JoNova

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


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



This is why they want to stop skeptics speaking – Monckton swings 9%

Christopher Monckton had no slides, no graphs, and only part of one hour, and was faced with tough questions from seasoned journalists, 100 stacked seats of activists who hate him, and yet in that time 9% of the people who saw the debate and thought we needed to act on CO2, changed their mind.

This ladies and gentlemen tells you what a thin veneer it all is. We are one good prime time documentary away from a mass exodus from the Act!-now!-or!-Fry! camp. It’s so finely balanced that only a frenetic campaign of denigration, silence and assiduous denial will keep the public from “getting” it.

“Lord Monckton wins Press Club debate and persuaded 9% more Australians
to his view that ‘Concerns about Global Warming are exaggerated’”

Roy Morgan Research

As far as believers of Global Warming are concerned, it’s absolutely rational to bully, namecall, whip up smear campaigns, and mock the skeptics. When they don’t have any good answers to the basic questions: Where’s the evidence, and Can we change the Weather?  They don’t have any choice.

Please gentlefolk, can we have a moments silence for the impending death of a brilliant ambitious scam that is as we speak, in it’s final moments of glory.

The numbers are falling fast

Jan 2011  54% of Australians said if we don’t act now it will be too late, but by On May 30th 50% of Australians agreed. Six weeks later, on July 14th/15th only 46% still think so. That’s an 8% fall in 6 months, and half of that in just the last 6 weeks.

——————————————-

This special Roy Morgan Reactor survey covered an Australia-wide cross-section of 218 respondents aged 14+. For a closer look at the Reactor and how the different points expressed by Lord Monckton and Dr. Denniss were received by those reacting to the debate, please view the full Reactor highlights here: http://onlinereactor.com.au/PlayerCI.aspx?jid=92&h=crnbqkkkuq%0D%0D

UPDATE: Monckton has just announced a challenge to Malcolm Turnbull – read it here

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.8/10 (4 votes cast)
This is why they want to stop skeptics speaking – Monckton swings 9%, 7.8 out of 10 based on 4 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/432rxxl

68 comments to This is why they want to stop skeptics speaking – Monckton swings 9%

  • #

    NO! Not one moment of silence. Not one particle of a sign of respect. They must be hounded to the end and be treated as the life sucking vampires that they are. They are not merely wrong, they are evil to the core! Their monstrous plan to control the breath of life is sufficient proof of their internal malignancy. That their plan is justified by the use of a total fraud only makes it worse.

    They want not only our slavery and our productive wealth, they also want our lives. May they be forever damned to the hell they are planning to construct for us. I shall not lift a finger to save them as they fade from this world crying piteously “We didn’t mean this to happen.” They have justly earned every pain, agony, and loss that they will experience.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I can see why the alarmists are concerned. if they were real scientists, they would not be concerned about results like this. But AGW is not science. With luck, it may be in the future (at least the study of it), but right now it is just dogma.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Jeremy

    In the U.S.A. we would call that an 18% swing, not 9%. Less RMS, more PP.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DougS

    Joanne:

    “…It’s so finely balanced that only a frenetic campaign of denigration, silence and assiduous denial will keep the public from “getting” it…”

    Dear old Aunty is doing her best.

    The unspeakable BBC has issued a report by Dr Steve Jones (I don’t think he’s a relative of you-know-who) stating, among other ludicrous things, that the BBC has to stop giving AGW sceptics so much air time…..eh?

    Apparently, they’ve had enough of all those prime-time sceptic slots and endless debates about AGW and must, in future, be more biased in favour of the orthodoxy!!!

    You really couldn’t make this stuff up!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Watching the Reactor’s age breakdown on responses was disheartening. Seems only the 35-49 year olds are willing and capable of using their brains.

    The 50+ crowd was voting for the warmists. If I was being cynical I’d guess they thought that even though they won’t be better off under the tax, at least with compensation everyone else will be taxed more than them.

    Worst of all were the 18-34 group. Just consensus all the way, and even showed little positive bumps in reaction to hollow mockery by Denniss. If these people are our future then we really are doomed. Wait… does saying that mean I’m finally over-the-hill? I think Aristotle used to say that about the younger generation too.

    Okay so all PR and public education from now on should target the 18-35s. Although the under 30s don’t take politics seriously, they are more likely to be able to change their minds in the next 4 crucial weeks.

