maths,as well, neither would be able to do a Lordable job without someone holding their hands – witless that lot!, maybe they could bring along John Cook and his dummy as scientific advisers as a sideshow. Lordy Lordy I’d like to see that, you should have no trouble spanking that lot!!

    00

  • #

    That is the problem with the English – they use a lot of words to say what the rest of us do in a sentence! ;)

    It probably will not happen, but I would tune in for it.

    00

  • #

    Maybe they might appear in a South Park Cartoon parody – like the “MAN BEAR PIG” episode (Al Gore Parody). I sure would like to see that. Monckton challenges Turnbull and the Gillard, in a Soth Park Style.

    How about it, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, goanna do it for us ?

    meantime check out the Man-Bear-Pig catoon-thinggy at the Video Wall #6 on the website linked to the name “Axel” above. It is about 1/2 way down that page #6.

    Monckton can save the Australian Economy, by exposing the lies & deceit of the headless chickens, who masquerade as our Leaders.

    20

  • #
    Jeremy

    There’s a certain charm in civility. However, I think it’s best use is in sharpening the intellectual point when you’re poking an enemy in the eye.

    00

  • #
    DougS

    Monckton would have him for breakfast.

    There is, therefore, only two chances of Turnbull accepting the challenge – SLIM and NONE.

    And SLIM has already left town!

    20

  • #
    RJ

    Baa Humbug

    I no little about Turnbull. Is he a coward? I guess we will find out soon enough.

    00

  • #
    RJ

    Ops know not no.

    00

  • #
    RJ

    know not no.

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    I’ll take the day off to watch that one too.

    However I suspect discretion & valour (?) may be a phrase bandied about.

    Do you reckon the ABC/ALP would creatively edit the footage & have a field day?

    Sick ‘em Rex!

    00

  • #
    Jennifer

    The Chicargo Climate Exchange operated by Goldman Sachs collapsed completely 2 years ago ( is that time frame correct ? ) Selling hot air climate indulgences or cargo cult scarey scenario insurance. Turnbull was head of GSAust. for many years as a merchant banker / wanker. Does anyone out there know the time frame and how he made his vast fortunes from money speculation ? I gather merchant bankers are the parasites of banking.

    Abbott is crazy to keep this Judas in the Coalition, along with greenie Greg Hunt. Both should be expelled. Tony should have the guts to DUMP the direct action nonsense for a non problem. ‘Dump it’ as Monckton bluntly suggested at the NPC. I find it frustrating when Abbott keeps taking of carbon emissions and the inner green expression he drags out ( how many times have I heard it ? )
    ‘ We need to rest lightly on the planet ‘ This is vomit inducing in its stupidity. An expression that PM Brown would come out with, who made up this statement ?

    Turnbull and Monckton debate bring it on !

    20

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    In Isaiah 9:15 [the Bible] it says – “The elder and the honourable he is the head,the prophet who teaches lies he is the tail.”

    That to me describes the sly Symbolic Snake of Pharisaism which to those initiated into the plan is a scheme worked out by learned men to conquer the world by peaceful means.

    Malcolm Turnbulls headwear has on occasion indicated to me that he forms part of that body which is the tail.

    Verse 16 of the above quoted says – “For this peoples leaders are led astray,and its guided ones are destroyed.”

    It is foretold that the Snake has still to finish its work,strictly adhering to the designed plan,until the course which it has to run is closed by the return of its head to Zion and until, by this means,the Snake has completed its round of Europe and has encircled it – and until by dint of enchaining Europe,it has encompassed the whole world. This it is to accomplish by using every endeavour to subdue the other countries by an economic conquest.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Christopher Monckton is toying with Turnbull. It would be beautiful to watch

    I really hate to bring in Biblical wisdom on Joanne Nova where, to be certain, religion has no place. However…

    The New Testament gives us a perfect means of making judgments about men. Jesus said to judge a man the same way you judge a tree; good fruit, good tree. Good fruit, good man!

    I’ve never found a more reliable way to judge anyone than to look at the result of what they do.

    Whether Turnbull accepts the challenge or not he is already known. How well does he stand up under that microscope?

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    I’m so glad that full attention will now be drawn to this charade.

    Those of us who are aware of the real science have not had far to look to be aware of the real motive for Malcolm’s “selfless” sacrifice in going against his party and losing the Leadership.

    The Global Warmers have ascribed his actions to selfless motivation to “Save The Planet” whereas the more cynical of us saw the main prize that the former head of Goldman Sachs was after; commissions on “Carbon Trading”.

    There was of course earlier form when the Self Appointed nobility of Australian Politics decided we needed to become a Republic. Malcolm was there with the others asking for us to vote for something that would be of little use to the taxpayers but give politicians an incredible boost in further marginalising our capacity to control their excesses.

    History repeats. Be aware. Australia, Get off your Knees and Fight Back.

    10

  • #
    janama

    There’s a wonderful letter to the editor in the SMH this morning:

    It is time for the coach to pull the supposedly talented Turnbull from the field and keep him off until he understands which way he should be kicking the ball.

    Ron Pike Coffs Harbour

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    This is all good fun, but the abusive language in the declaration/ invitation/ challenge is certain to ensure it isn’t taken seriously, which is a pity, because it gives the target an excuse to squirm back under his rock with impunity (in the eyes of his audience). Christopher’s declaration to Pachauri in 2009 & indeed the one to the Aus. PM then too were rather better.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Hi Janama,

    Turnbull is talented, he’s just using those skills for his own benefit and not that of his electorate.

    10

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    Roy Hogue @ 12

    The one thing the enemy fears in their writings is Christianity. Christians are their arch enemy.

    By Christianity i don’t mean followers of a religious denomination, but followers of Christ.

    One has to choose as to whom they are going to serve.

    George Bush once said; “You’re either with us or you are against us.” What choice did that give to a Christian?

    00

  • #
    Carl Chapman

    We’ll have to wait until Turnbull gets his instructions from Goldman Sachs. Carbon trading looks to be pretty well dead in the US, and soon Australia. Maybe Goldman Sachs will give up on their money making scheme.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Morning All.

    Turnbull should accept this challenge as quickly as he can. After all, he’s a skilled politician, he’s a powerful debater, he knows his facts and he’s got a multi-billion dollar scientific juggernaut behind him.

    In a live, open debate against a single man who is completely wrong, how can he possibly lose? And what a great way of regaining the leadership? Go for it Malcolm!

    Unless, of course, you don’t believe the facts are behind you???

    Cheers,

    Speedy.

    00

  • #
    Madjak

    Hey Malcolm turnbull:

    you should accept this debate – after all your arguments are totally sound and based on fact. You could put this whole debate to bed right here and right now.

    You would be able to shore up support for the noble war against the letter C in the name of preventing the climate from changing.

    Who knows, if you’re successful enough you might even ensure the greens keep the balance of power too!

    You might even get a letter from al gore congratulating you on having more guts than he does.

    Go for it!

    …. please…..?

    00

  • #

    loved the pharase “by these presents challenge the said Absolute Banker to a Debate on live television,”

    was that a typeO? should that “T” have been a “B”?

    00

  • #

    scuse the typo myself that ought to have read should that “B” have been a “W”….. too early and insufficient coffee is my excuse and I am sticking to it!

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Hi JustMEInT:

    There is the potential for rhyme in that phrase;

    Absolute Banker – Absolute ?anker

    00

  • #
    Madjak

    The collective term fir a group of bankers is a wunch of bankers.

    For example, Wayne swan and Malcom Turnbull together to discuss how to continue their war on C, could be refered to as a wunch if bankers.

    actually, isn’t swanny boy a train driver?

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Hi JustMEInT:

    I couldn’t figure that out eevn though I had the same thought.

    Must be early.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    “wunch of bankers.”

    Magic.

    00

  • #
    John Coochey

    Deniss has an article in the Canberra Times today which is at best incoherent linking Austrlalia’s climate policy to its boat people policy. I think it needs a letter in reply but the poor man seems to have lost his marbles

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    No chance Turnbull will take this up. Admittedly slightly more chance than Al Baby, but still somewhere between Buckley’s and none.

    The title reminds me of a chap I know who has a bright superhero costume with a characteristic “W” on it, in which he plays *ankerman. Yes, just substitute the * with the aforementioned logo letter.

    00

  • #
    Binny

    The full weight of Australia’s premier scientific institution against a showman and a buffoon.
    Too easy!Go for it to Malcolm put the buffoon back in his box, and stamp it return to sender.

    This is something they just don’t get, whenever they attack Vicount Monckton’s credibility, it simply weakens their case further. After all if he is just a show man in a buffoon, why do they have so much trouble dealing with him?

    00

  • #
    Binny

    ‘Absolute Banker’

    The strength of Monkton’s wit, is in his willingness to credit his audience with intelligence.

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    He’s not actually helping, with this. But its very funny.

    I’ve personally met and worked for two people who lead very large organisations, and I can see why they say the things they do (both are carbon tax champions). However the move by quite a lot of very senior business people to come out against the Government and the tax has got to be wearing on their personal beliefs in this matter. I haven’t heard a peep from them in the media for several weeks – which is a good sign.

    We certainly live in interesting times!

    00

  • #
    Martin

    Andrew Bolt “The lack of ripples when Turnball throws his stones now shows how close he is to being gone”

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Binny:
    July 23rd, 2011 at 9:06 am

    The strength of Monkton’s wit, is in his willingness to credit his audience with intelligence.

    Never a truer word spoken in jest.

    00

  • #
    JF

    I have maintainened all along that Libs need to convince 2 independants or labour back benchers to cross the floor, as MT will definitely cross the floor unless there is clear evidence the carbon bill wont get up, then he will wimp out. Norway was the first to have a carbon tax, with a Labour left government, in 10 years CO2 is up 15%, all that tax for what gain in a country that has 99% energy from hydro. Another economy screwed by the socialists, add Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Australia, New Zealand. there is one common thread here “Green Socialists”.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Has anyone sent the invitation/challenge to Turnbull?

    00

  • #
    CO2isGood

    I would love to see any Politician (or Government approved Scientist) debate Monckton. But I fear they would not dare to accept his challenge because Politicians know they have no case to win and most importantly they hate any light being shone upon their lies and deceit – “by Stealth is Best” is their motto.

    Abbott should get rid of Turnbull immediately. Turnbull is TOXIC. It has always amazed me how Turnbull stayed on with Abbott. But that just shows you how powerful Turnbull’s backers (Bankers) must be….

    00

  • #
    Bryn

    Monckton has the very English but unfortunate schoolboyish trait of using bufoonery to make his point. It is very much a debating society technique for winning the argument (does anyone remember his win at the Oxford Union), but falls mainly on deaf ears in Oz. Too much of the Alexander Downers.

    This is unfortunate, because in the seriousness of the Government’s “carbon tax” fiasco, the levity is noticed and easily deplored while the facts and statistics that Monckton so remarkably carries in his head tend to be unnoticed.

    00

  • #
    Dave

    O/T

    FIRST BOOK OF GOVERNMENT

    Julia is the shepherd I did not want.
    She leadeth me beside the still factories.
    She restoreth my faith in the Liberal party.
    She guideth me in the path of unemployment for her party’s sake.
    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the bread line,
    I shall fear no hunger for her bailouts are with me.
    She has anointed my income with taxes,
    My expenses runneth over.
    Surely, poverty and hard living will follow me all the days of my life.
    And I will live in a rented home forever.

    I am glad I am Australian.
    I am glad that I am free.
    But I wish I was a dog
    And Julia was a tree.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Why would any serious professional/politician accept such a childish, rude, disrespectful invitation.

    What an absolute clown.

    01

  • #
    MattB

    Binny: “Absolute Banker’
    The strength of Monkton’s wit, is in his willingness to credit his audience with intelligence.”

    I’m sure you are taking the piss here? no? lol when “absolute banker is seen as an intelligent joke you can tell the crowd your preaching to!”

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    carbon DIOXIDE is PLANT FOOD asnd NOT pollution !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2011/07/photosynthesis.html

    10

  • #
  • #
    cohenite

    MattB; you made an observation on another thread about TonyOz’s work on the new generation coal which will reduce CO2E by 30% for the same power or more. Your observation was that since coal power was only responsible for 40% of Australia’s CO2E, this would mean if all existing coal power was converted or replaced, it would only deliver a 13% reduction in CO2.

    You pooh poohed that as not being worthwhile and would be a deadend. You were kidding weren’t you?

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    MattB at #36

    Why would any serious professional/politician accept such a childish, rude, disrespectful invitation.

    The US Congress did. This article is rather interesting take from the US on the Monckton-Denniss debate. That Al Gore talked his party into blocking the invitation to Chris Monckton says it all.

    And it also says that now the Republicans control the Congress such an invite may be renewed. As Mr Sheppard says:

    “Although Gore likely would have done a better job than Denniss, he would have been no match for the far more knowledgable and eloquent Monckton, and the entire myth the former Vice President has been profitably spreading since 2006 would have crumbled – with C-SPAN cameras broadcasting every delicious second – like a house of cards.”

    Matt…your question might be about to get answered.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Noi Cohers I pooh-poohed it as being hellishly expensive and locking us in for 40 odd years at that emissions level. So if you are a skeptic you’d not do it and if you were a warmist you’d not do it.

    I am mildly skeptical about the practicality based on the fact that no-one in the coal industry or generation industry is proposing this.

    Lastly, there is nothing about a carbon tax/ets that would preclude this action if it was the least cost abatement method – myself I’m quite happy to let the market figure out how it will generate electricity.

    00

  • #

    Joanna,

    The ‘planners and controllers’ are not going to give up easily – their plans go back a long way.

    “A Carbon Currency Rationing Future”

    http://www.alor.org/NewTimes%20Survey/A%20Carbon%20Currency%20Future.htm

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Dear Malcolm

    Come to think of it, you don’t have any choice but to accept this challenge. After all, you are so sure of your facts that you would impose a carbon dioxide tax or a carbon dioxide trading scheme on the public, so you must be all over the facts, surely?

    And you do care about this cause – you told us so.

    And you think Monckton is a buffoon – what better a way to expose him than with a live debate? What an opportunity Malcolm!

    And of course, No-one has ever accused you of humility or shyness.

    Maolcolm, you have to accept this challenge – otherwise people will begin to realise think that you’ve been less than honest with us in the past.

    And you wouldn’t want to share a credibility rating with Julia, would you Malcolm? Of course not. Pick up the phone, sweetheart.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Matt:

    myself I’m quite happy to let the market figure out how it will generate electricity

    So you would be happy if as seems likely nuclear power came out the most economic?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Absolutely Bruce. Absolutely. I’m a big fan… Although I think that may need some government intervention to kick start things in Australia.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Cohenite @ 40

    MattB slithered away from this on a previous thread – you don’t REALLY expect him to answer it now, do you.
    See him slither at #42:

    “. . . I pooh-poohed it as being hellishly expensive . . . “

    compared to what? – Solar? – Wind?

    “I am mildly skeptical about the practicality based on the fact that no-one in the coal industry . . . . is proposing this.”

    Covered in the last thread and slithered away from.

    “I am mildly skeptical about the practicality based on the fact that no-one in the coal industry or generation industry is proposing this”.

    Highlighted addition to cover the fact that he slithered away from this in the last thread. Also covered in the last thread.

    “Lastly, there is nothing about a carbon tax/ets that would preclude this action if it was the least cost abatement method.”

    Yeah right. Quite apart from being challenged and slithered away from in the last thread, Brownshirt Bob has categorically stated coal stations WILL BE closed down. For as long as he holds the balance of power in the Senate no sane person is going to invest a cent in coal-fired power generation.

    Slither, slither slither.

    I’ve got earthworms in my garden with more backbone than you MattB.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    MV; I am afraid you are correct about MB; he is worming out of this; in TONYOz’s post there is a comparison between the proposed refurbishment of Bayswater with the new solar farm at Chinchilla:

    http://papundits.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/co2-emissions-reduction-a-radical-plan/

    In terms of expense and electricity no comparison.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Matt B

    One of the problems with your comment highlighted by Bruce ( letting the market figure out the best way ) is that with electricity generation there is not really a true market in most cases. It is virtually a monopoly situation , due the high cost of entry. So I don’t see a carbon tax or ETS really affecting it and therefore the “figuring out” will not occur in they way you would wish.
    NB. In NZ the first electricity generator to increase its prices when the ETS was introduced was one which 95%+ of its supply from renewables ( hydro ).

    00

  • #
    Arie Brand

    Monckton’s scientific opponents would have one serious handicap in dealing with him – they have to stick to the truth at the penalty of losing their scientific reputation. Moncton doesn’t have this handicap. Since he doesn’t have a scientific reputation, nor one for truthfulness, he can deal with the ‘facts’ as he sees fit. In the five fold “Moncton Bunkum” series on Youtube that has been made abundantly clear.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Arie says: “Since he doesn’t have a scientific reputation, nor one for truthfulness, he can deal with the ‘facts’ as he sees fit. In the five fold “Moncton Bunkum” series on Youtube that has been made abundantly clear.”

    No it wasn’t.

    00

  • #
    Donald

    Ba Humbug (2:03 am!) is correct. Turnbull is very much the coward, in the same vein as Gore who sprinted away from a promised debate when Lord Monckton arrived in Washington about 18 months ago.

    Turnbull’s bad form is telling, albeit he does not share Gore’s grubby domestic life.

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Comment from Jennifer Hewett re Australianclimatmadness.

    What yesterday’s comments show is that the private and broad-based frustration with this Labor government is now so intense that business leaders feel they have a responsibility to explain how much is going wrong in Canberra. And why everyone should be worried about the impact and unintended consequences of policies that are not properly thought through.

    unintended deliberate consequences that are being pushed by globalist agenda.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Arie @ 49

    Ahh – Arie good to see you back. Yesterday at 5.30pm on another thread you were on the verge of answering a question, when obviously you lost your internet connection. So I’ll re-paste it here for you:

    So Arie, just what exactly DID happen to the MWP and the LIA in Mann’s hockey stick?

    Are they hiding in the same place as Trenberth’s Travesty “missing heat”?

    Over to you, Arie.

    Or have you been studying advanced slithering from MattB?

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Heaven’s, the Peer has really stirred the natives, what?

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Maybe Goldman Sachs will give up on their money making scheme.

    Not likely after they stripmined the US economy along with the criminals at JP Morgan, Bank of America and the other “street” banksters.
    Wanna know what theyre up to? check here and here and here thats just a few.

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Arie = ignore list

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Real @ 56

    Shouldn’t that read – Arie = ignorant list?

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Real @ 56

    Mind you, he’s a sneaky little slitherer.

    He’s just now slithered back to a two day old thread, to give the impression he actually answered some of the questions posed for him about Mann’s hockey stick graph a day or so ago and ignored at the time.

    He thinks we won’t notice.

    Slither, slither, slither.

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Binny wrote:

    The strength of Monkton’s wit, is in his willingness to credit his audience with intelligence.

    When an average Australian (not an insult!) feels compelled to exclaim

    I’m not stupid

    in the front of and in the face of the Prime Minister, we see that Lord Monckton has found such an audience.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Aunty ABC giving juliar another free kick live from hobart on news 24

    00

  • #
    Madjak

    If malcolm turnbull accepts the invite and wins the debate he will have furthered his cause.

    If he accepts the invite and loses, it will be good for the liberal party

    If he doesn’t accept the invite it will prove that he has doubts about his catastrafarian belief system and is full of his own hot air

    Surely he must accept?

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Off Topic and a little off colour:

    http://phillyd.tv/post/7954521310/1-best-ad-ever-2-i-cum-chocolate-milk

    It’s just wrong.

    00

  • #
    Arie Brand

    “Mind you, he’s a sneaky little slitherer.
    He’s just now slithered back to a two day old thread, to give the impression he actually answered some of the questions posed for him about Mann’s hockey stick graph a day or so ago and ignored at the time.
    He thinks we won’t notice.
    Slither, slither, slither.”

    Memoryvault (58) what are you talking about? I answered the question there (actually for the second time) since it was asked there. Yesterday I stopped blogging because, truth to tell, I have more interesting and pleasant things to do than debating the same hackneyed points, a thousand times made and, if they have any merit at all, a thousand times refuted in the peer reviewed literature, over and over again.

    Here we have our old friend the Medieval Warming Period again. The US “National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration” (NOAA) presents a series of proxy studies that are roughly similar in that they all show anomalous warmth in recent times though some show somewhat more variability than others. Concerning specifically that alleged MWP it states: “The idea of a global or hemispheric “Medieval Warm Period” that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect.” Moncton knows better no doubt.

    Anyway I don’t see what that legendary MWP, if it existed at all, has to do with the main question: is the present rise in temperature due to human induced emission of CO2.? Palaeoclimatology can provide an inventory of natural forcings. They have all been tried out to explain the present rise but cannot fully do so. Only when anthropogenic CO2 is added to the mix does the model approximate the actual temperature graph.

    The point is made very clearly in a Youtube video by Sir David Attenborough:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0

    I am signing off for today because I have better company for this weekend

    00

  • #
    Winston

    Arie @ 49
    So let me get this straight- Malcolm Turnbull and Al Gore are wary of debating Lord Monckton because it will damage their “scientific reputation”??? What are you smoking??, Or Lewandowsky ( a psychologist- so sorry, NOT a scientist!) for that matter, or Garnaut?? Flannery has no reputation to protect anyway after his extensive series of gaffes, so I’m sure he doesn’t have anyway to go but up in the public perception. Surely Monckton is an easy target for these estimable fonts of knowledge. Yea right! Thats why they run and hide in a corner to save themselves from embarrassment in the face of his superior debating skills and the absence of any real science at that heart of your cult.

    So, getting back to tin tacks, this is Turnbull’s chance to make a run for the Liberal leadership by showing his true “leadership” on this issue, setting himself apart from Abbott. After all, he is likely to be marginalised if the Libs win in a landslide at the next election on a platform of winding back carbon pricing. So, he has nothing to lose at all really, but I bet he won’t be hurrying into this strategy because he knows deep down that Monckton will wipe the floor with him because he knows deep down that he really doesn’t believe in CAGW, its just a convenience to a market on fresh air ripe for profiteering and rorting.

    00

  • #
    zorba1

    Um, turnbull doesn’t work for Goldman Sachs. Possibly he wants action on climate change because he accepts the scientific view?

    00

  • #
    zorba1

    If the MWP was due to a global forcing, why is there no evidence to support that? In a paper by McShane and Wyner (lauded by contrarians everywhere) a plotted “hockey stick” had no MWP – see http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/zombie-hockey-stick-dies-again/

    00

  • #
    zorba1

    If Monckton wins a debate by throwing around statistics and information that no one has time to verify, never question the statistics and information he used. He won the debate, so the AGW theory must be wrong.

    00

  • #
    zorba1

    Pundits are saying that Julia is fighting for her political life, but Turnbull knows that Abbott is fighting for his too. Turnbull is taking the easy side in the climate issue and showing himself to be a statesman – standing up for something he believes, for what he believes is a better outcome for the future.

    Fact is, the AGW theory is not going to go away. The only contradicting examples to the theory are presented by people who don’t understand the theory. Media firestorms and right-wing populism will never scratch a theory – however these things do influence the political action or lack there-of.

    Turnbull is gambling with time, and banking that Abbott will be politically damaged in two years time. Abbott will be damaged eventually, the time of reckoning will come, but whether it happens in the next two years is impossible to say.

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Zorba1 at #71

    Why do you imply that there was no forcing behind the MWP? In fact there are two likely forcings, the inverse 1500 year cycle (ie inverse of the Bond cooling cycle) and the solar magnetic influence that we saw in the last 50 years of the 20th C. The latter was so powerful we saw a string of ‘hottest years ever’ during the 1990′s and 2000′s. Of course in the MWP no one was recording sunspots and solar cycle lengths, so its kind of hard to quantify it then.

    If you would like to look into solar magnetic forcing I’d suggest you read Butler & Johnston 1996 and Enghoff et al 2011. The former shows the strong correlation of the length of solar cycle to the temperature during the next decade, due to the influence of the solar dynamo, and Enghoff et al and the related papers show why this happens.

    And yes this goes for the Roman warm period, the Younger Dryas and possibly the little ice age, although some argue it wasn’t a Bond event.

    Now explain to me again why CO2 always does everything including heating Parliament House and putting out the garbage?

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    I agree with you Zorban; Julia is fighting for her political life!!

    All that’s left to do now is close the door and hand the keys back.

    It’s allover for Labor – The Greens and AGW.

    Em i go pinis.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    I agree with you Zorban; the AGW theory must be wrong.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Sorry Zorban , cant agree with this. Um, turnbull doesn’t work for Goldman Sachs.

    Did you know he was the HEAD of that company in Australia?

    Do your homework.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    zorba1 @ 70

    Turnball was managing director of Goldman Sachs in OZ from 1997 to 2001, and a partner from 1998 to 2001.

    Prior to that he had his own investment banking firm, in partnership with “Nifty” Neville Wran, Gough Whitlam’s son Nicholas, and several others, most of them with heavyweight connections to the ALP.

    It’s no secret in political and media circles that he wanted to enter politics with the Labor Party, but they wouldn’t have him at the time.

    He’s basically been a loose cannon in the Liberals ever since.

    00

  • #

    MattB, (and Joanne, sorry for going off topic, but it has been mentioned in a couple of other places in this Thread)
    I agree with you that a complete move to Nuclear Power would solve the emissions problem, but here, you (and that’s the collective you) just have to be pragmatic about it.
    It’s at least as far off as 2035/40. First you actually need to convince the public, by telling them the truth about the generation of electrical power from the nuclear process, and not just Green ‘pap’ that Nuclear = things that make a big bang.
    Once you’ve done that, and the people do come on side, then you need the political will. Then you need the legislation. Then you need to get that legislation passed. Then you need the infrastructure in place, like a large scale processing (and reprocessing) plant in place and then you can start on the Plants themselves. I’m not talking Pebble Beds, Thorium or Fusion, but just go with what we alreday have, and here I’m talking 4th and 5th gen PWR and BWR, which are infinitely safer, and I stress infinitely, than the ones people automatically refer to as having killed millions of people. (careful Tony, sarc off now)
    Each of those plants will cost $4.5 to $5 Billion (in today’s dollars) and for complete replacement, you’ll be needing at least a dozen of them, at the absolute minimum.
    As I mentioned, that is still 25 to 30 years away yet at the soonest.
    That clean coal technology I have mentioned is something that can actually be done right now. Do it right now, (if the problem is supposed to be as desperate as we are told) and you give that Nuclear replacement the time it actually needs to get up and running, and the necessary contracts will be close to expiring by the time they begin to come on stream.
    The cost, although seemingly horrendous currently is around that $1 Billion mark for that new coal technology.
    Constructing new stand alone plants will be more expensive, but here, the costs are kept lower because you are constructing them at existing sites, where most of the infrastructure is already in place.
    Compare that new coal technology plant of 2 X 1000MW generators running at 80% CF. They will deliver power 24/7/365, and deliver 14,000GWH to the grids.
    Solar Dawn costs more at $1.2 Billion and delivers at best 6 hours a day only 550GWH, at its supposed theoretical best case scenario maximum) less than 4% of what new coal WILL deliver.
    As I mentioned, there is just no comparison.
    This actually is something that can be done RIGHT NOW.
    Instead of fiddling around with pi$$ant renewables, you have an interim measure in place until Nuclear comes on line, if that ever happens at all.
    Surely you (and that isn’t the collective you) can see that.
    And Matt, please give me some credit for knowing a little about Nuclear electrical power generation. I have an 11 Part series on it at this link:
    Nuclear Electrical Power Generation – Why The Fuss?
    Although I really should know better than linking to something for you to read.
    You might find a spelling mistake or something.
    Tony.

    00

  • #
    Andreas

    Was at the Monckton presentation in Adelaide last night, he issued (or repeated) his challenge to Turnbull and was in great form, it was very amusing to watch. He also said he intended to sue the ABC and Wendy Carlisle, I hope that he does – someone needs to show the media they can’t keep getting away with this misreporting.

    I do wish though that he would keep to global warming as the topic instead of going onto things like Malaria and HIV, the global warming topic is large enough and controversial enough as it is without bringing in other complex issues like that – he may well be right on those issues, but they’re the topic of a whole other presentation again.

    I also wish that he would leave off with the pictures of starving Africans, it’s gratuitous. Yes the insane sums of money being spent on useless windmills and solar panels could be better spent on other things, but for all that money to be spent trying to eliminate poverty would lead to the same giant global bureaucracy that trying to change the climate will require, and be just as futile. The Australian government is bad enough at building and running a school or hospital here, yet alone on the other side of the planet in Africa. That money would be better spent by the people whose money it was in the first place, mine and yours. We can help the world’s poor to some extent, but ultimately these people have to be responsible for themselves.

    Anyway, the man was more intelligent and knowledgeable than Deniss and all the journalists at the National Press Club combined. Me thinks Turnbull will be quietly ignoring the Lord’s challenge.

    00

  • #
    OzJuggler

    zorba1:

    Um, turnbull doesn’t work for Goldman Sachs.

    Haha. Ah, you young people, so naive.

    Not only is it profitable in theory for Goldman Sachs to create conflicts of interest in government, but GS is listed as a canonical example in Wikipedia’s definition of “Revolving door (politics)”. There’s no upfront bribery involved, just… an expectation of favourable consideration in future decisions. ;)

    You can take Malcolm out of the Gold…

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Zorba1 #71

    Like so many “warmists” you have completely mistaken the purpose of McShane & Wyner.

    Here’s a good place to start:
    http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/23/replicating-mcshane-and-wyner/

    There’s lots more about the topic at CA. Happy reading and come back when you really understand what you’ve read.

    00

  • #
    zorba1

    Mary,

    Sure Turnbull was running Goldman Sachs in oz. But he no longer works there – he’s an MP now, in case you haven’t noticed.

    I’m not sure why it’s so hard for you to accept that Turnbull genuinely accepts the scientific view on AGW, despite that you probably accept that Howard, Thatcher and James Cameron hold similar views. Turnbull is not aboard the right wing populist wave, and opposition to the scientific view on AGW is mainly confined there.

    Turnbull wants the cheapest form of effective action – and economists all seem to agree that an ETS is the cheapest, followed by a tax followed by direct action. The conspiracy you invoke – that Turnbull secretly doesn’t accept the scientific position on AGW and wants to make enormous amounts of money for a former employer – simply has no basis, and is nonsensical.

    00

  • #

    Turnbull clearly isn’t even aware that there are skeptical scientists. If this debate proceeds (unlikely), then he has no chance.

    00

  • #

    Matt at comment 46
    Wow, I missed this, where you say:

    …myself I’m quite happy to let the market figure out how it will generate electricity.

    Pretend for one minute you are an entrepreneur wishing to invest in any form of electrical power generation.
    You think, “hmm, that coal fired power looks OK as an investment. The plant will have a guaranteed contract to supply power for at least 35/40 years.”
    Every part of the process will have so many blockages that it will never even progress beyond the thought bubble stage, and anyway, even if he could get it up, he would have to spend all his own money to do it.
    On the other hand, let’s look at a Solar or Wind Plant.
    That entrepreneur will only have to put up half the cost, because the Government will give him the other half in up front construction cost subsidies.
    Then, because the electrical power is so expensive, )around seven to ten times more expensive, mainly from the recovery of that initial cost spread over the only 25 year maximum life of the plant) the government the subsidises the cost of the electricity supplied wholesale to the grid. That is, if the electricity costs X to supply, then to make it competitive, they only charge half that cost wholesale, and in the form of further Government subsidies, the Government kicks in the other half, back to the provider, and please don’t say that is a furphy, because, everywhere renewable power is being provided to grids, that is exactly what is happening.
    Now, Matt, you tell me which option the entrepreneur would go for.
    That, Matt, is letting the market figure out how it will generate electricity.
    There is a winner in this. That free market entrepreneur.
    The losers are the taxpaying human beings who pay for those subsidies, who also pay the horrendously increased cost of electricity, and also all consumers who now only get electrical power for 6 hours a day.
    That, Matt, is letting the market figure out how it will generate electricity.
    I can’t believe you actually said that, let alone actually believe it!!!
    Tony.

    00

  • #
    zorba1

    Climate non-comformist,

    Scientists are skeptical by nature. I think you mean contrarian scientists?

    The issue for your argument is that the vast proportion of active climate researchers – 97 to 98% – accept the AGW theory. See
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107

    Scientists who oppose, in the vast majority of cases, are not specialists in climate science. And those same scientists who oppose have not found examples that render the AGW theory untenable. Their claims simply don’t stand up to scientific scrutiny, even if they keep floating around the blogosphere and in public debate.

    00

  • #
    zorba1

    Mark (81)
    I had a look at webpage linked. I saw the following sentence:

    “The main take out being, that the uncertainty is too great for the proxies to be any good.”

    In other words, proxy data cannot reconstruct the MWP.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    TonyOz; a place like Bayswater has an installed capacity of 2640 MW; basically that is what it will equivalently deliver, as you say 24/7/365. If that is the case just wondering why you noted the CF was 80%?

    Cheers

    00

  • #
    Pete H

    MattB:
    July 23rd, 2011 at 11:05 am
    “Absolutely Bruce. Absolutely. I’m a big fan… Although I think that may need some government intervention to kick start things in Australia.”

    “Government Intervention” is simply a sly way of saying use taxpayers money. In other words, the old chestnut, “prevention”, to fix a non existent problem!

    You certainly seem to enjoy spending other peoples hard earned money on bugger all but that is the sign of a good socialist who claims to know better.

    Then again, you fail to answer any scientific questions before sliding off to irritatingly return! Once again, where is the hot-spot?

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    zorba1 @ 85

    So, let’s see if I have this right.

    97 – 98% of all specialist climate scientists, who are all, in one or another , on the public payroll, are happy to agree with their employers in their scramble for new taxes, and provide them with all the ammunition they need.

    That about right?

    00

  • #

    [...] so, he has disrespected skeptical scientists and made a hypocrite of himself. Now Lord Monckton has challenged him to a debate. Were that to go ahead, Turnbull would almost certainly take the full [...]

    00

  • #
    DavidA

    My challenge to the alarmists is to quit attributing Monckton’s tacticts to their repeated losses in every attempt to debate him. They know what they’re up against so do whatever it takes to meet his challenge and accept the result. If they still lose after this then they should accept that the reason is that the facts do not support their side of the argument.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    zorba1 @ 86

    “In other words, proxy data cannot reconstruct the MWP.”

    Here is a link to a graph of the twenty most widely used temperature reconstructions used in climatology today, including those prepared by Jones, Briffa, and even Mann himself.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

    I think you’ll find if you squint real hard you’ll be able to discern the MWP and LIA.

    00

  • #
    zorba1

    memoryvault (89),

    You are implying that many of those climate scientists know that the AGW theory is invalid, and that those climate scientists are motivated purely by money.

    We all know that there are activist companies like Exxon Mobil and Koch Industries who throw vast amounts of money at any person or organisation that can sow doubt around the AGW theory. Isn’t it highly likely then that one of these money-chasing scientists would go to Exxon and get the mother of all payments in exchange for clear information that completely undermines the AGW theory?

    And if that was the case we would all know by now that the AGW theory was wrong.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Zorab1,

    Re the MWP – when the Vikings grew crops etc on Greenland, can you tell us whether it is possible to do so today, and if not, why not? Same goes for the grape growing in England and Scotland – they used to be able to, but today it’s still too cold.

    So if Greenland remains ice bound, and former regions where the Vikings grew crops, remain agriculturally unproductive to this day because it’s too cold, then how can this be reconciled with the present day argument of unprecedented warming? IF global warming was happening then at least Greenland should be at the same climate state is was during the MWP.

    00

  • #

    cohenite at Comment 87.
    The plant delivers its power on that 24/7/365 basis.
    That CF of 80% is nominal.
    A large plant like Bayswater has 4 generators.
    When they do maintenance, it is done one generator at a time, while the others still supply.
    With maintenance, you’re talking about running that one generator down until the it is almost stopped, just a gentle rotation, as the gene weighs that 1300+ tons, and if they stopped it they run the possibility of bending the shaft, and there would be huge costs incurred there.
    When that gene is down, smaller ‘Peaking Power Plants’ run for the extra time to make up what that one gene is not providing.
    That slow down, work, and then run back up, the whole process, may take in the vicinity of a week or more even.
    So, that accounts for the ‘perceived’ CF of less than 100%, even though it still provides huge levels of power 24/7/365.
    You can look at overall totals of power provided from coal fired power and find that ‘Country Wide’, the CF for every coal fired plant could be down around 60%, and don’t the anti coal people love to quote that CF figure.
    However, large scale coal fired power (2000+MW Nameplate Capacity) has CF closer to 87.5% where they are in use on a large scale.
    Smaller Peaking power plants that are coal fired, and load following coal fired plants not supplying power until it is needed at peak periods, will be running but not supplying, hence lowering the overall coal CF, if you can see that.
    Stanwell, near Rockhampton holds a World record for one of its units, in operation at maximum speed and electricity supply for 1073 days running.
    Nuclear Power has the best CF, and in the US, is running at close to 94%. While no new plants have been constructed there for decades now, that CF is in fact rising, and has been over the last three years, coinciding with the increase in numbers or renewable power plants.
    In fact because refuelling is done every 18 months there was stage where one unit of the Diablo Canyon Plant ran continuously 24/7/365 between refuels, (which in fact is SOP for all the big Nukes) and part of that time was during the 12 month recording period. That one unit provided its power at greater than 102%, for that 12 month period.
    So, where you see CF, that is worked out from the standard industry formula
    NP X 24 X 365.25, where NP is Nameplate Capacity, 24 hours in a day and 365.25 days in a year.
    So for Bayswater, that theoretical total is:
    2640 (MW) X 24 X 365.25 (and divided by 1000 to convert upwards to GWH from MWH) hence around 23,000GWH
    They are actually delivering between 17,000 and 19,000GWH, hence a CF around 75 to 80%.
    It’s a nominal figure, and actual data is kept in relative ‘in confidence’, so that’s why you only get estimates, and Wiki has it at 17,500, and if you believe that, I have this great bridge, sorry, been there done that.
    Again, I know it’s technical and difficult to explain, let alone understand, but from that, you can also see how some data is manipulated by the anti coal lobby.
    Tony.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    But he no longer works there

    But he no longer works there

    But he no longer works there

    But he no longer works there

    Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha and Ha

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Now that it’s almost over the next step is to work out the detail.