    Can we find a way to make CAGW skepticism cool without invoking the idea of aimless rebellion?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    A. Nonymous

    Hasn’t Tim Lambert already demolished Mockton?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wilbert merel robichaud

    Indeed they cannot be left to rot peacefully.we must keep asking them to explain their belief and challenged their scientific knowledge. I am presently debating a few teachers on my Fishing website and the one QUOTE (professori @ May 27 2011, 08:27 AM) *
    robbie, your grasp of any of this is summed up in your own words, “When I talk to kids and they believe that CO2 is a poison”. It is a poison!! Ask the 2 (i believe) shipyard workers who died in the belly of a barge, overcome by CO2. It is a gas we expel, because it is toxic to our bodies, i.e. poisonous. Anyone who is ignorant of that fact, probably shouldn’t exhibit further their ignorance (over and over again), in the manner you so regularly, fervently embrace.”

    I shot back ” It is a Gas we expel??? Exhale is more like it…. But in your case i could make an exception.” Go read about asphyxiation… Twit!
    This is a University teacher! How can we not fight this kind of Ignorance? We have to do it for our Children and grand children.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Roy Hogue

    If you want to win the war you don’t stop the fight because your opponent is starting to lose. You keep at him unmercifully.

    Lincoln had generals who could win battles. But after a win they would stop to rest and…who knows? It was only when Lincoln put Grant in charge, a man who didn’t stop when a battle was won but went right on after the fleeing enemy, did the North win the Civil War.

    Take a lesson from the past. Play to win. The other side certainly is.

    The only unforgivable thing in a war is to lose it!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Roy Hogue: #7

    … only when Lincoln put Grant in charge, a man who didn’t stop when a battle was won but went right on after the fleeing enemy, did the North win the Civil War.

    Yep. Grant is reported to have told his subordinate commanders, “An enemy soldier, presenting his back whilst running away, is a more productive use of ammunition than trying to hit a crouching or kneeling man who is pressing an attack”.

    It is now taught as the statement that marked the end of “chivalry in warfare”, and one of the reasons why his detractors (on both sides of the war) hated him.*

    Monkton may be chivalrous, but I am not. Given a chance, I would be cranking Mr Gatling’s fine piece of ordinance, for all I was worth.

    * Trivia: It is also apparently the source of the myth that one cowboy could shoot another in a “fair fight”, but would never shoot somebody in the back. Most cowboys working on the big western ranches, were ex-confederate soldiers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Andrew McRae: #5

    Reactor’s age breakdown on responses:

    This breakdown is an excellent example of social conditioning – it may well find its way into a book or two …

    Seems only the 35-49 year olds are willing and capable of using their brains.

    This is the group that are at the pinnacle of their careers, so tend to be better informed generally. They are also the cohort who, at least in North America, Western Europe and Australasia, had the best education in science and maths – real science and real maths – and had access to computers as a business tool, and not as a means of entertainment and communication. As a group, they tend to be seriously serious. If Serious Cat was a human, it would be in this group.

    The 50+ crowd was voting for the warmists. If I was being cynical I’d guess they thought that even though they won’t be better off under the tax, at least with compensation everyone else will be taxed more than them.

    This group are “the Boomers”. Good education system, at least in the above continents, but insufficient resources to deliver it effectively – lack of teachers, lack of classrooms, and so very large class sizes. Much of the teaching was done by demonstration and rote (most chemistry experiments were demonstrated by the teacher, and not tried by the students), so this cohort were used to being told “stuff” by those in authority. That sort of thing tends to continue right through adult life.

    It is also such a large cohort that it tends to bias any comparison between age groups unless numbers are adjusted to account for the bias, which means you loose some definition.

    Worst of all were the 18-34 group. Just consensus all the way

    These are gen-X who are also seriously serious, and gen-Y who are the real party animals. A significant proportion of current financial traders (on the floor) are gen-X. They will find a way to make a buck in almost any situation. These people probably don’t subscribe to climate change as a disaster, but they do see it as an opportunity to make money. You will not change their attitudes through scientific argument, unless you can show that more profit can be made by being sceptical. If you can do that, they will change in a flash.

    Mind you, they are all heavily committed to what is now being called the “Fiat Currency” bubble, and if and when that bubble bursts, their attitudes will certainly change, and very quickly too. But in the meantime, they are probably untouchable, so we are left with the Gen-Y and the Teenies.