    How do we dismantle the ABC.

    00

  • #

    Incidentally, that proposal for the new technology coal fired expansion at Mt Piper quotes that ‘nominal’ CF at 80%.
    Anecdotally, those new technology plants in China are purported to be running at around the Nuclear equivalent of 92 to 94% CF
    Man, I’ll bet those new concentrating solar plant proponents see that and cringe.
    That’s why they use that trick to hide their power delivery truth in plain sight, because no one knows how to do the math to get the truth.
    Tony.

    00

  • #
    pat

    Betty of Adelaide:

    many thanks for the link. truly amazing how much of the “carbon currency” plan has actually been documented over the years. will be sending that link to everyone i know.

    Monckton is one of my favourite people, and has such a wonderful sense of humour. one thing the CAGW doomsayers have in common is a complete lack of a funny bone. perhaps it’s a genetic thing!

    Andreas:

    if you kept track of the number of Carbon Vultures running around Africa and the Caribbean, etc., coercing them into expensive Renewables (Clinton Foundation among them, of course), you might see how Monckton would prefer we went about reducing poverty in a real sense. many people in the countries of Africa have begged for a long-time that the West stop sending aid to their Governments because it is fuelling further corruption. what the people want instead is for the WTO and such-like to stop stone-walling reforms that would address trade imbalances and the like.

    00

  • #
    zorba1

    MaryFJohnston 95:

    But your point?

    00

  • #
    zorba1

    Louis 93

    The best evidence suggests that the MWP was mostly localised in the northern hemisphere, and there is no evidence to suggest that it was global in extent (i.e. due to a global forcing)

    00

  • #
    zorba1

    Mary 96

    Political interference from Conroy is likely to stop BSkyB buying out Austar.

    00

  • #
    zorba1

    Memory 91
    Some reconstructions have a blip, others don’t. Depends on the statistics used in the reconstruction.

    00

  • #

    Mary @ 95
    just because he is no longer employed there does not mean he does not still have financial interests in what they are doing

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Hi JustMEInT:

    “Mary @ 95 just because he is no longer employed there does not mean he does not still have financial interests in what they are doing”

    yes – that was exactly my point in earlier posts. Mr Z apparently thinks he has NO continuing connection with has former benefactors. Come off it.

    00

  • #
  • #
    The _observer

    Turnbull raised some well worn out analogies & gave misleading information as if he, & all other Puritan climate alarmists, had had their script written by the same doomsayer fool.

    That Turnbull claims sceptical scientists are all academically irrelevant & sceptical of the man made climate catastrophe theory, only due to bribery by fossil fuel giants, is a conspiracy theory which is so ridiculous one cannot award Turnbull a level of rationality above any ranting eco extremist.

    Could anyone rationally believe that the thousands of sceptical scientists world wild are cheating unethical lying criminals, who truly believe in a coming climate catastrophe caused by humans, but don’t care about the planet or the future of their grandchildren & great grandchildren because their all receiving bribes?

    Quite amazing. Especially when the vast majority of the sceptical scientists are only guilty of coming to the simple conclusion; that the climate just isn’t as sensitive as claimed by popular consensus.

    But what of the other apparent conspiracy, that the mainstream scientific community are in it for the funding money?
    I find this conspiracy, if one wants to call it that, much easier to believe.

    If my son was to tell me he wanted to become a climate scientist the first thing I would say to him would be – if you are sceptical about the popular theory for CC, don’t bother. Because unless you are willing to lie, you will never get anywhere in that field. It is well documented that scientists who have revealed scepticism have lost research funding, or been fired.

    The enormous increase in climate research funding in recent times has only been matched by the enormous increase in the number of participants becoming involved in climate sciences. If there’s a perceived problem, money will flow, & it has flowed in the billions. The catastrophe that would eventuate if the theory was broadly accepted as being falsified could be comparable to any worse case scenario of climate catastrophe.

    In this case, thousands of scientists would be redundant, as would millions of bureaucrats from the IPCC to local councils & NGO’s, as well as thousands employed in the renewable energy industry. In fact the renewable energy would near collapse. The billions invested would be lost & carbon markets & carbon credit producers along with public servants working for the Dept of Climate Change for example, or hired to regulate emissions & taxes, would be redeployed to dig holes to bury the dead.

    Do we take Turnbull seriously when he argues for a carbon tax or ETS by directly comparing the CO2 emissions of Australians to those of Indians & the Chinese, without mentioning their low standard of living, or the fact that many of them live in poverty without electricity? China, the world’s largest emitter at about 16%, will see their emissions increase by a great amount into the future & the 2 x CO2 scenario will eventuate.

    Do we take Turnbull seriously when he tries to justify an Australian Carbon Tax or ETS by claiming it will save the Great Barrier Reef, as did Gillard & Brown, apparently regardless of what any other country does?

    One thing I do take seriously from Turnbull, & that is, he, like the greens, intend to shut down the coal industry. So at least he is consistent there, unlike the hypocritical Gillard who wants us to pay a tax for burning our coal, & to by foreign carbon credits so that we can continue to burn our coal, while at the same time increasing exports of our coal to those foreign countries.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    zorba @ 92

    Exxon Mobil are now heavily invested in “renewable” energy sources – like solar and wind, principally because of the lucrative subsidies available.

    Even at the wildest estimates by greenie organisations, the Koch brothers have chucked somewhere in the region of US $100 million into various libertarian and conservative organisations over the last 30 years. Only a small portion of even that was directed to “climate research”.

    By comparison let’s just look at THIS YEAR’s federal government budget spending in the US on “climate research”.

    NOAA – $437 million
    NSF – $480 million
    NASA – $438 million
    DOE – $627 million
    DOI – $171 million
    EPA – $169 million
    USDA – $159 million

    No, if you want to suckle at the AGW teet, you work for the government.

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    Zorba1

    You said:

    We all know that there are activist companies like Exxon Mobil and Koch Industries who throw vast amounts of money at any person or organisation that can sow doubt around the AGW theory.

    I am concerned that Governments have spent in the order of $100 billion on “climate science” and “climate” policies. However, allocation of funding is not impartial.

    Do you have figures for how much has been spent by the “activist companies like Exxon Mobil and Koch Industries” versus how much has been spent by activist governments?

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Zorba1 @ 100

    “The best evidence suggests that the MWP was mostly localised in the northern hemisphere, and there is no evidence to suggest that it was global in extent.”

    Quite apart from this being total and utter bullyang discredited many times, the question (originally to Arie) was what happened to it in Mann’s hockey stick graph?

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Doesn’t matter if the MWP was restricted to the northern hemisphere – the Viking Greenland settlements remain covered by permafrost to this day, and this fact is in glaring contradiction to the assertion that today’s temperatures are unprecedented and higher than the MWP temperatures.

    Really? If so then how does one explain the permafrost over the Viking settlements of the MWP. If today’s temperatures are higher, then why is Greenland’s temperatures lower than it’s temperature during the MWP?

    00

  • #

    Here’s what seems like a piece of useless information.
    What percentage of the Earth’s population resides in the Northern Hemisphere?
    I’ll bet the fact that is is more than 90% surprises some people.
    Tony.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    zorba1 @ 102

    I just went and squinted real hard at those reconstructions again, and I can STILL see a most definite MWP and LIA in them.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Zorbas probably too scared to go to the C3 site to see the actual Vostok temp graph back 5000 yr with those really annoying pesky Roman and MWP peaks in them (rather large ones too).
    Also the link with “Big Oil” to the skeptic camp has been totally discredited and as it happens British Pee (BP) has FUNDED Green energy projects to millions.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Zorba1 #86

    Almost right but you deliberately chose to misconstrue the paper, didn’t you?.

    Mann’s proxies and methods were so bad that they could not reconstruct anything with any degree of reliability. Ergo, the whole bunch of spaghetti graphs which were based on those proxies and the Mannomatic process are worhless.

    You did know, of course, that he refused for years to divulge his data and methodology to anyone who questioned it. A real scientist in the true “believer” tradition.

    Thought that would help.

    00

  • #
    Raven

    Turnbull ….. Turnbull ..now that’s the rich guy who can’t get a job with the ALP …isn’t it ?

    00

  • #
    Raven

    @78 sorry memoryvault didn’t realize you had addressed the wrong party issue :)

    Loose cannon is an understatement , the libs would do better to sack him and see which way the by election goes , otherwise he’ll keep on blasting away until the entire LNP is limping ! I’m told they have special doors fitted in Canberra , large enough to fit turnbulls swollen ego through .

    00

  • #

    They say that there are lies and then there’s statistics.
    Well, here’s a statistic for you.
    Look at this image.
    http://papundits.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/turbinedeck2007-large.jpg
    This is of the Number One Turbine Hall at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Facility on beach at Avila Beach in San Luis Obispo California.
    It shows one generator and its driving turbine.
    The generator is the white round structure between the block house control box and the larger round area, with the steam pipes connected, the turbine.
    Compare the size of the 1122MW generator with the man walking down the turbine gangway at the left there.
    Over the 2006 recording 12 month period, it delivered it’s power at the almost 102% I mentioned above.
    That power totalled out at just under 10,000GWH.
    This one generator delivered more power in that 12 month period than EVERY renewable plant in Australia delivered to their Australian grids over the last 12 months.
    One generator.
    Tony.

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    TonyfromOZ thats the mother of all generators! And driven by steam heated by those dam pesky neutrons..dont want any of those do we..(sarc). Not sure if Diablo Canyon is located near any faults.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Raven:
    July 23rd, 2011 at 6:50 pm

    the libs would do better to sack him and see which way the by election goes ,

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but if the Lib’s expelled Turnbull he doesn’t lose his seat, he just becomes an independent free to choose is own allegiances.

    00

  • #
    Raven

    @119 your probably right Bob , I was under the impression if he was sacked it would trigger a by election , I am probably wrong , it would be interesting however .

    00

  • #
    Shyguy

    I keep seeing the old “MWP was not global” argument popping up so here is a link to various papers published about the MWP.

    http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

    If I have done everything correctly that link should bring you to a map that looks pretty darn global to me.

    00

  • #
    Dave

    TonyfromOz: @ 111

    If 90% of the population (that’s 690 million tonnes)live in the Northern Hemisphere – wouldn’t that cause the world to spin off centre and affect the climate though the IPCC model and we should tell Julia that CAGW means:

    Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Whirling

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    Zorba1 @100 and Louis Hissink @110

    You are arguing about temperature variations over a very short time period (2000 years).

    Would it be better to establish the context first – start by with establishing the range of temperatures that the planet experiences? For example, for the past 500 million years (roughly the time that animal life has been abundant), the planet’s average temperature has been well above the present level for about 70% of that period. We know that because the geologic record shows that for most of this time there was no permanent ice caps at the poles. (IPCC, AR4, WG1, Figure 6.1, top chart, blue shaded area http://accessipcc.com/AR4-WG1-6.html#6-3-1 (plus one earlier cold period between 500 and 400 Mya))

    We also know that life thrives when the planet is warmer and struggles when colder.

    So, why are we so concerned about warming?

    Are the consequences of warming being exaggerated?

    Are alarmists scaring the population to achieve other agendas?

    Who are the groups and political parties who are most active as alarmists and scaremongers?

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Raven @ 116

    No problems – the more the merrier.

    Regarding the doors – yes, they are handy for coping with Turnbull’s ego, but then I understand they were originally designed to accommodate Paul Keating, so it seems to be a cross-party issue.

    Fortunately Brownshirt Bob doesn’t need doors – he descends from the heavens on a cloud – organic, of course.

    Or does he come out of a closet?

    00

  • #
    Mark

    You are exactly right Bob, the b@stard would be free to do as he wished.

    Wasn’t it Pres. LBJ who said it is better to have malcontents inside the tent peeing out than outside the tent peeing in?

    Problem with Turncoat…sorry Turnbull is that he’s inside and still doesn’t know where to point it.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Dave @ 121

    Gotta pay that one Dave – nearly choked on my merlot!

    But then you got me thinking about Tony’s original post.

    Since the “catastrophic” part of CAGW is caused by humans, and since 90% of them live in the NH, and since it’s CO2 in the atmosphere that’s the problem, and since the atmosphere largely doesn’t mix to a great extent between the NH and the SH,

    how come I’m freezing my butt off here in sub-tropical QLD?

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Peter Lang @ #122

    I think you have completely missed my point – that the MWP Viking settlements in Greenland remain buried under permafrost while the warmers are insisting that temperatures are higher than the MWP is flatly contradicted by the physical evidence in Greenland. If temperatures were higher, then surely the Viking settlements would not be the frozen wasteland they are now.

    Hence the assertion that temperatures are at unprecedented heights is false.

    00

  • #

    zorba1, Turnbull was involved in the HIH business while he worked for Goldman Sachs. He was due to spend quite a bit of time in court over this a few years ago. GS made a confidential settlement on his behalf which got him off the hook. He owes them big time.

    I’ve never understood the respect for MT’s intellect. It sure isn’t obvious from what he says in public.

    You’re new around here ain’tcha? Stick around and learn. Comment when you can add something to the discussion. Many of the people who post here are qualified in the hard sciences, earth sciences, engineering etc. They are more than capable of discerning bs from the mainly third rate researchers working in the climate “science” field. Appeals to authority don’t cut it around here.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Mike,

    I wonder if MT has to repay GS for the HIH malinvestment………nooo, what evil thoughts I have.

    00

  • #
    Trevor

    Now here is a live debate I’d love to see. Bring it on!

    00

  • #
    warcroft

    Im waiting for the moment Abbott announces “That whole AGW climate change thing? Yeah, load of crap.”
    I know hes thinking it, he just cant say it yet.

    Maybe Abbott is funding Monckton tour ;)

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    how come I’m freezing my butt off here in sub-tropical QLD?

    Well it wasnt too bad today here in Sth Brissy but..
    Global Cooling. Jetstream movement (as in the present US heatwave) perchance? Sunspots or lack of them? La Nina, PDO.. haha

    Mike your email bounced

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    130 warcroft. Not being that familiar with Aus political personas is Abbot actually or likely to be a closet coolist? His statements sound a little lukewarm.

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    Louis Hissink @126,

    You’r right. I did completely miss your point. My apologies.

    I hope Zorba1 will reply to my comment and questions @122 (or anyone else who can explain to me why we should be so concerned about global warming that we should implement a carbon tax without doing thorough due diligence first)

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Peter Lang @ #133

    Humbly accepted, (tug’s forelock). As for Zorba1, well, I would not be waiting. As for doing a due diligence, this is government not a private company.

    Mind you I used to work for the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation in 1977 and prepared the engineering geology report for a proposed rail tunnel under the Cordeaux Dam west of Wollongong. I had to be extremely careful how I described geological facts in the report, knowing full well that any successful tenderer for the job would, on its completion, then go to court to find fault with each and every geological statement that based on the available evidence, was found to be wrong when it’s location was encountered during the tunnell construction.

    The carbon tax, (it’s not, it’s a CO2 tax) is simply wealth redistribution. A former Canadian government minister for the environment, as well as some IPCC functionaries said as much publicly; so why do our local useless idiots deny it?

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    RealUniverse @132,

    My interpretations is that Tony Abbott has a strategy he is pursuing. It goes something like this (as he explained in a recent speech)

    Step 1 – convince as large a percentage of the population as possible that Green-Labor is incompetent to govern. This has to be done first and the stake driven into the heart of Green-Labor so that they cannot recover while Abbott and his team move to Step 2.

    Step 2 – release policy details in a phased and timely manner. Not to0 many at once. Allow time for each to be understood by the electorate. The first was released last week (alternative to the National Broadband Network – Labor’s nationalised communications and Ministerial control of the country’s communications).

    Step 3 – be ready to go into election mode at any time – be ready to release costed policies before the election.

    Abbot and teasm are currently in step 1 and doing well at the moment.

    Regarding warmist or coolist, isn’t important at the moment in my opinion. He must go forward no faster that the speed at which he can bring the electorate with him. He’s doing OK.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Peter Lang @ #135

    I suspect Lib/Nat policy is directed to lukewarm warmers in order to get the votes.

    Once getting up, those policies can be safely jettisoned.

    It’s the loose cannons on the deck that might cause temporary distractions.

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    Louis Hissink @133,

    Wow! We have quite a lot in common. I stood on Guthega coffer dam when the diversion tunnel was first opened and went into the Guthega- Munyang headrace tunnel when the tunnel was in about 100 feet. Many years later I worked for SMEC (1989 and 1990). SMEC brought me back from Canada for the Very Fast Train project (Sydney to Melbourne via Canberra and Gippsland in 3 hours). But it didn’t go ahead. I did a bit of work on the rail tunnel near Wollongong.

    I agree with your statement:

    I had to be extremely careful how I described geological facts in the report, knowing full well that any successful tenderer for the job would, on its completion, then go to court to find fault with each and every geological statement that based on the available evidence, was found to be wrong when it’s location was encountered during the tunnel construction.

    You might be interested in my very rough cost estimate for a Tantangara-Blowering pumped hydro scheme (read the reviewers comments too): http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/04/05/pumped-hydro-system-cost/

    I am a little surprised you do not support the concept that governments should conduct the equivalent of due diligence before committing to a carbon pricing scheme. I concur with this excellent letter to Julia Gillard http://joannenova.com.au/2011/07/spending-billions-why-not-do-a-due-diligence-study/ which explains very well, IMO, what is needed and why.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Peter Lang – @ #137

    Holey Moley – interesting! My criticism of a lack of government due dilicence is based on the fact that cost-wise we, always, pay for it, but can never be bankrupted. Private companies can be, hence those companies tend to be prudent, while government not.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Hey Peter,

    Did you know Case Silverschoone?

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Peter Lang @ 137
    The reason for due diligence by engineers, doctors, architects – any professional who provides a paid service to a client is to comply with a duty of care to the client
    Politicians do not have from my research that duty of care (although in my view they should have an enforceable duty but sadly they do not)

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    No. I don’t remember that name. Perhaps we’d better be a bit careful what we say on line about other people.

    I hope you may have a look at the Tantangara-Blowering Pumped Hydro concept.

    The relevance is that 25 GW of nuclear plus 8 GW of pumped hydro could provide all the NEM’s current electricity demand (33 GW peak, 17 to 20 GW baseload, and 25 GW average demand) (excluding reserve margin). The cost would be about $120 billion spread over about 30 years. Nuclear needs about $20 billion from public funding to get past the First of a Kind costs then no more to pay from the tax payer. That would meet all our electricity demand. What a contrast between this alternative and renewables. I can provide more on this, but hope you can look at the Tantangara-Blowering Pump Hydro concept first. Here is the link again: http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/04/05/pumped-hydro-system-cost/

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Peter Lang @ #141

    I’ve no problems with naming prior geologists etc who used to work for SMEC etc.

    As for the T-B pumped hydro idea, hmmm, have to study it. I also agree with Lance Endersbee’s pov on ground water, which makes me a bit of a geological heretic.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Mind you I fondly remember 1977 when I, with my fellow denizens of the Tourist Bar in Cooma, went to Canberra to watch the first episode of Star Wars. Watching the bar scene, two of us, spontaneously, looked at each other and muttered “Tourist Bar”. Shortly afterwards Hassad, owner of the Lebanese restaurant across the road, caught me out with Russian Garlic.

    McAlister and I gained notoriety for that night through out Cooma.

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    val majkus @140

    I’d argue that politicians do have a duty of care. They are responsible to the people to provide competent government. They are responsible to us like private companies are responsible to their shareholders. It is up to us as electors to hold the government to account for their decisions. It is also up to those electors, who understand what competent government means, to keep the pressure on the politicians and to help to educate the rest of the population so they also keep the pressure on the politicians.

    I think that is exactly what we are doing by communicating on line as we are doing here. I suspect that is why blog owners like Jo Nova put so much of their own unpaid time into maintaining excellent forums like this. Without this sort of activity we’d be at the mercy of the ABC and the Canberra press gallery bubble.

    Tony Abbot and others have told us that it was the mass of emails sent to politicians in late 2009 stating opposition to the CPRS that caused the Liberal leadershp change and the CPRS legislation to be blocked.

    Also, we can see now that the country is strongly against the Green-Labor carbon tax. People are expressing their dissatisaftion to Julia Gillard now. That would not be the case if not for communications like this forum and our efforts to communicate and educate.

    In summary, I do believe politicians have a duty of care to those who elected them, just as the board of a company has a dutyu of care to its shareholders, employees, customers and other stakeholders.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Comm cars a couple of days later also had some input to the “enironmental” damage eating Russian Garlic entailed.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Anyway, how do you debate his toffship and come out ok?

    The problem for most people who want to argue with his peership is that they somewhat stupidly try and stick to the truth. What you need to debate his worship is the ability to lie with total sincerity. Picture if you will, “You may say that, but it is directly contradicted by the excellent work of Proctor and Gamble, who showed in 2007 that the vast majority warming since September 1974 was not caused by …. Unlike you, I do not ask you to believe me – you can verify everything I say in the peer reviewed literature”.

    So we on the warmist side need a champion – someone convincing, sincere, with gravitas to burn, someone who is not afraid to make it up on the spot. Someone who resorts to legal threats when exposed. A charlatan who defends his honour as though they actually have some.

    Its no use getting scientists – they just aren’t good at bullshit. Politicians are no good, because everyone thinks they are lying all the time. Its no use getting celebrities, as they don’t like it when the Murdoch press gets stuck into them for having the temerity of speaking out.

    No, there will be no faux hero for the warmists. For them it will just be the slow accumulation of evidence.

    BTW, a bit warm in the USA right now?

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    Louis Hissink,

    We could tell many good stories, but not here. My efforts are focused on doing whatever I can to help to stop the carbon tax getting legislated.

    It would be an enormous step forward, with long term positive consequences, if we could persuade the politicians, media and mainstream voters that a policy such as the proposed carbon pricing scheme should not be implemented without the equivalent of due diligence.

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    John Brooks @146,

    So we on the warmist side need a champion – someone convincing, sincere, with gravitas to burn, someone who is not afraid to make it up on the spot.

    Isn’t that exactly what Al Gore did to scare the population and get the CAGW scare campaign rolling in the first place?

    Isn’t that what many other so called scientists, but actually activists, have been doing ever since?

    Did you see the film that was shown at the opening of the Copenhagen conference? It has a child swinging from a tree branch over the ovcean as sea level rose. She was sreeming to her parents for help. How alarmist and dishonest was that? Did you know that 70% of the delegates to that conference gave that scary, alarmist, dishonest film a standing ovation. They presumably included the 120 Australian delegates and Labor politicians travelling with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    John Brookes @ 149

    BTW, a bit warm in the USA right now?

    BTW, a bit cool just about everywhere else?

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Kevin Moore @18,

    I’m not sure exactly what your question is. But a long discussion would be off topic so send email to Joanne and ask her to forward it to me. I won’t mind if you have my email address.

    Roy

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Anyway, how do you debate his toffship and come out ok?

    Well John, you could come armed with facts and figures, perhaps with some actual case histories since we’re talking about a ruinous tax increase. What could beat Monkton more easily than showing him that higher and higher taxes have made someplace in the world better off.

    That’s how you debate anyone and come out OK.

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit

    “So we on the warmist side need a champion – someone convincing, sincere, with gravitas to burn, someone who is not afraid to make it up on the spot. Someone who resorts to legal threats when exposed. A charlatan who defends his honour as though they actually have some.”

    Someone like … lemme think …. oh yes: Al Gore?

    Oh, and care to point out exactly WHICH bits Monckton lies about and “makes up on the spot”? Specifics, please, with references to peer reviewed literature :-)

    00

  • #
    1DandyTroll

    So, essentially, the greedy communist banker will now run into hiding, never to be heard quipping from again, unless from a far far far away safe place like the smurf director.

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    anti carbon tax video doing the rounds
    http://kzoo.co/VyQHed

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    another tip received today
    Weather news headlines from 1481 to 2011. ( Climate change? So what else is new?)
    http://www.c3headlines.com/bad-stuff-happens.html

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Peter Lang @ 147
    I certainly accept it could be argued

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Roy Hogue:

    Roy, I just responded to your final comment on the previous thread … I would hate it to go to waste … :-)

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    John Brookes @149:

    ……… What you need to debate his worship is the ability to lie with total sincerity. ……

    The vanquished resort to pseudo-analysis of their victor’s tactics, when they can’t win on the argument.

    Still, on that analysis why isn’t Juliar having a go ?.
    No one can spin ‘em and front ‘em out like Juliar.
    Give that Lady a Medal

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Peter Lang: #147

    I do believe politicians have a duty of care to those who elected them, just as the board of a company has a dutyu (sic) of care to its shareholders, employees, customers and other stakeholders.

    So what do you believe about those people in positions of considerable power in organisations such as the United Nations, the European Union, the World Trade Organisation, and the International Court of the Hague? They are not elected. They are answerable to no one but their peers.

    In whatever political system you reside, I would bet that policy options are set by bureaucrats, with suitable costings, and the politicians then have the task of choosing between those options. Only if all options are totally unpalatable would politicians do nothing. But being seen to do nothing is more damaging to a politician that doing “the wrong thing”, so politicians will inevitably choose one, even if it is the best of a bad lot. The bureaucrats job is therefore to make their preferred option not quite as onerous as the other options.

    The same applies at Board level in large businesses. Directors can only act (should only act) on matters referred to them by executive management. It is not the Directors job to run the business, but only to ensure that the company remains solvent, does not put shareholder funds at an unacceptable level of risk, and to ensure that the company gives an adequate return on those shareholder funds.

    Of course, some Directors overstep the line, in the same way as some Bureaucrats “go public” (as the heads of some environmental protection agencies are wont to do). But such cases are rare, and it is not the way that the system actually works.

    00

  • #
    Arie Brand

    Denniss had this to say about debating Monckton:

    “If your doctor told you that you had cancer and Lord Christopher Monckton told you to ignore their advice would you listen to him? What if he told you not to immunise your children or drink fluoridated water?

    It’s interesting how many people are unlikely to trust him for personal advice but who seem willing to trust him for planetary advice.

    In preparing to debate the world’s most vocal climate change sceptic many of his opponents appear to underestimate his communications ability and overestimate his scientific knowledge. In turn they enter the debate keen to set the scientific record straight when the debate format means the cards are stacked against them.

    Let’s face it, if the House of Lords can’t convince him that he is not a member of that house then what hope does a sincere scientist have of convincing him, or the audience, that the complex science is right and the entertaining guy with some tricky questions is wrong.

    The problem for the scientists is that while it only takes a minute to start a bushfire it can take a week to put one out. Monckton’s rapid fire crazy questions and his demand for more and more specific details are a simple, but effective, device to ensure that scientists look anything but relaxed and comfortable.

    And why, from the conspiracy theorists point of view, don’t they look relaxed? Because they have something to hide!”

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    Aries Brand @163
    Denniss’s

    “If your doctor told you that you had cancer and Lord Christopher Monckton told you to ignore their advice would you listen to him? What if he told you not to immunise your children or drink fluoridated water?

    Infuriates me.

    For a start Monckton isn’t saying these things. However, Climate Scientists cann’t be fairly compared to Doctors. – To Witch Doctors perhaps though perhaps even that’s unfair – (to witch doctors ).

    No the essential point is, there is No Evidence of the efficacy of measures to ‘combat’ Climate Change, and it doesn’t take a scientist to work out how cost ineffective they would be.

    The Cancer analogy is an emotive but false argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority).

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Arie Brand @ 163

    It is the height of rudeness to walk up to group of people who are discussing something, and just start talking over everybody spouting forth your opinion. One of the dangers, of course, is that what you are talking about may have already been covered previously by the group.

    That is a pretty good analogy for what you are doing here and now.

    This thread is on an article about Monckton challenging Turnbull to a debate. There is a previous thread about the Monckton – Denniss debate, where the rather idiotic “if you had cancer” line was discussed at length. Also debated there at length was Monckton’s “style” of debate.

    There was yet another article and thread on the matter of whether Monckton is, or is not, entitled to claim he is a Member of the House of Lords.

    Now, on a peaceful Sunday morning, in a thread on an entirely different topic, you come bursting into the room like a noisy, badly-behaved little child, wanting to spout forth your opinions and argue about matters that have already been done to death by both sides several days past.

    Might I suggest, if you want to be taken half-way seriously, and if you want to discuss matters already raised on those previous threads, that you at least do the rest of us the courtesy of going and reading what has already transpired.

    Then, if you have something new and additional to offer, come back and tell us about it.

    Until then, if you insist in continuing your prattish behaviour, expect to be treated like the ignorant, ill-mannered little prick that you appear to be.

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    John Brookes at #149

    BTW, a bit warm in the USA right now?

    Now that is a very intersting comment for a range of reasons. Lets look at some.

    First there is a new trick being played in the media which is not to quote the measured temperature but instead to quote the “heat index” which is sexed up by a measure of the humidity. But why should they quote it as if the temperature actually was 117 F, but to make people thinkthat it was 117 F when actually it was a fairly normal 103 F or so. Could it be propaganda? Ah, I should wash my brain out with soap just for thinking of such a thing.

    Its made it across to the ABC who on the radio yesterday morning and I quote said the US East Coast was suffering a “heat index of 116 degrees Fahrenheit”.

    Then on the other hand there is a new peer reviewed paper out by Mike Lockwood of the Uni of Reading, who points out that jet stream blocking events, such as this and the Moscow event seem to be, are more common in periods of low solar activity.

    So, John, in one question you have managed (a) to point out another new propaganda technique by the CAGW fans and (b) link the hot weather in the US with the very weak solar magnetism, which as we know in the Maunder Minimum led to the Thames freezing over regularly. Well done sir!

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    United Nations, the European Union, the World Trade Organisation, and the International Court of the Hague? They are not elected. They are answerable to no one but their peers.

    addin the IMF setup by the US to control the worlds money.
    True, controlled by the Bilderburg group (secret illegal meeting), Trilateral Commission and CFR and the banks on Wall Street.

    00

  • #
    CameronH

    Perhaps we should selectively mention the much colder than normal temperatures accross Europe at the moment?

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Bruce even NOAA admitted now the the Russian heatwave was due to jetstream shift.
    Actually if you look at the other latitudes the heatwaves are localised to the continents and are not global at same latitude also if you LOOK at the temperature profiles of the NA continent you will see its dam chilly in Canada as a friend told me who lives in Vancouver its been a dam chilly July below average.
    Also http://www.nnvl.noaa.gov/MediaDetail.php?MediaID=786&MediaTypeID=2
    Its due to high dew points.
    and
    http://www.nnvl.noaa.gov/DailyImage.php?product=GHCN_Monthly.png|Climate%3A+Monthly+Temperature

    00

  • #
    G/Machine

    Arie #163

    We were all interested in what they had to say, not how
    they looked.
    Maybe it’s easier to look relaxed and comfortable when
    there is not much thought process happening.
    Your other 5 paragraphs, why did you bother ??

    00

  • #
    Jiminy

    I’ve read most of the comments and … well … honestly people, isn’t this a fake?
    The “challenge” is so childishly composed, and so trollish looking that I suspect it is in fact a troll. Certainly not a challenge from an informed and mature adult with a university education.
    If it had been handed in as an assignment piece at an English University it would have been forwarded to the lord himself, addressed as follows,
    “I am returning this otherwise useful piece of paper to you because someone has scrawled nonsense over it an signed your name to it”.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    CameronH @ 168

    Or Chile.

    Or Brazil.

    Or Australia.

    Whatever you do, don’t tell John about the RECORD LOWS across the entire NT.

    After all, that’s just “weather”.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    TonyOz @ 96 & 99; I see Peter Lang has joined the discussion. I assume it is the same Peter who has done the splendid work in rebutting BZE’s Stationary Energy Plan to convert Australia to renewables, mainly wind and solar, by 2020?

    In the context of the difference between Installed Capacity, which is what wind and solar [W&S] always refer to, and which is what the wind or solar farm would produce if it operated 24/7/365, and what W&S actually produce, the capacity factor, Peter makes an excellent point here:

    http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/08/13/wind-and-carbon-emissions-peter-lang-responds/

    Peter says: “I would argue that average capacity factor is not valid for determining the amount of back-up generation capacity required. The total generation system must be able to provide peak power when there is no output from the wind turbines. When wind power is zero, or near zero, at the time of peak demand, we need sufficient conventional generator capacity to provide the peak demand. This is because electricity demand must be matched by supply at all times. In other words, wind power cannot displace much, if any, conventional generator capacity.

    And this is the point; even the capacity factor of W&S, which is about 20% at best world-wide, does not tell you how useless they are. The capacity factor is the average power produced by W&S over a month or year, but within that averaged period, W&S may stop dead for lengthy periods and produce no power at all. No base-load system can be constrained by that which is why W&S always need fossil back-up.

    This is why I argue that there is no effective difference between the installed capacity and capacity factor of a fossil electricity supply from a power plant like Bayswater; it operates 24/7/365.

    As a matter of interest I was talking to some operators from Delta Power last night; the new Chinese technology appears to have gone into Mt Piper.

    00

  • #
    1DandyTroll

    John Brookes:
    July 23rd, 2011 at 10:36 pm

    “BTW, a bit warm in the USA right now?”

    Aye, even close to the equator it is not called summer because it is winter. But why not take the whole step into the climate insanity reasoning and refer to Death Valley while on a roll to make a complete fool of yourself? :p

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    Rereke Whakaaro @162

    I agree with your points.

    In effect you are saying our systems are far from perfect. Of course I agree.

    I may not have been clear with this statement:

    I do believe politicians have a duty of care to those who elected them, just as the board of a company has a duty of care to its shareholders, employees, customers and other stakeholders.

    What I meant is that politicians, bureaucrats, company board members, company managers and in fact most people do have (i.e. they should have) a duty of care; however, many do not fully recognize this and they lose track from time to time. Some are intentionally dishonest. Some become dishonest over time without realizing they have.

    I think Julia Gillard and her team believe they are doing the right thing for the country. However, they do not have sufficient background nor understanding of the economy to recognize the enormous damage their proposed policies will do and their existing policies are doing already – e.g. winding back at least 25 years of Industrial Relations reforms, increasing Australia’s sovereign risk, and reducing consumer confidence by a series of major policy blunders.

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    Arie Brand @163

    Clearly you believe the global warming is dangerous.

    But why do you believe it?

    Is your belief similar to a religious belief? You’ve read a lot of material and simply accept the summary level argument being put; i.e. that global warming is catastrophic and carbon tax is the way to fix it.

    But have you seriously questioned what you are being told?

    If you have actually questioned it, why have you not been prepared to answer my question at #125? This is a high level question. It is essential this can be answered clearly and simply before we commit to economy damaging policies.

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    Memoryvault, @165

    Thank you for your comment addressed to Arie Brand. I am new here too and you have pointed out the culture and appropriate manners here. I’ve also been breaching these, without recognising it. So I’ve learnt from your comment.

    As a result of this bit of your comment:

    Might I suggest, if you want to be taken half-way seriously, and if you want to discuss matters already raised on those previous threads, that you at least do the rest of us the courtesy of going and reading what has already transpired.

    I have a suggestion for Jo Nova to make it easier for people to do just that. Could you add a “Recent Comments” list at the top right of the page. That makes it much easier for people to see, all the time, which are the active threads and to continue to post comments on threads that remain active after new threads have been started. I find the “Recent Comments” list on other web sites very valuable. Each time you return you can see who posted and on which thread. This is not the same as the “Latest Comments and News” in the “Find Thinks List”. The “Latest Comments and News” is not automatically updated, is often out of date, is not visible just by scrolling to the top of any screen and refreshing the screen, and doesn’t show just the thread and author

    00

  • #
    connolly

    Hey Zorba so the Turncoat has given up his love of the filthy lucre. No wonder you are a true believer in the ACGW nightmare. By the way I have a bridge . . .

    00

  • #
    Winston

    Arie @163
    Your arguments regarding being bested by Monckton, or any other skeptics, reminds me of the schoolyard bully, used to ruling the roost through bluster and bluff, who one day is called out by the cocky class clown. Challenged to a fist fight after school, the class clown wipes the floor with said bully, sends him home crying to mummy because his nose is bloodied. Then, fronts up to school with all the excuses under the sun, “pulled a hamstring”‘ “had the flu”, “didn’t want to hurt him so I pulled my punches”, ” lucky punch”, “I was distracted”, ad infinitum. The better explanation is that the bully was all talk and no action, a big wimp hiding behind bluster and intimidation. Similarly, AGW acolytes hide behind argument from authority, ad hominem attacks to discredit opponents( in other words bullying and intimidation), and hiding raw data to avoid scrutiny, because they know their case is weak and can’t withstand being put to the acid test of open and vigorous debate. Like card cheats, they can only play the game when the cards are marked and the deck is stacked.

    00

  • #
    janama

    cohenite: I think Kogan Creek in Queensland is the most sophisticated coal power plant in Australia. It has one furnace producing 750MW, Mt Piper has two for 1400MW.

    Kogan Creek uses air cooling so it doesn’t intrude into any nearby water systems.

    http://www.csenergy.com.au/content-%2842%29-kogan-creek.htm

    This is where they are going to add a solar array as part of Julia’s renewable program. The solar array will add another 53MW to the system, well when the sun shines.

    00

  • #

    cohenite at Comment 172
    I mentioned in an earlier comment (96) how that Capacity Factor has been used by the anti coal sector (sounds like a sore throat remedy) to paint a picture of coal fired plants not being very efficient.
    Those large scale plants just hum along all the time doing what they are doing, providing the 60 to 65% of absolute electrical power requirement, termed that base load. (that most maligned, misused, and misconstrued term ‘out there’)
    See this deceptively simple image at this link for what a Base Load requirement actually is, all the power below the dark line.
    http://papundits.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/load-curve-master.jpg
    Because of the variability of wind especially, and Solar which performs best only during actual daylight, these two renewables cannot be used to supply that power for that Base.
    So, yes, W&S can only be used for the Peaking Power requirements.
    The grid controllers know the actual power requirements. The ‘Base’ hums along, and they bring other plants on line to provide power over and above that Base, plus a small percentage.
    W&S fall into that category.
    However, because of the variabilty, other plants need to be kept in readiness if the W&S drops to a level where the Peak demand is greater than what is being provided, and those other plants then come on line to provide that ‘top up’.
    This is your classic ‘load following’ situation, where plants are burning and turning, but not delivering power to the grid.
    When W&S drop off, they flick the switch (figuratively speaking) and those load following plants start to provide power to the grid.
    So, smaller coal fired plants and Natural Gas fired plants are still emitting CO2, while not actually providing their power, hence lowering the overall CF of coal in general, even though those large scale plants are humming along as they always have.
    I know it’s difficult to understand, (and even more difficult to explain) but that’s where those with their ‘green coloured glasses’ just have no understanding of the situation, and just do not want to understand.
    Now that is exactly why what has happened in the U.S. is actually happening.
    With the huge ramping up of W&S, mainly Wind, there has actually been quite a large increase in CO2 emissions.
    I explain this in some detail at the following Post:
    More Renewable Power Leads To An Increase In Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    This Post is a summary of the Posts for the whole 12 Month recording period.
    You should hear the bleating when I say that a ramping up of Wind has led to this rise in CO2 emissions, almost as if to say, I’m asserting that Wind causes the increase, which in fact it has.
    However, that’s not what the W&S lobby want to hear.
    And yes, that is the same Peter Lang, and his added input here is most assuredly welcome.
    What I have found, is that even as difficult as it is to understand, people actually WANT to try and comprehend something that is just so technical by nature.
    My small efforts can only be helped by his vast knowledge here.
    Tony.

    00

  • #

    janama at comment 179
    Thanks for that link to Kogan Creek.
    Especially because of what is a delightful comparison.
    At that link, it shows that Kogan Creek coal fired plant has a Nameplate Capacity of 750MW, and will provide power for one million homes.
    See this link for the Moree Solar Farm.
    http://www.moreesolarfarm.com.au/Project.htm
    At that link, it shows that Moreee has a Nameplate Capacity of 250MW, and near the bottom it says that this solar farm will provide power for 45,000 homes.
    45,000 is not one third of a million.
    Tony.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Thanks Janama. The Kogan Creek blurb highlights their foray into renewables. This is typical. The energy sectors do not want to take on the Greens or this carbon tax and will suck up and pretend they are on board with any hare-brained green energy proposal. The lads from Delta for instance told me that they were going big into woodchips and had invested heavily in plantation timber!

    One day someone will do a tallying of the money wasted on AGW.

    00

  • #
    rjm385

    Here is another gem from the warmists Carbon tax policy .. This just gets sicker and sicker …I can’t watch any more the greed is just over the top.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/carbon-cowboys-20110722-1hssc.html

    Say YES to election now !!

    00

  • #
    CameronH

    Tonyfromoz @ 69, I believe that you are confusing a couple of issues here Tony. The two terms which apply in power geneartion are Capacity Factor and Availability Factor. The Capacity Factor is how much of the Maximum Capacity Rating (MCR) that the generator is called on to produce. This has nothing really to do with maintenance but has to do with the cost of generation of that particular plant compared with other generators and also how much spinning reserve is available on the system. This is, therefore, quite variable between different generators.
    The Availability Factor is the one that is primarly used with respect to maintenance and reliability but can also apply with fuel shortage due to such things as interruption of supply from bad weather. This measure is the percentage of the MCR that is available to generate if called on to do so. Most of the large plants in Queensland, as an example, have a wide range of capacity factors but they mostly have availability factors from 90% to 95%.
    Both of these measures should be applied to renewables such as Wind and Solar but they are not. With wind generation, for example, I am sure that they do not use an availability factor which takes into account the percentage of time that the wind is available to produce power.

    00

  • #
    Raven

    I’m sure the debate with Monckton would be very boring , how many times could one answer ” it’s all Tony Abbotts fault ” because thats where Turnbulls left himself , trying to turn bull into strawberry jam ( pun intended) ……positions vacant ALP ….. Page 1 thru 7, go for it Mal , lots of choice there soon !

    00

  • #
    rjm385

    TonyfromOz @181

    Thanks for the link Tony.

    Couple of things;

    a. Where’s all the wheat gone?
    b. Can the eyesore produce power at 18c/per KWh and if it can’t why build it?

    The Governmentt and BP should have asked these questions before building the rotten thing. Am I crazy or is this idea insane!

    Say YES to an election now !!

    00

  • #

    John Brookes:#149
    July 23rd, 2011 at 10:36 pm edit

    So we on the warmist side need a champion – someone convincing, sincere, with gravitas to burn, someone who is not afraid to make it up on the spot. Someone who resorts to legal threats when exposed. A charlatan who defends his honour as though they actually have some.

    WTF?? Where the ‘ell have you been these last 10 years John? Your side had one of those. In fact, your side started the whole CAGW scare scam with one of those people.
    Let me remind you….

    “Good evening, I am the former next President of the United States”

    Remember that charlatan who pretends to have honour? That charlatan who became the worlds first carbon millionaire? That charlatan who was not afraid to look directly into the camera lens and lie through his teeth, misrepresent graphs and pretend photoshopped pics were real?

    I’ll help you John, fill in the vowels,…. _L G_R_

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I see the baseless smear trolls are out in force again today /wave Zorb /waveJB

    It was interesting watching “Meet the Press” this morning, except for the absolute killjoy that is Combet. I swear this is what happens to someone if they have a personality bypass. At least Tony can joke about shinkage and everyone is having a laugh with him… onya budgieman.

    I see Meet the Press trotted out Steffen. He was shown the clip of Tony speaking to a crowd and questioning the point of Australia making small emissions cuts when China is set for exponential growth in emissions which dwarf ours. Valid point in anyone’s book.

    Steffen dodged and weaved and threw in a few bodgy stats (like Australia’s rank in the list of emitters… which is completely irrelevant) and never answered the question. This after lecturing the audience about how we should respect and trust the scientists… I am gobsmacked. A few breaths later he refuses to acknowledge the irrefutable fact that what me emit in Australia is completely meaningless on a global scale.

    That is a person how is no longer a scientist but rather an expert in applying suckage to the Government funding teat. He has to be … it IS his job to ensure funding to keep all these people in a job:

    http://www.anu.edu.au/climatechange/section/people/

    plus enough extra for 6 more positions, right now:

    http://www.anu.edu.au/climatechange/employment-opportunities/

    Rent seeker, Prof Steffen be thy name.

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    ICE HOUSE or HOT HOUSE?
    During the last 2 billion years the Earth’s climate has alternated between a frigid “Ice House”, like today’s world, and a steaming “Hot House”, like the world of the dinosaurs.

    This chart shows how global climate has changed through time.

    http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

    Although this is a simplified, schematic diagram it does tell the story.

    IPCC AR4 WG1 has a more refind figure (Figure 6.1 http://accessipcc.com/AR4-WG1-6.html#6-3-1) that tells the same story but covers only the past 400 million years.

    During the past 500 million years there have been ice caps at one or both poles only three times for a total of about 110 million years, or 22% of the time. Normally the planet is much warmer than now. Life thrives when warmer and struggles when colder.

    So why are the Catastrophists arguing that warming is dangerous or catastrophic?

    00

  • #
    Winston

    Sort of O/T but …….

    Tragedy of Julia Caesar:

    Act I, Scene I:

    Outside Rome, Via Appia (under construction), weather overcast, with storm clouds brewing overhead. A messenger is seen approaching in haste towards a group of three cloaked, hooded men- the soothsayers for Caesar.

    Messenger: Ave, I bring news from Brittania, my lords! (Excitedly) It has been said by the noble scholars in that far off isle, that dark portents are being noted by all and sundry at Universitas Anglia Ortus. The sky itself weighs heavily upon us. Something must be done immediately to avert disaster for Caesar and Imperial Rome, for a grave catastrophe is at hand!

    Soothsayer 1 (Flannery): It’s worse than we thought! We must inform Caesar at once. Get thee hence, messenger, spread the word to the villagers surrounding us. They must prepare for great austerity and sacrifice in response to this threat to our safety and security.

    Messenger: Yes, milord. (Exuent)

    Soothsayer 2 (Steffen): Don’t you think we should consult the entrails first, we should seek an independent correlation to confirm this theory. After all, it is well accepted by 97% of soothsayers that correlation is proof of causation in such matters.

    A lamb is subsequently despatched, post haste and placed upon a makeshift altar. An incision along the ventral abdominal surface exposes the bowels within, and Soothsayer 1 (Flannery) examines the loops of bowel feverishly.

    Soothsayer 1 (Flannery): Do you see these black specks? There, they are tiny, but they’re definitely there for all with the knowledge and skill to see. This does not bode well for the Empire!

    Soothsayer 2 (Steffen): Definitely, I see what you mean (lying, not wanting to appear stupid to his colleague). What do you think? (turning to Number 3).

    Soothsayer 3(Garnaut): (Hesitates) Yes, indeed, it is readily apparent for those with eyes to see. Your wisdom is well demonstrated, let it be known hereafter to one and all.

    Soothsayer 1 (Flannery): So we have a consensus?

    All (in unison): Consensus!! (they clasp hands and dance around the eviscerated carcass, singing, exclaiming and rejoicing in their new discovery that spells doom for one and all. Hoorah!!)

    Soothsayer 3(Garnaut): (stops) We must alert Caesar immediately!! The Gods are displeased with our flagrant and profligate waste and excess. To avert disaster for our beloved Empire, social reorganisation among the plebeians is required as they are most surely responsible for the anger of the Gods. Look at them all, revolting creatures! An offense to the eye, the ear and especially the nose!
    Come, make haste, not a moment to lose. Perhaps we will engage the help of Artemidorus, the Sophist (Lewandowsky), after all, he could sell sand to the Egyptians!

    Soothsayer 1 (Flannery): Come, go we must at speed, lest we are all doomed! (Exuent all)

    00

  • #

    CameronH at Comment 185,
    this is why I just love fora like these that allow people to comment so freely, even though we have strayed far from the original Monckton Thread topic.
    I mentioned that in recent times, people have really wanted to know some of these technical things.
    Having been ‘at it’ now for three and a half years, I have found that no matter how many times I ‘attempt’ to explain something, people just have more questions, about the same thing, and also about things they think are the same, but require further explanation.
    That’s why an ‘open forum’ like this is such a good thing.
    It allows others who have expertise to come in and either mention things I haven’t, direct me to other links, explain something better than I can, and also point out errors that I may have made.
    One of the most difficult things I have to try and explain is the difference in the way electrical power is referred to, and as an example, I’m going to use coal fired power in the U.S. with reference to the word ‘Factor’.
    You have a Nameplate Factor. Add up the Nameplate Capacity of every Coal fired plant in the U.S. and effectively that gives a total that would power every electrical need for the whole U.S. five times over, even though coal fired power only supplies around 47% of all power consumed.
    Then you have ‘Efficiency Factor’. This refers to the burning of the coal, eg what efficiency does the burning of the coal give in the form of heat to boil water to steam to drive the turbine which then drives the generator which produces the power.
    Then you have Capacity Factor. This is the actual power provided by the plant, over time (1 year) when compared to the Nameplate Capacity.
    Then you have, as you mentioned, Availability Factor. This ,as you mentioned is the ability of the Plant to provide power for when it is needed, and as those large scale coal fired plants are in fact filling the Base Load requirement, then their Availability Factor is indeed close to that 100%. If a smaller coal fired plant is required for a grid need if there has been a rise in use, like on a very hot day, or a very cold day, then they need that plant to add power to the grid. It takes time to get the coal crushed, fed into the furnace, then make the steam, then run up the turbine, and then bring the generator on line delivering that power.
    It’s not a case of:

    Ring Ring, can you supply power, and we need it in five minutes.
    Er, not quite, we have to fire everything up.

    That’s why we have load followers that are turning and burning (and emitting) without actually supplying their power to the grids. (until that phone call)
    So here we have 4 Factors, and each one is different one from the other.
    Having been doing this for that three and a half years now, and with 500+ Posts on this and related subjects, I’m willing to bet I’ve not mentioned half the things that would cover it completely.
    I’m not even close to ‘knowing’ it all, and even knowing just some of it, and then trying to explain it to the average person with that ‘need’ to know, I still miss some things.
    Hence, open fora like these are invaluable for getting at least some of that across.
    Thanks Cameron.
    Tony.

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    More here on what I described above – the misuse of ‘heat index’ to try to fool people that temperatures are horribly high.

    The powers that be are literally treating us like morons: remember the cars in The Marching Morons by C.M.Kornbluth?

    00

  • #
    rjm385

    Winston @ 191

    You cracked me up and made my Sunday, I loved it.

    I have my doubts that such events could happen in our modern enlightened age (sarc).

    Say YES to an election now !!

    00

  • #
    Anonymous

    Keep up the good work, Jo. The criminal Federal Government, which is controlled by the Rothschild banking cartel, is against the ropes and they know it.

    Time to knock ‘em out. :)

    00

  • #
    rjm385

    Hey Guys, there goes my Sunday again.. have alook at this.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/clover-says-no-to-carbon-boycott-20110722-1hsni.html

    I can’t beieve what I’m reading this is beyond tolerance !!

    Say YES to an Election now

    00

  • #
    Winston

    rjm @ 184
    This quote from your cited article is telling –

    When someone’s not following the law of the tribe, there’s a lot that can happen. They’ll gather together and kill dissenters with machetes and spears

    Seems the more things change from stone age societies, the more they stay the same when it comes to dissenters. By the way, excellent post demonstrating the carpet baggers who are looking to exploit the world’s poorest and most disenfranchised, by inflicting Western ideology on primitive people, bamboozling them with legalese to take away their autonomy and their way of life in a heartbeat for chump change so they can scam millions off the top, selling fresh air.

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    Rim385 @187,

    You asked:

    “Can the eyesore produce power at 18c/per KWh and if it can’t why build it?”

    Good question. The answer is NO! (see below).

    First, I should correct some common misunderstandings about cost versus price, and wholesale versus retail price.

    Cost refers to the cost of production. Price is what you can get for your product in a market.

    COST. Some example of the cost to produce electricity (in c/kWh) (averaged over the entire life of the plant and including all the costs of financing, construction, fuel and operation and maintenance) are:
    coal = 3.5
    gas = 6
    Wind = 11
    solar PV = 50

    PRICE: The wholessale price of electricity in the National Electricity Market varies between 1250c/kWh and -10c/kWh (yes minus 10c/kWh).

    Retail Price: The electricity distributor has to buy at these wholesale prices, take the risk of the enormous fluctuations, add on the grid management costs, add his own distribution costs, add profit, and then charge the consumer something like 18c/kWh no matter what price the distributor has to pay.

    So, your question would have been better worded as: “Can the eyesore produce power at 4c/per kWh (equivalent to conventional generation) and if it can’t why build it?

    By the way, the average wholesale spot price of electricity in the NEM is about 4c/kWh. This is probably close to the average cost of production given that 80% of the electricity is produced by coal.

    A very quick analysis says the cost of electricity generation from Chinchilla solar power station would be about 10 times the cost of electricity from coal.

    Based on:
    Capital cost = $1.2 billion
    Capacity (peak) = 250 MW
    capital cost = $4,800/kW
    capacity factor = 20% (optimistic)
    Fixed O&M = $25/kW-yr
    economic life = 20 years
    discount rate = 10%

    Levelised Cost of Electricity = 33.4c/kWh
    compare this with coal generation at about 3.5c/kWh

    So electricity from Chinchilla “solar power station” will be about 10 times higher cost than from coal – and this is for a low value product (because it cannot respond to demand and creates costly problems for the grid).

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    o/t again (will MV ever get us into line)

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

    Australian physicist Professor Brian J O’Brien has worked on the Apollo moon missions. In this interview with the ABC, just 8:15 from the end, he suddenly cuts loose on man-made global warming, and commits a series of heresies that pin back the ears of the interviewer.

    - It’s been wildly exaggerated. When he first started researching the topic, “I got rather frightened at the exaggerations that were going around.”

    - It’s “certainly not proven” than man is largely to blame for any warming.

    - “The sad part was that there were no senior scientists that were independent” in the field.

    - He discovered that “the funding for climate change researchgwas only going to what you call true believers and when that happens inevitably you get a bias”.

    - An Australian professor of physics told him he “completely” supported his concern but had to keep his team of 65 researchers going with work, and “the only funding I can get for them and to get their PhDs is greenhouse funding from Canberra or whereever”.

    - “For 20 years people have been indoctrinated with the abuse of language” so that “climate change” is meant to suggest that all change is man-made. Of course, there’s climate change. That’s not the question

    - He’s worried we’re going ahead of the world in cutting emissions.

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    val majkus,

    Thank you for that beauty. I’ll be using that :)

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    So why are the Catastrophists arguing that warming is dangerous or catastrophic?

    It makes me laugh when those blockheads do know what a real iceage would do probably kill billions of people and make half the world uninhabitable. At least our Woolly Mammoth hunting ancestors had the sense to move south (as they were in the NH).

    00

  • #

    Thanks Peter at Comment 198,
    this is just another case of the way people ‘perceive’ electrical power.
    The only thing they have is that electrical power bill, where it says X number of KWH at 18 cents per KWH.
    The difficult thing to try and get across is exactly what you explained there about Chinchilla.
    I’ve lost count of the number of times people tell me hand on heart that the cost of generation of power from Solar and Wind will get cheaper as we get more of them.
    The cost of the electricity provided is all of those factors expressed over the life of the Plant, the largest being the original ‘up front’ cost for the construction of the plant, and even though these types of plant have been in construction for a number of years now, those costs have only gone the one way.
    People think of a set of panels on their roof to supply what amounts to a tiny amount of electricity. If the cost of those panels comes down, then the cost of a tiny household application will come down, and probably come down a lot.
    The Moree Solar (PV) plant will have 645,000 of those panels, 10 panels to a tracking table, all interconnected, with 260 huge Inverters to convert the DC to AC, 128 huge Transformers to bump up the Voltage for transmission.
    That is where the cost is incurred, and in the case of Moree that $923 Million for a 150MW plant supplying barely 404GWH at a theoretical best case maximum scenario, so probably mush less than that in actuality.
    As I mentioned that original cost only goes in one direction.
    The fact that the huge cost has to be recovered over the life of the Plant, 20 to 25 years tops, means the cost of that generated electrical power will always be horrendously expensive, and still only available for 5 to 6 hours a day, also tops.
    Consequently a coal fired plant has a life of at least 50 years and can be extended out to 75 years, hence a longer period to recover the cost.
    Also of note here is the difference between wholesale price and the price we as household consumers pay, and keep in mind residential power, (38% of all consumption) that 18 cents per KWH, is the most expensive, because Commerce (37%) and Industry (24%) get theirs at a cheaper rate.
    Also, as I have previously mentioned it is common practice, in fact sorted out prior even to construction that Governments will subsidise that wholesale cost.
    Because Grids want the cheapest they can get at given points in time, Solar will sell their Power to the grid for half the cost of generation which is close to what they sell it on at retail. To make up the difference, Governments are chucking the ‘make up’ value, half the cost of the generation, and paying that to those solar plant operators.
    It’s often the only way they can actually get these plants up and running.
    So, when Bob and Christine talk about the huge subsidies paid to coal fired power (huh!) someone needs to ask them what subsidies are being paid to renewables.
    Useless question to ask both of them though.
    They wouldn’t know what you were talking about.
    Tony.

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Peter @ 200, it’s wonderful to get a response from you, I’ve been a fan of yours since post Climategate when I started to research ‘climate change’
    My expertise is legal so that’s why I’ve pulled you up on the difference between an enforceable duty of care and what in a perfect world would be your ‘should be duty of care’
    And there are so many experts to whom Jo, Warwick Hughes, Prof Carter, Tim Ball, Steve Goddard and WUWT and their ilk have introduced us to
    and thanks to TonyfromOz and his PAPundits posts
    Thanks to all of you
    Unfortunately but for you guys we (like me who doesn’t have the expertise) wouldn’t have an alternative opinion

    Memory Vault sorry for the O/T but Jo’s blog does allow for O/T/s from time to time and I personally think O/T’s are acceptable

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    If we ever get past this ‘carbon dioxide’ tax imposition I’d like to see a ‘memories’ post on Jo’s blog
    Jo and others of you would have lots to add as I do too

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Arie Brand”,
    Your HERO Al Gore has ZERO Scientific Qualifications !
    He is just a Failed Politician and a Charlatan…

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Someone sent me this:

    http://kzoo.co/VyQHed

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Andrew Bolt again
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
    It is an appalling breach of manners for Julia Gillard to refuse to meet the Czech president, Vaclav Klaus. We ask him why he’s so dangerous.
    see the video at the link

    00

  • #
    Arie Brand

    “expect to be treated like the ignorant, ill-mannered little prick that you appear to be”

    Memoryvault (165) – Oh, I fully expect that – as will anybody who disturbs the cosy consensus here. The insult I liked best thus far was “moronic communist traitor”. Can you do any better, Memoryvault ?

    Elsewhere I referred to this blog as a “swampland of personal insult and misrepresentation” and I would hate to have to revise that opinion.

    00

  • #

    Wow cohenite,
    I bet you won’t see video that on mainstream media.
    Tony.

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Val..I havent got words for that liar and imitation pathetic excuse for a priminister. She needs the sack and fast.

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    RR @ 210
    Totally agree
    Misleading and Deceptive should be criminal charges for politicians

    00

  • #
    Arie Brand

    I think the way Professor John Abraham of Notre Dame University in Minnesota debated Monckton is the only practical one. Take slides from one of Moncton’s lectures where he refers to his “sources” and thoroughly inspect those and, if need be, ask the authors concerned what they actually wrote and meant. This is what Abraham did to such devastating effect that Monckton came up with his usual reaction when he is thwarted, claiming that Abraham’s presentation was libellous and, in this case, also trying to induce the readers of Anthony Watts’ blog to pressure Notre Dame University to remove Abraham’s presentation from its website.

    Here it is however: http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Peter Lang: #175

    What I meant is that politicians, bureaucrats, company board members, company managers and in fact most people do have (i.e. they should have) a duty of care; however, many do not fully recognize this and they lose track from time to time. Some are intentionally dishonest. Some become dishonest over time without realizing they have.

    In theory, this is true. But some of the Directors I know, and most of the ones I have worked with, do not take on what is an arduous task (which is why I no longer do it) out of a sense of duty. They also do not do it for the Directors Fees (which are reasonable, but not plentiful). They do it but because it gives them influence in the markets, and that influence, and the ability to “arrange things”, and “do favours”, for people is what really controls the way business behaves.

    “You want to get into the Singapore market? Well I know somebody who has influence with Mr ??? in the Singapore government, who may be able to help. Mr ??? is looking to purchase a nice piece of land in … “. See how it works?

    I think Julia Gillard and her team believe they are doing the right thing for the country.

    They would be the first politicians in history to do so, if that were the case. They are also cutting deals with other politicians in other countries, in exactly the same way that Directors do. Sometimes those deals will be to Australia’s benefit, and sometimes they won’t. It all depends on the bigger picture.

    And we shouldn’t forget where national politicians go, when they stop being national politicians. They move into one of the unelected supranational organisations, or they move into figurehead positions in major international firms. Julia Gilliard, as a lawyer, has probably got her eye on a nice international law consultancy with the UN.

    However, they [politicians] do not have sufficient background nor understanding of the economy to recognize the enormous damage their proposed policies will do and their existing policies are doing already – e.g. winding back at least 25 years of Industrial Relations reforms, increasing Australia’s sovereign risk, and reducing consumer confidence by a series of major policy blunders.

    I can agree with you there. We are governed by useful idiots – this has always been the case, and will always continue to be the case.

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Arie Brand you havent answered my question.. PROVE AGW! no not thruogh other YOUR PROOF come on!!!

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Arie at #212

    Arie – you decry the verbiage of my commenting colleagues who are perhaps a bit ‘fresh’ with their wording but you do not address my questions to you nor make any comment about the points that I raise. That suggests a politeness quotient lower than the already low climate sensitivity of CO2.

    I will repeat my questions.

    Do you wish to comment on Chris Monckton’s line by line rebuttal of Dr Abraham’s infantile and rather scientifically naive video? As described you get points if you do not recycle John Cook’s efforts as your own.

    Will you rebut the science in the two peer reviewed papers that Chris Monckton cited in the debate with Dr Denniss? These are Lindzen & Choi 2011 and Spencer & Braswell 2010, which I would link to except you have probably heard them (RC and certain others think they are the very effluvium of the plague, or something). There is always Google if you have not.

    I would rebut the science in the papers Dr Denniss cited except he didn’t cite any. Which makes it hard.

    So, Arie are you a hero, a mouse, or something which merits my colleagues fruity descriptions?

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    TonyfromOz: #192

    You forgot to mention Load Factor, and other losses that miight impact the usable energy that is delivered where it is required … (just thought I would help).

    00

  • #

    Had the privilege of hearing and then meeting Lord Monckton just over a year ago. Fascinating, especially the open Q&A afterward.

    The debate the other day was wondrous. Can’t wait to see another.

    00

  • #

    See what I mean.
    Tony.

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    OT but thought I would share since JB mentioned earlier about warm weather in the US. NZ is in the grips of a polar blast.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10740507

    “Temperatures in the South Island are barely above zero today, and the Metservice is warning the “significant winter weather” will hit many parts of the country unfamiliar with the white stuff”.

    “Weatherwatch analyst Philip Duncan said it was the first time he had ever seen snow forecast for some regions”.

    My Mother tells me they may even get a dusting on the Hunua Ranges just out of Auckland.

    In my life-time, I don’t remember that happening…..and I’ve got about 4 decades under my belt.

    00

  • #
    Dave

    Cohenite @ 206
    TonyfromOz @ 209

    AMAZING http://kzoo.co/VyQHed This is really great!!!!!
    BEST INFO SITE http://papundits.wordpress.com/author/tonyoz/
    Realistist Site http://joannenova.com.au/

    Tony –

    I bet you won’t see that video on mainstream media.

    We don’t have to!

    They are going to be on every blog, every email address, twitter, Bar-B-Que, worksite, BACK OF BUSINESS CARDS, bumper stickers etc etc that I make available.

    It’s called the education of the enlightened age!

    00

  • #
    CameronH

    Tony @ 192, No worries mate. I am now retired but worked in the technical area of coal fired power stations for about 30 years. Probably of topic but I noticed on one of your other posts somewhere, please correct me if I am wrong, that you mentioned that the amount of coal being burnt is the same regardless of the amount of electricity being produced. I apologise if I have misunderstood but the turbogenerator set will always be turning at 3000rpm but the amount of coal being burnt will depend on the load placed on the generator. At a lower demand, less coal will be required to keep the generator at 3000 rpm. This means that, as the loads on the system decrease, units can be run back, and less coal will be burnt. Again, if I have misunderstood you I apologies.
    I believe that you are doing a good job with this issue. People in Australia need to know the complexity of the electricity generation and supply infrastructure. The big issue is that there is a lot of inertia, for want of a better term, in the system and it can take a fair amonut of degradation. Unfortunately this also means that the recovery back to adequate system integrity for a reliable supply will also have a long lead time.
    I can only imagine that the government is taking the course of action that it is because they have no idea about what they are doing. My estimation is that blackout and brownouts are only a matter of a few years away with the problem starting in Victoria in the not to distant future. The citizens of Australia are being dudded and the end result will not be pretty.

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    Val Majkus @203,

    Thank you for your kind words.

    It’s helpful to know the expertise of commenters; thank you for explaining yours is legal. My comments regarding “due diligence” were from a layman’s perspective so I appreciate your comment.

    It is valuable to have commenters with legal expertise because that is the skill we are generally most missing on forums like this. We have plenty of scientists, engineers and others with opinions, but we lack expertise on how to make our suggestions practicable and meaningful for parliamentarians, the majority of whom have a legal background. Even those who don’t, have to think in a legal framework because all their policies have to be turned into legislation.

    Now, let me return to ‘due diligence’. I’ve been arguing for years that the government should conduct a suitable equivalent of due diligence before we commit to a CO2 Tax, ETS or carbon pricing scheme. I have no confidence in the work of Sir Nicholas Stern or Ross Garnaut. They are partisan (Labour/Labor appointments). Their reports are not a substitute for due diligence.

    I liked this post which I feel explained very well what we need to do and why:
    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/07/spending-billions-why-not-do-a-due-diligence-study/

    I saw your comments at #59 (What can be done? Suggestions please), #62 (ACCC to gag small business) and others.

    I hope you might be persuaded to answer your own question #59. I’d like to hear from you about how the government could do the equivalent of due diligence?

    I wrote this some time ago on another site:

    We need Due Diligence before we invest in AGW mitigation.

    We require companies to conduct a thorough and above board due diligence investigation of major investment decisions.

    We should do the same before we invest what will amount to trillions of dollars of Australian’s hard earned wealth on what is likely to be another Labor Party “Tax and Waste” policy.

    Due diligence means “making sure you get what you think you are paying for.”

    http://charlesmillsconsulting.com/due-diligence-definition.htm

    The process of investigation, performed by investors, into the details of a potential investment

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    @Cohenite #206
    Good Post Co, (I have seen it before – MemoryVault posted it on a previous thread) the more people see this the better.

    What I find interesting, is that this company can produce a Video from around $140, for distribution on Social Media.

    The ‘Weak Link’ in our cause, is the 18 – 34 year old demograph, some of whom think that voting ‘Green’, is a vote for greenpeace and will save the Whales.

    We might just be able to be ‘Educate’ this age group, if we all got organised, chipped in a couple of bucks, and got this company to do a simple video targeted at our ‘Weak Link’.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Slightly OT, but worth it I think.

    With all this talk of CAGW, scientific conspiracies, global financial crises, liberty, equality and fraternity, sometimes the obvious things get overlooked.

    Is it a conspiracy? One can’t be sure, but it sure looks like it. Its difficult to come up with any other explanation.

    Less than 5 minutes to go, 10 metres from the city end, and everyone flies. The man in front comes down with the ball. Chris Mayne comes down with the ball. All it needs now is for the bloody umpire to do what every bloody umpire in the AFL should do – pay the bloody mark! The Dockers are only 3 points down or 2 points, it doesn’t bloody matter – its less than a goal, and Mayne has marked 10 metres out. Its gong to be a goal! Except that the sad excuse for a sporting adjudicator somehow decides that its not a mark. Its well understood that when a pack goes up for the mark, often lots of people get their hands on the ball, but if he ends up holding onto it, its the bloke at the front of the pack who gets the mark. Its not controversial. Nobody every argues that its precluded by the second law of thermodynamics. It just is – but not tobloodyday.

    And of course to add insult to injury the sad excuse for a local newspaper will be singing the praises of the mob up the road. Pathetic.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    lmwd@218

    To keep this hot US summer in context here is some interesting historical data:

    http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/52779/alltime-record-on-the-bubble-i-1.asp

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    @ lmwd

    In my life-time, I don’t remember that happening…..and I’ve got about 4 decades under my belt.

    I remember back in 80s sometime it was so cold it looked like about to snow on Mt Eden! (funny that was just after SC21)

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    To our Power Station Guru’s:

    @Tony from OZ:
    @Peter Lang:

    Many thanks for the posts guys, educational as always.
    .

    I am hoping you can you clear up a couple of things for me.

    1. I read somewhere that if Solar Dawn – Chinchilla were to operate 24/7/365 (using its Gas backup) then it would be on the Goverments list of the ‘Top 500 Polluters’ – is this true ?

    2. I also read that a new Power Station to be built in Tasmania was to be ‘Wood Fired’ (I assume Biomass – but not sure) do you guys know anything about this type of plant ?
    .

    Thanks
    TN

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    CameronH @220

    the turbogenerator set will always be turning at 3000rpm but the amount of coal being burnt will depend on the load placed on the generator. At a lower demand, less coal will be required to keep the generator at 3000 rpm. This means that, as the loads on the system decrease, units can be run back, and less coal will be burnt.

    True. However this statement will probably be misinterpreted if you do not explain a bit more. I understand that the efficiency decreases as the output moves away from the optimum. More importantly the efficiency decreases when the output is cycled up and down to follow the load changes. Significantly, when intermittent renewable energy generators, like wind and solar, are added to the grid they cause more cycling of the coal fired power stations and therefore reduce their efficiency.

    The magnitude of the efficency loss is well explained in a series of posts by Kent Hawkins, of which this http://www.masterresource.org/2010/06/subsidizing-co2-emissions/ is a reasonable summary. This concludes that because of the reduced efficiency caused by the increased cycling with wind energy, there is little reduction of CO2 emissions.

    This has been supported by other more recent work. I built on a recent peer reviewed paper by Herbert Inhaber to estimate what the carbon price would have to rise to make wind viable in Australia in 2020: http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/05/21/co2-avoidance-cost-wind/

    00

  • #
    Arie Brand

    “Do you wish to comment on Chris Monckton’s line by line rebuttal of Dr Abraham’s infantile and rather scientifically naive video? ”

    Bruce of Newcastle, Abrahams shows, “in his infantile and rather scientifically naive” video the actual slides of Moncton’s presentation and has followed up the sources given there (and in at least one case not given there). Do you mean to say that these slides did not appear in M’s presentation – or that Abrahams was wrong in his interpretation of these sources – or misrepresented the answers their authors gave about them? You have the address of A’s presentation – presumably also that of Moncton. If not here it is:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0 Enlighten me please.

    Moncton’s” line by line rebuttal” follows the usual Moncton tactic: an avalanche of questions most of which have only a tangential connection with what Abrahams said or no connection at all. Burying your opponent under verbiage I call it.

    Incidentally from what solid scientific background can you judge A’s presentation as “scientifically naive” (it would be helpful if you identified yourself a bit more clearly than as “Bruce of Newcastle”). Abrahams did nothing more than following up Moncton’s sources. What is so “naive” about that? Are you, by any chance, referring to his apparent belief that it would make any impression on the Moncton faithful? That, admittedly, is naive. I wouldn’t call it ‘infantile” though – I would rather reserve that adjective, in this case, for your characterisation of his effort.

    00

  • #
    Dave

    O/T

    While stitching up the hand of a 75 year old North Queensland farmer, who cut it on a gate while working cattle, the rural doctor struck up a conversation with the old man.
    Eventually the topic got around to Julia Gillard and her appointment as Prime Minister.
    “Well, you know,” drawled the old farmer, “this Gillard lass is what they call a fencepost turtle.”

    Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a fencepost turtle was.
    The old farmer said: “When you’re driving along a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that’s called a fencepost turtle.”

    The old farmer saw a puzzled look on the doctor’s face, so he continued to explain: “You know she didn’t get up there by herself, she definitely doesn’t belong up there, she doesn’t know what to do while she is up there,and you just have to wonder what kind of idiot put her up there in the first place.”

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    Tony @ 113:

    What percentage of the Earth’s population resides in the Northern Hemisphere?
    I’ll bet the fact that is is more than 90% surprises some people.
    Tony.

    That is fascinating. Is it becoming top heavy & in danger of flipping over ? OMG .

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    I really despair at the state of scientific education.

    I’ve just read http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/

    The fact that Roy Spencer has a physics PhD, claims to be a sceptic but still manages to have so little understanding of basic science is utterly appalling. He argues that:

    1. A radiometer pointed at the night sky measures the (non) temperature of space. [It actually measure the radiative temperature of the atmosphere directly above the radiometer. The atmosphere contains heat because it has mass.]

    2. Thinks that closing an oven door increases heating by back-radiation. [It simply reduces the rate of heat loss - mostly by blocking convection.]

    3. Is unaware that adiabatic lapse is a function of atmospheric pressure according to the Ideal Gas Law. [He seems to think lower altitudes are warmer due to back-radiation].

    IMHO luke Warmists/quasi-sceptics like Spencer and Lomborg are very dangerous because they give a false credibility to the non-science of AGW.

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Great..http://kzoo.co/VyQHed.. agrees with what I posted on the other thread about the Trilateral commission CFR and the rest of the global criminal banking cartel on the ‘street’. Funding the seven(7) wars that Obama is waging and breaking the US economy over and aided by fraudulent carbon trading schemes which sucker Govts like Australia and NZ (has already) taken up. The sooner they build a very LARGE jail for them with NO KEY the better! I hope some of the clueless warmist clots that post (and get constant red ticks) on here like “you know who” etc WAKE UP!

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    231 bananabender funny you mention that.(agreed with your analysis of points 1.2.3)..Personally Im a little s’picious of Dr Roy.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Tony in 85… for sure I agree… energy generation needs some guiding hand… but look at the post in #89 there I’m being accused of being overly interventionist! I can’t win on this site can I:)

    00

  • #
    Trevor

    For those who say the Science is settled – take a look at this:

    00

  • #
    Graham

    Jennifer @#11

    Abbott is crazy to keep this Judas in the Coalition, along with greenie Greg Hunt

    and this serial stumblebum.

    00

  • #
    Trevor

    Sorry. Here is the link
    Here

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Val Majkus @ 203 and elsewhere

    RE: – O/T subject matter

    There’s nothing wrong with introducing some new subject on a slow thread, if the subject matter is possibly going to be of interest, or further the knowledge of, or entertain the other contributors.

    It’s an entirely different matter when some troll decides to reintroduce something already hashed to death more than once and pretend nobody has ever contributed a word on the subject, ever, and expect everybody go back and do it all over again, just for their benefit.

    Regrettable as it is, we have all witnessed this stupid, asinine, repetitive, “spoiled-child” behaviour by CAGW cultists before, and until tonight I would have marked it as the absolute low point of their debating abilities.

    That was, of course, until John Brookes posted at #223.

    This is John’s rather pathetic, childish attempt to pick an argument. He posts totally O/T some mindless crap about an imaginary football game, waits until somebody (presumably me) picks him up on it, with every intention of crying foul because I did not attack every other interesting, informative but O/T post on this quiet Sunday.

    Rather than get angry, I ask you all to feel sorry for John. He is so limited in his intellectual capacity that he is genuinely unable to distinguish between say, Tony and Peter’s instructional and informative posts re electricity generation, and his only intentional gibberish, and how reasonably intelligent people should read, and discern between the two.

    So ignore him, and Tony, Peter, Val and others please continue your informative posts. I am sorry if in stomping on a cockroach I might have given the impression they were anything but fully appreciated.

    As for you John Brookes:

    How about going away somewhere and growing up a bit before you try and come here and play with the adults.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    MattB @ 234

    You back?

    Bring your Plan B?

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    237Trevor @ 237 As soon as I read the total political garbage come quotes like that put by any MSM rag (and RAGS they are!) I just want to vomit! I feel sorry for the brainwashed masses that cant get of their butts and read the real alternative media on the NET. (and blogs like this :) ) maybe the results are showing a slow tendency for many now to ignore the main rags if the polls are half accurate. Well hope so.

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    @theRealUniverse:
    July 24th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
    Comment 233

    231 bananabender funny you mention that.(agreed with your analysis of points 1.2.3)..Personally Im a little s’picious of Dr Roy.

    Dr Roy gets treated very leniently on Wikipedia which immediately makes me very suspicious. Wikipedia is notoriously unforgiving of true sceptics.

    I’m sure there are a lot of fake sceptics out there acting as useful idiots for the Warmists.

    00

  • #
    Ian Hill

    Arie Brand @ 68

    Anyway I don’t see what that legendary MWP, if it existed at all, has to do with the main question: is the present rise in temperature due to human induced emission of CO2.? Palaeoclimatology can provide an inventory of natural forcings. They have all been tried out to explain the present rise but cannot fully do so. Only when anthropogenic CO2 is added to the mix does the model approximate the actual temperature graph.

    The point is made very clearly in a Youtube video by Sir David Attenborough:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0

    Could you please point me to an explanation of the modelling used in the video which shows the green line of temperature from natural causes deviating from the red line of observed temperature after about 1960? I need to dismiss the notion that the decline they needed to hide was not used.

    00

  • #
    Ian Hill

    Arrgh. Too many negatives! What I meant to say was: “I need to be satisifed that the decline they needed to hide was not used.”

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Has anyone heard whether Turnbull has accepted this foolhardy offer?

    If not, why hasn’t he?

    Come to think if it, why do all of the guru’s of climate run as quickly as they possibly can from open and informed debate? What are they afraid of? Not truth, perchance???

    Malcolm – you’re up, cobber.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    I’ve been thinking some more about Roy Spencer. I’ve decided he isn’t a sceptic at all. In reality he’s just an eccentric straw man/useful idiot who makes half-baked and easily rebutted “sceptical” arguments. In doing so he discredits the sceptical movement as a whole.

    Interviewer (eyes rolling in disbelief): “So Dr Spencer tells us some more about Intelligent Design…”

    00

  • #
    MattB

    MV I fear your Plan B is a bit like that of the nice Norwegian conservative christian this weekend.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Speedy I doubt Tony would allow him to debate to be honest. WHy doesn’t Tony debate Monckton, given he things AGW is real and wants to cut emissions by 5% by 2020? Why is Monckton after a backbencher not the alternative leader of the country, of Julia even?

    00

  • #
    David, UK

    PhilJourdan:
    July 23rd, 2011 at 2:27 am

    That is the problem with the English – they use a lot of words to say what the rest of us do in a sentence! ;)

    What you are saying Sir, is – per se – not contra legem, and I for one, Sir, would pledge a bona fide affidavit pro bono to the effect that ipso facto you speak contrary to the truth, in as much as can be seen prima facie, and… and… our modus operandi is… is… such that we take your words to be casus belli, and… I… I… D’oh!

    Australian translation: This means war!

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Arie Brand,

    If it is alleged that global temperatures are at their highest levels, even higher than those of the MWP, then it might be useful for your case that the parts of Greenland that the Vikings farmed during the MWP were also warm.

    As it is those areas remain covered in permafrost, and, clearly, temperatures there remain lower than the MWP, which is contradicted by the statement that temperatures are higher than the MWP.

    Basically means we don’t understand what caused the LIA in the first place. And “unprecedented warming” has to be dismissed as hyperbolism.

    00

  • #
    WestHoustonGeo

    I was lucky enough to be in the crowd when the Viscount spoke in Houston a few years ago.
    Give’em He11, M’Lord!

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Arie at #229

    Thanks for addressing the first question – the link I gave already had links to Prof Abraham’s video, and both of Chris Monckton’s responses. You views are your own opinion, my point is that others may think that Chris Monckton has a point in the rejection of Prof Abraham’s position. Multiple science based points. I submit to you that peer reviewed science supports Chris Monckton’s arguments and fails to support Prof Abraham’s, particularly when you look at the data.

    Which brings me to my second question above – you chose again not to address the science, you only addressed the he-said-she-said argument of Prof Abraham and Chris Monckton, which Prof Abraham started in a disgraceful hit-job way.

    As I described, Chris Monckton cited Spencer & Braswell 2010 and Lindzen & Choi 2011, which respectively measure 2XCO2 at 0.6 C and 0.7 C thereby falsifying CAGW. I ask again – would you give your case why CAGW survives twin torpedoes to it guts, with extra points to be had for addressing Dr Curry’s analysis of NAS’s CRU-like despicable behaviour.

    Mate, you can play the man all you like but the science doesn’t play favourites and voters are not idiots.

    00

  • #

    Graham @237

    Joe Hockey’s wife is a bankster with Deutsche Bank. Does that fill in any squares for you? Yes, Joe is also a buffoon. The Libs version of Kim Beazley but not as intelligent.(that’s not a compliment for Kim)

    As for Roy Spencer, I have my doubts about the accuracy of the satellite record. The method is dependent on lots of assumptions and adjustments. The sensor is only good to one degree and anything better than that is done by averaging which is only valid if certain conditions are met. The satellites were meant as a supplement to weather balloons for operational forecasting not for long term climatology. We don’t really have any good instrumental records except for ARGO since 2003.

    00

  • #
    Arie Brand

    “Could you please point me to an explanation of the modelling used in the video which shows the green line of temperature from natural causes deviating from the red line of observed temperature after about 1960? I need to dismiss the notion that the decline they needed to hide was not used.”

    Ian Hill. The “decline they needed to hide” : I don’t want to beat that dead horse. If you want useful comments on that furphy you can find them all over the place.

    For the rest look at section 1. Chapter 9 of the IPCC 2007 – particularly 9.7 “Combining evidence of Anthropogenic Climate change” – useful references there and to that chapter as such.

    00

  • #
    connolly

    MattB @ 247
    That despicable piece of abuse is beneath contempt. If it was flippant that is even more disgraceful. What are you a complete idiot. (No need to answer – its rhetorical)

    00

  • #
    Arie Brand

    “I submit to you that peer reviewed science supports Chris Monckton’s arguments and fails to support Prof Abraham’s, particularly when you look at the data.”

    Bruce of Newcastle (at 252)

    Abraham went to the sources that Monckton quoted and, to make absolutely sure, contacted its authors in writing. Do I understand correctly that Monckton knows better what these authors meant than they do themselves?

    If peer reviewed science supports Monckton why is that the established journals in the field don’t want a bar of him?

    Of course your outlandish proposition is typical for an Australian ‘sceptics’blog.

    Perhaps the following quote from an opinion piece in the British Guardian is relevant here (yes it was submitted by an Australian climate scientist – one of the many who would laugh at your claim):

    “Vested interests work relentlessly and surprisingly openly to enshrine inaction, but that alone is insufficient to explain policy failures to date. There are two other mutually amplifying factors. First, there is the committed band of local deniers whose nearly-complete absence from the peer-reviewed scientific literature has not prevented them from proclaiming to be modern-day Galileos. Lacking support from the scientific community, the would-be Galileos are instead endorsed by various extremist bloggers, shock jocks, and tabloid gutterazzis.

    Second, too many media outlets have failed in their duty to scrutinise self-proclaimed climate “sceptics”, thus providing a platform to deniers who have no credibility elsewhere. For example, Lord Christopher Monckton, the Deputy Leader of UKIP, is not taken seriously by the UK press. During Mr. Monckton’s last visit to Australia, by contrast, the local Newscorp media hailed him as providing “science” and posing “fact-based” questions. This adulation is no isolated case: The country’s only national broadsheet has become cartoonish in its serial misrepresentations of science and scientists”

    As to the articles you mentioned: why don’t you go to the comments sections to the contributions by Barry Bickmore on his blog and that of John Fasulio et al at RC. I am sure that you will be much better served there than here. They seem to agree that your torpedoes are duds. Battle it out with them:

    http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-1/

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Arie at #254

    Arie – you still haven’t addressed Lindzen & Choi 2011 and Spencer & Braswell 2010, which were cited by Chris Monckton.

    Surely you are prepared to discuss science?

    Further to your other questions I note that Prof Abraham is an Associate Professor at St Thomas, and his PhD of 2002 was in Mechanical Engineering. My PhD was in chemistry and with formal qualifications and considerable experience in stats and thermodynamics.

    A specific example of Prof Abraham’s immature approach was the addressing of Prof Soon’s background (ie playing the man) rather than addressing the clear correlation between Arctic temperature and composite TSI. You may achieve extra points by explaining why Prof Abraham failed to address that correlation, which is in the data of record, and addresses instead the background of a senior climate scientist. Playing the man not the science is in my opinion ‘infantile’.

    Now, sir, you may answer my question about science, to wit Lindzen & Choi 2011 and Spencer & Braswell 2010. I might add I have done quite a lot of modelling during my career, and answers invoking computer models may receive specific attention.

    Postscript: further to your #256, which you posted as I was writing this, I cannot see anything to add given here I go “to the sources that Monckton quoted” directly. No I have not written to Prof Soon in the last 5 minutes, but you may read his paper at the link I give. I am quite willing to discuss the contained science with you, that is if you are prepared to discuss science and not continually appeal to authority and commit ad homs.

    00

  • #
    Arie Brand

    Bruce of Newcastle (

    Look, if your qualifications are so impressive why don’t you go to a more heavyweight blog and battle it out with the people there – for instance at the blogs I mentioned.? I am looking forward to your contributions there. Incidentally, to make an obvious point, chemistry is not climate science. I am not a climate scientist either but I have been around long enough in academe to be able to distinguish bullshit from Science. Perhaps you can find some clues to this method in my book “The Force of Reason”.

    Well, if playing the man is your criterion for infantilism there is no hope for Monckton. He habitually does it and particularly in his answer to Abraham.

    Incidentally, Abraham repeated his purely factual exercise of two years ago a propos of Moncton’s recent talk at Notre Dame University in WA (see http://www.theconversation.edu.au). This is part of what he had to say:

    In a recent lecture given at the University of Notre Dame in Australia (June 2011) represented by his document “The Climate of Freedom”, Monckton claims, “Dr. Craig Idso has collected papers by almost 1000 scientists worldwide, nearly all of which demonstrate the influence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and show it was at least as warm as, and in most instances warmer than, the present.”

    What about this list? Well, if you go to the Science and Public Policy website (of which Monckton is the Chief Policy Advisor), you will find a link to a Craig Idso article which is, in turn, linked to a denialist website CO2Science. Once at CO2Science, you’ll learn that they have a MWP Project which lists many articles that reportedly dispute recent warming. So I think I have the correct list.

    I’ll begin with the following trivial assumption: the authors know more about their own work than Monckton does.

    With this as a starting point, I selected a number of papers in the list and I sent inquiries which asked the two questions I’ve posed here. Now, since this is a list that Monckton is using, you’d think the deck would be stacked in his favor. That is, you’d expect that most or all of these papers to support his view. The problem is … that is not what I found.

    Dr. Raymond Bradley responded, “No, I do not think there is evidence that the world was warmer than today in Medieval times.”

    Dr. Jessica Tierney also had her work cited in this “study” yet she wrote to me, “No. The MWP is seen in many proxy archives, but it is not yet certain how global in extent it was. Whether or not it was warmer than today’s temperatures depends on the proxy and the place. Most global temperature reconstructions suggest that on average, the MWP was not warmer than today. Regardless, a warm MWP doesn’t disprove the fact that humans are changing climate presently.”

    Dr. Lowell Stott reported, “the studies that are currently available for MWP temperature estimates have little to say about global warming in the context of anthropogenic contribution to Earth’s radiative balance. Even if the MWP was as warm or even warmer than the late 20th century, the cause would be completely different because we have very good constraints on the quantities of greenhouse gases that were present in the atmosphere during the MWP.”

    Dr. Andrew Lorrey told me that his paper “certainly does not disprove AGW, and it does nothing to approach that particular subject of climate science.”

    Dr. Rosanne D’Arrigo stated, “We do not believe that our work disproves” human-induced global warming.

    Dr. Robert Wilson added, “It really does not matter if the MWP was warmer or slightly cooler than present. Ultimately, it is the underlying causes of these warms periods that we need to worry about.”

    Now, was I surprised by these results? Not really.
    You see, I had performed a similar investigation of claims made by Monckton in 2009 with similar results.
    able.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Arie@256; that RC rubbish, which is problematic in any event, is addressed to Lindzen and Choi 2009; Lindzen and Choi’s updated paper is 2011 and deals with the complaints made in the RC article:

    http://www.masterresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Lindzen_Choi_APJAS_final.pdf

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Arie at #258

    Thankyou again for replying. I note that you did not address any science in the topic of discussion, which is the debate between Chris Monckton and Dr Denniss. You did not address the two peer reviewed references cited by Chris Monckton, which are Lindzen & Choi 2011 and Spencer & Braswell 2010. To be helpful I have included links to these papers, though I might add that the link to S&B 2010 is via Dr Spencer’s own website where he does that which was not allowed by his oppressive peer reviewer, which is to divide 3.7 by 6. That is another example of ‘infantile’ in my view.

    I do not ‘battle it out’ at RC and other similar blogs for two reasons. First my personal ethic is that the blog owner should know my identity, as indeed Jo does, and secondly if I were to post at RC it would require less than geologic time for my post to be deleted. At RC they do not like their science forensically questioned, as I did to their rather poor effort on Enghoff et al recently. Your colleague Blimey did engage in the science, for which I commend him, but only succeeded in showing that RC proved their own posting wrong using one of their own (GISS) graphs. I was quite impressed with such an own goal. Blimey has not been seen since except to inject an occasional exocet of disapproval (which Jo tolerates) and to thumbs down most comments. More ‘infantile’ behaviour, in my opinion. I show my age, you may need to look up the context of ‘exocet’.

    Further to your post, I will not engage you on extraneous questions until you address either the science I raise or that which I asked you to comment about. I commend you on your enthusiastic attempt to outflank this debate with a not particularly relevant page of commentary, but the carbon tax and the underlying climate science is the issue of most relevancy to us all, and it would be both useful and topical if you could address it, which indeed was the context of the debate between Chris Monckton and Dr Denniss.

    Or you can continue to obfusticate like Ms Gillard, which is one reason for her rather distressing polls. As they say (to paraphrase a certain practical gentleman who alas is no longer with us), you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

    00

  • #
    Arie Brand

    “I do not ‘battle it out’ at RC and other similar blogs for two reasons. First my personal ethic is that the blog owner should know my identity, as indeed Jo does, and secondly if I were to post at RC it would require less than geologic time for my post to be deleted.”

    Bruce of Newcastle (260)

    So if I understand you correctly your “personal ethics” only allows you to reveal your name to the owners of the blogs where “sceptics” gather: for instance this one and Jennifer Marohasy’s. Strange.

    Also, you seem to forget this rule sometimes, even with blogs of this kind. For instance, on Bishop Hill’s blog I found this comment under your name:

    “This item was posted by an anonymous author, meaning that he or she does not have a personal account with this website.”

    And about RC deleting comments ..hmmm. They must have forgotten to do so with quite a few other adversarial comments I have seen there over time. Anyway, that leaves plenty of other heavyweight blogs (where however you cannot gain much credit by relying on these references, that is true).

    Incidentally, re “belief in authorities” did you do anything else when you wrote your Ph.D. thesis? Would you have relied on a maverick with a classics degree and no peer reviewed article in your subject to his name? No, you wouldn’t. But plenty of scientists outside strictly the field of climate science seem to believe that what is not good enough for their own science will do in the climate field. Strange.

    I do indeed commend Jo for not trying to censor contributions. This in contrast to you and your mate MemoryVault who have been telling me what I should write about.

    Finally, I had to laugh abou this:

    “an occasional exocet of disapproval … I show my age, you may need to look up the context of ‘exocet’.”

    I am old enough to have a vivid memory of the German bombardment of Rotterdam. I am sure that you would have to look that one up.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Yeah ok, Arie, so you’re old, wise and venerable; now how about addressing the fact the RC critique of L&C was for their 2009 effort not their 2011 one.

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Arie at #261

    Arie – I’m sorry about your experience in the Netherlands. It is no joy, nor was the conflict I alluded to. Though I have served in the armed forces I was fortunate to do so in a peaceful era, and I did not ever have to go to the sharp end.

    I post in quite a few blogs, and indeed at the Drum from time to time. The ABC as an office of government has legal restrictions that general blogs do not have. Likewise other public sites. I do not wish to be featured on such foul documents such as the one described here. Nor do I wish crazies to seek me out at home as has happened to people on either side of the debate. However I have no desire to formally engage the politics except as an observer. I am very happy however to engage the science, but I have plenty of publications already, I do not see the need to publish in climate science (but then I’m not the one trying to tax Australia). It would be a nice thing to debate Gavin for example, but he probably has other things he’d prefer to do.

    Yes I post as either Bruce of Newcastle, or if I’m feeling lazy, just Bruce. However every blog moderator knows who I am for want of a 5 second Google. No one bothers to have a personal account at Bishop Hill, however Mr Montford knows who I am and could email me any time he wants (and did once).

    Now that you have impuned me and my motives I draw your attention to a couple of bits of fascinating climate science, which you seem not to like. That is the peer reviewed papers Lindzen & Choi 2011 and Spencer & Braswell 2010, which show CAGW to be entirely uncatastrophic if you’ll forgive me for saying. Or I’d be happy to discuss Soon 2005 which came up during our discussion of Prof Abraham’s efforts. It would, as I said before, be a good thing if you would discuss the science that underlays the politics, so we may leave aside personal antagonism. I am sure many people out in blogland would actually like to know your understanding of the science behind the carbon tax, rather than what you think of commentators or people like Chris Monckton.

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Arie – I’m sorry about your experience in the Netherlands. It is no joy, nor was the conflict I alluded to. Though I have served in the armed forces I was fortunate to do so in a peaceful era, and I did not ever have to go to the sharp end.

    I post in quite a few blogs, and indeed at the Drum from time to time. The ABC as an office of government has legal restrictions that general blogs do not have. Likewise other public sites. I do not wish to be featured on such foul documents such as the one described here. Nor do I wish crazies to seek me out at home as has happened to people on either side of the debate. However I have no desire to formally engage the politics except as an observer. I am very happy however to engage the science, but I have plenty of publications already, I do not see the need to publish in climate science (but then I’m not the one trying to tax Australia). It would be a nice thing to debate Gavin for example, but he probably has other things he’d prefer to do.

    Yes I post as either Bruce of Newcastle, or if I’m feeling lazy, just Bruce. However every blog moderator knows who I am for want of a 5 second Google. No one bothers to have a personal account at Bishop Hill, however Mr Montford knows who I am and could email me any time he wants (and did once).

    Now that you have impuned me and my motives I draw your attention to a couple of bits of fascinating climate science, which you seem not to like. That is the peer reviewed papers Lindzen & Choi 2011 and Spencer & Braswell 2010, which show CAGW to be entirely uncatastrophic if you’ll forgive me for saying. Or I’d be happy to discuss Soon 2005 which came up during our discussion of Prof Abraham’s efforts. It would, as I said before, be a good thing if you would discuss the science that underlays the politics, so we may leave aside personal antagonism. I am sure many people out in blogland would actually like to know your understanding of the science behind the carbon tax, rather than what you think of commentators or people like Chris Monckton.

    (PS, if this post comes up twice, sorry, I mistyped my email address the first time & it went to moderation)

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    And reposting lost this link I meant to include:

    …the one described here.

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    I posted this late on Jo’s previous post but am repeating it as some posters here may not have seen it. It seems that as far as the ABC is concerned, the term AGW no longer exists. As Dr. Vincent Gray forecast, the tactic of UNIPCC Doublespeak has triumphed.
    The ABC certainly just refuse to see!

    “Our” ABC just doesn’t get it do they.

    This is their response to my complaint about the continued use of the derogatory, stupid and plainly false term “climate change denier”, particularly by their presenters such as Tony Jones.

    I clearly explained that as the Earth had experienced climate change continually since it first formed, no-one I knew denied that fact.
    However, many are sceptics of the alarmist interpretation of the AGW hypothesis as runaway catastrophic human-induced global warming.

    ABC Reply. quote:

    “Thanks for your message on this issue.

    I appreciate the point you make, and essentially I agree with you. However, I am reluctant to say that under no circumstances should the phrase “climate change denier” be used. I think you are right that, to at least some extent, the phrase has been used to deliberately link it with the notion of holocaust denial, with all of the pejorative connotations that includes.

    For that reason, our clear preference is to stick with the more neutral phrase “climate change sceptic”. From a quick search of our content, that seems to be the general rule.

    However, there may well be circumstances (especially when others use the term and we are faithfully reporting that) when the phrase will occur in our news programs.”

    They obviously know, but I emphatically repeat, they just do not get it do they !!

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    AGW is disproved using physics (thermodynamics) NOT climate change papers. Warmal Globing is disproved with real world data, paleo and present.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    theRealUniverse:

    You know, thermodynamics does not disprove AGW. Jo knows it. Cohenite knows it. Lord Monckton knows it. Lindzen and Choi know it.

    Do you want to break it to them that they are deluded?

    00

  • #
    Ian Hill

    Thank you Arie Brand @ 254. I found the graph in the IPCC 2007 report – Figure 9.5. Unfortunately the link to Appendix 9.C did not work, so I could not read the technical details of the modelling.

    Seeing as I don’t believe humans were responsible for all that variation after 1960 I put it down to inadequate modelling and perhaps an exaggeration of the observed temperature graph.

    00

  • #

    John Brookes@149

    BTW, a bit warm in the USA right now?

    Actually no. About normal for this time of year. Why? Have you heard something different? If so, check out the averages and the al time records.

    00

  • #

    JOhn Brookes @268

    You know, thermodynamics does not disprove AGW. Jo knows it. Cohenite knows it. Lord Monckton knows it. Lindzen and Choi know it.

    Everyone knows it – for the simple reason you cannot disprove what has yet to be proven. Until such time as you disprove the null hypothesis, there is no way to disprove other hypotheses since they are not hypotheses, merely supposition without foundation.

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Well it looks like Arie has wander off again without once addressing any science that I could detect, let alone anything that Chris Monckton actually said. He even refused to discuss the content of Prof Abraham’s video, which he brought up! I tried, I really did try.

    What is it with some CAGW people, they accuse sceptics of refusing to discuss or debate science then behave like this. I’ll debate people on the science anytime because the data supports the sceptical case. Anyone out there want to prove otherwise, door is open.

    00

  • #
    Arie Brand

    “Well it looks like Arie has wander (sic) off again without once addressing any science that I could detect, let alone anything that Chris Monckton actually said. He even refused to discuss the content of Prof Abraham’s video, which he brought up! I tried, I really did”

    Bruce of Newcastle(272)

    No you didn’t. What did Abraham do in his first visual account. He took the slides of Monckton’s lecture on which Monckton had made statements nailing this or that bit of IPCC climate science as a lie (he spells it lah but that is one of those dear little idiosyncrasies the lord has made his trade mark). On these slides Monckton also lists the sources allegedly supporting his statement.

    What Abraham did with these slides was very simple. He went to the sources mentioned, found that they did not say what Moncton claimed they did and to make absolutely sure that he was correct in this he contacted the respective authors in writing and published the relevant parts of their answers on his video. A simple exercise which makes any discussion of his scientific background irrelevant because almost anyone could have done it.

    Now in order to prove that Abraham was wrong one has to (a) deny that Moncton ever came up with these slides and mentioned these sources – that is impossible because the material is in the public realm and anyone can establish for himself that that is indeed what Moncton actually did.

    One can also (b) argue that Abraham distorted the answers given to him by the various authors concerned. This would have been very foolhardy indeed because his video is in the public realm as well and if these authors had protested we would know about it.

    Now you did nothing of the sort apart from persisting with your claim that A. was wrong and M. was right.

    You also haven’t addressed any of my other points such as the question why you accept, for climate science, a rank amateur such as Monckton who has a proven history of distorting sources (see also A’s second presentation) whom you wouldn’t give the light of day in your own science.

    You boast, on this side, that you will take up the fight with any one who would engage you on the science of it all. An easy boast because you know that genuine climate scientists rarely come to a side like this and, if they did so, wouldn’t bother about arguing with you because, as our exchange about Abraham shows, you don’t come up with arguments, nor respond to them, but only with claims. As to my own qualifications, my first degree (University of Amsterdam) was in geography, with the emphasis on social geography, but also containing a fair bit of physical geography with, among other things, a unit in climatology and meteorology. But that was in the fifties when nobody had heard of global warming. My M.A. (Un. of West Australia) was in anthropology and my Ph.D. (University of Leiden) in the philosophy of the social sciences.

    Now this provides me with just enough of a background not to discuss the science but to perceive on what side the big guns are, and, sorry, they are certainly not on yours.

    So do I take things on authority? No, I take them on trust and am careful about the question who or what to trust. Almost three years ago (October 2008) I posted the following contribution on this very blog:

    “1. Joanna said: “It’s not a coincidence that skeptics don’t care what anyone’s qualifications are. Anyone with a good point or a good question is welcome to speak. Real scientists care about evidence, not about degrees, title’s or the number of ‘experts’.
    If Tamino is fed up, he can offer evidence and the skeptics will be silenced.
    Those who attack qualifications expose their own underdeveloped grasp of logic and reasoning – and usually also their lack of evidence.”
    - JoNova

    Joanna what is that fictitious individual, the ‘intelligent layperson’ going to do? There are many competing claims out there the judgment of which is frequently beyond his own competence. To take an example from daily life: if he has intestinal trouble his (medically unqualified) neighbour might give him a plausible and seemingly well informed account of it but, if he is really the ‘intelligent layperson’, s/he will seek the explanation of his doctor. S/he has to rely on trust that is closely linked to influence and prestige.

    Influence and prestige are universally the ‘relief mechanisms’ which make the coordination of social action via linguistic means (that is means that are prone to misunderstanding and disagreement) less onerous.
    The German sociologist/philosopher Juergen Habermas has provided a good account of this. If I may quote from a book of mine (The Force of Reason 1990): “Habermas asserts that new steering media, functioning as relief mechanisms for communicative action via purely linguistic means, come about when influence and prestige are generalised. These new steering media are …either based on the ‘condensation’ of shared understanding, via linguistic means, or on its replacement.
    The term ‘condensation’ stands here for the hierarchisation of validity claims, which is made possible by value generalisation. A clear example is the greater weight which is, in due course, given to the words of the man or woman with a generally recognised professional reputation, as compared to the claims of one who does not have this reputation. Another form of the hierarchisation of validity claims is made possible by what Parsons called the value commitments of group members. This provides the basis for moral leadership.
    The generalisation of prestige and influence is dependent on, first, the differentiation of cultural value spheres entailed by value generalisation. A scientific reputation, for instance, can only be established when the cognitive sphere has been differentiated, moral leadership when the moral-practical sphere has become clearly separate. Both kinds of influence also require for their generalisation the coming about of a public sphere which depends on new communication technologies (printing press, electronic media etc.)”

    Implicit in what you said, Joanna, is the idea that we are all equally capable to judge what Habermas calls validity claims. This is simply not so. In daily life we have to take a lot of things beyond our own narrow circle of competence on trust. And that is where influence and prestige come in.

    A good example is provided by Spencer’s recent disquisitions. I haven’t the competence to judge them and I am convinced that the great majority of ‘sceptics’ who have embraced his view haven’t either. What is the ‘intelligent layperson’ going to do? He can look at arguments pro and contra but since these mostly escape him he will have to rely on trust – trust in a professional and personal reputation. Raymond Pierrehumbert has endeavoured to show that Spencer is cooking the books – again – to arrive at the graphs he concocted. He shows what he claims to be the correct way to plot the same data. It sounds reasonable what he says but, really, I have to take him on trust, the trust generated by influence and prestige. Pierrehumbert is a professor of geophysical science at a prestigious university (Chicago). He needed a professional reputation to arrive at that post and he has a professional reputation to lose. Spencer, by contrast, has made a now generally acknowledged big booboo in the past with the graph that was in 1997 published triumphantly in the Wallstreet Journal and which purported to show that the world was cooling instead of warming. He and his fellow author allowed this graph to figure for years on the websites of ‘sceptics’ before they too acknowledged that it was fallacious. So, reputation for reputation, Pierrehumbert seems to have the edge.

    Yes in the Republic of Letters everyone is equal, in the sense that everyone can have his say. But this does not mean that everyone deserves the same trust.”

    If anyone is interested in the ensuing discussion he can find it here. I have nothing more to say about it:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2008/09/about-the-sceptics-handbook/

    00

  • #
    Colin Davidson

    The Catastrophist Brownshirt take on the MWP is really weird. Talk abouit denial!

    There is clear and incontrovertible achaeological evidence (that’s where they dig up things human, and analyse what happened, rather than process it through dodgy statistics and obscure prose) from Greenland and Peru that temperatures were much warmer in thse two places in medieval times. There is the Idso’s analysis of hundreds of papers, covering the Globe. There is even the IPCC’s first report.

    And against this weight of data and scientific opinion we get what? Hypotheses that it wasn’t so. By discredited artists who pretend to do science (artists because you cannot repeat their work, they won’t release data or method or both).

    Tell it to the cadavers being dug out of the permafrost in Greenland and the Inca-farmed terraces in Peru hundreds of feet higher than we can farm today. In different hemispheres, in different ocean basins, but at the same time.

    00

  • #
    Arie Brand

    There is one point of the discussion that I had three years ago that I want to elaborate on a bit further. Somebody claimed that by referring to Spencer’s earlier booboo that I had used an ‘ad hominem’ argument. Such accusations come up frequently in exchanges like this and I find them very often misplaced.

    When it comes to giving trust the relevant record must be an important criterion. The relevant record – because it would indeed be an ad hominem argument if I had said that Spencer was known for beating his wife or for pulling the wings off flies.

    A bank looks at the relevant record i.e. the financial one, of an individual before it provides a loan. That is also a matter of trust and nobody in his right mind would accuse a bank of using an ‘ad hominem’ argument in this instance.

    It would be different if, instead of me, Pierrehumbert had come up with this argument because he didn’t have to take matters on trust but could judge Spencer’s present arguments on their validity.

    So the same argument can sometimes be ad hominem and sometimes not – it depends on the circumstances.

    Colin Davidson, as a simple layman I say: what does it matter whether there was or was not a global MWP? Even if there was It does not invalidate the argument that “natural variability” does not provide a sufficient explanation for the present anomalous heat. Neither does it imply that mankind can live with this heat because the global population then was only a fraction of what it is now.

    And now I will really shut up – for the moment.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Arie Brand @ 275

    Slither, slither, slither.

    “What does it matter whether there was or was not a global MWP?

    I’ll break it down in tiny baby steps for you Arie, since anything more complex just becomes an excuse for you to slither.

    1) – YOU questioned the integrity of a particular scientist as a source of information.
    2) – Another poster asked if Michael Mann was what YOU would consider a reliable source.
    3) – YOU said yes.
    4) – I then asked YOU if he was so reliable, what happened to the MWP and LIA in his hockey schtick graph.
    5) – YOU have been slithering ever since.

    Slither, slither, slither.

    .

    Just for the record, Arie, since Mann’s hockey schtick graph is for the NH ONLY, it matters not a twig whether the MWP was “global” or “NH hemisphere only”.

    It is still completely absent from Mann’s graph – as is the LIA.

    And since YOU hold Mann up as an example of all that is good and honest and righteous about CAGW and its proponents – in this case Mann – it brings us right back to the original question which YOU have avoided for going-on three days now:

    What happened to the MWP and LIA in Mann’s hockey schtick graph?

    00

  • #
    Colin Davidson

    Given that we now all agree that there was a global MWP, followed by a LIA, presumably we can also agree that:
    1. The present interglacial is colder than previous ones.
    2. The present warm spell is colder than the MWP, Roman Warm Period and Minoan Warm Period, and is much colder (that pesky archaelogical record again, don’t believe me, take a decko at the Orkney Islands) than the Neolithic Warm Period.

    What caused the early 1900s and 1930′s warming? They were at least as fast as the late 20th century burst (source: Brownie Jones). The late 20th century gasp was not unusual in any sense – it is not hotter and was not at any greater rate than previous events.

    Cern cometh, and with it a storm of recantation.

    And speaking of recantation, where is the CSIRO on sea levels?

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Arie at #273 and 275

    Arie – Glad to see you’re back. I would prefer that you cited primary sources as it is much more easily addressed, be it science, economics or your own field – which is a very interesting one with much history and prestige. I would not at all be able to hold my own in discussions with you in those fields. I would apologise for mentioning my qualifications and experience, but you asked:

    Incidentally from what solid scientific background can you judge A’s presentation as “scientifically naive”

    I felt it would be impolite not to answer, and indeed I did the same by responding with some reluctance when you laid out some detective work you did on my blog commenting practice. However I would like to put you this point, which is what I have been trying to get you to address since the start. You said in reference to Chris Monckton:

    “Apparently your faith in this obvious charlatan is impervious to falsification.”

    Now I do not call anyone a charlatan unless I have a basis for doing so. I criticised Prof Abraham with citations describing why. I gave you an opportunity to object with equivalent basis but you did not. This shows that your view that Prof Abraham falsified Chris Monckton’s position is faulty. I showed one example where Prof Abraham was wrong in science in his criticism, by citing two independent datasets which together produce the graph Prof Abraham objected to. It does not require much science to see that.

    Nor would you address what Chris Monckton said during his presentation, which is why I pressed you on the cited scientific and peer reviewed basis he gave for his position. So in describing him as a charlatan you prove your words to be unjust and unwarranted if you do not base them on firm support. The only support you gave is shown to be faulty, and you have not shown that the peer reviewed science cited by Chris Monckton is invalid.

    I would not critise any position you may espouse in the fields of anthopology or philosophy of social science. I do not have the understanding of the literature to do so.

    So can you see why you should not call Chris Monckton a ‘charlatan’ in a public forum when you also say that your experience does not give you the ability to judge him? This is known as hypocracy, or worse…I will not say that word.

    As it happens I attended the talk he gave here in Newcastle. He showed a lot of science and every graph included citations to peer reviewed science, except perhaps some which was cited as being from IPCC reports (as I cannot vouchsafe that those excerpts were not from grey literature without checking). Now again as it happens I have seen already most of those graphs and data, and I know where most of them came from already. Therefore I can, of my self, assure you that almost everything he says does reflect a body of peer reviewed science which is valid! Furthermore most is from primary observation not from modelling (Vaclav Klaus was quite down on modelling in the Press Club today – he being a professional economic modeller before going into politics). I might add that Dr Klaus paid complement to Chris Monckton in his speech, and even quoted him. That is a very strong complement to pay – from a hero of the Velvet Revolution and a serving head of state.

    Thus I do suggest to you Arie that you make an effort and examine the data and publications. It does not have to be in your field, you are a highly educated and intelligent person. We all can learn. Furthermore your own field should give you insight into human behaviour – which is the same for scientists as for other people – scientists have mortgages, careers, power politics and have to eat like everyone does.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Phil Jourdan in #271…. as they say here on footy panel shows…. “you idiot”

    “everyone knows it – for the simple reason you cannot disprove what has yet to be proven. ”

    what a stupid comment…. of course you can disprove something that is unproven. You could prove I’m not Elvis for example. you idiot.

    00

  • #

    MattB:
    July 27th, 2011 at 1:04 am
    Phil Jourdan in #271…. as they say here on footy panel shows…. “you idiot”

    “everyone knows it – for the simple reason you cannot disprove what has yet to be proven. ”

    what a stupid comment…. of course you can disprove something that is unproven. You could prove I’m not Elvis for example. you idiot.

    How would one go about that scientifically? Since it is not a fact, how do we disprove that it was proven you were Elvis? Ah, but it was never proven you were Elvis! So how do you undo something that was never done? Idiot.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    What’s the definition of insanity. Arguing with an idiot.

    There’s no point. Ignore it.

    00

  • #
    lan

    where is the CSIRO on sea levels?

    00

  • #

    [snip anonymous troll throwing insults without substantiating anything.]

    00