    Okay so all PR and public education from now on should target the 18-35s. Although the under 30s don’t take politics seriously, they are more likely to be able to change their minds in the next 4 crucial weeks.

    So, it is probably time the sceptics started a Twitter war. The first person to get a skeptical comment trending on Twitter gets to win the coveted title of Skeptic of the Year, 2011.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Fred Furkenburger

    One man talks in “facts” the other talks in “consensus” or “analogy” (I think it’s fairly obvious which one is which). One of the more extraordinary things that this debate shows is that people of a conservative political persuasion tend to react positively to facts and negatively to debate by analogy and consensus. On the other hand people with left/green bias tend to go in the completely opposite direction. It’s as if facts don’t count but a sort of “herd instinct” does! Might raise some interesting considerations for political parties when they formulate their election campaigns.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Rereke #8

    Brings to mind the words of Hilaire Belloc where he witnessed a massacre of natives in Africa who were rebelling against colonial pillage.

    No matter what happens
    We have got
    The Maxim gun
    And they have not.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Athena

    Yes Andrew (5)

    Can we find a way to make CAGW skepticism cool without invoking the idea of aimless rebellion?

    Turn the tables.

    CARBON DIOXIDE GREENS THE PLANET!

    on our tee-shirts, caps, mugs and bumper stickers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    This reflects exactly what amazes me. A policy based on propaganda cannot succeed, even if it gets up temporarily (sorry bad pun). We saw this in East Germany, which was lauded as a great place and which won lots of medals at every Olympic games. But they had to build a wall to stop people escaping the workers’ paradise.

    This is even more threadbare, since I doubt that the Greens and progressive wing of the ALP can implement secret police and gulags and gain acceptance by force majeure. Therefore they cannot possibly succeed since about 80% of voters do not believe their religion, and will not therefore voluntarily join it. I’m mystified.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Glenn

    “Jan 2010 54% of Australians said if we don’t act now it will be too late”

    Jo, I think you mean Jan 2011, otherwise the change is over 18 months, not 6. :)

    REPLY: Yes! Ta :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Andrew McRae:
    July 23rd, 2011 at 4:11 am

    Worst of all were the 18-34 group. Just consensus all the way, and even showed little positive bumps in reaction to hollow mockery by Denniss. If these people are our future then we really are doomed

    While i’m sure Andrew ment the above as a gereralism, there is one of this generation I wish to formally welcome to the climate blog world. Welcome Climate Noncomformist, your aticles are inspiring and a sign that the brain washing in our education system has not yet corrupted all our youth.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Bob Malloy: #13

    Welcome Climate Noncomformist …

    Seconded.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    policy based on propaganda cannot succeed…

    The evidence is that it can succeed. Think Germany 1937-45.
    If there is an economic incentive added to the propaganda, then people will ignore the obvious lies. This is the mode of operation of the UN (lets create economic punishment for those who disagree with us).
    Even if propaganda based policy cannot survive in the long-term, it can demonstrably lead you to disaster in the short-term.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Bruce:

    All true of course. They might not have that ability you mention to start with but all they have to do is create total distrust within neighbourhoods. When you have anonymous informers within a community you have an Eastern Europe situation. Such governments granted favours to informants.

    Greens promote the formation of community groups for all the usual “touchy-feely” reasons. Just as in the former communist countries they would quickly infiltrate and control these groups because most people are apathetic about such things. An incumbent and compliant ALP could give the Greens all the legislative power they demanded. Hitler got power in 1933 due to the initial support of the conservative party.

    No good thinking: “Oh, but that could never happen here”. That’s exactly what they thought where it did happen!


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Arie Brand: #17

    Thank you for the ad hom references. Would you care to make a coherent argument debunking his scientific position?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Bruce #12,

    On reflection, you have me trying to think of a govt policy in the last 3 years that is not propaganda based. I cannot think of an example.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    That Roy Morgan poll has questions that are absurd. THere is no reasonable middle ground… all out and out skepticism or alarmist.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Arie Brand

    Rereke, you obviously didn’t get any further than the first bit of the first video. In the rest there is plenty of information on things that Monckton got hilariously wrong. As he is mostly talking for an uninformed audience he is generally, during his lectures, not picked up on that. The criticism comes later, from more informed quarters, but he just ignores that because he knows that next time around he will get away with it again.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Its also not just talks like Monckton’s its the net in general and more people are finding out for themselves or just feel they have been duped. Which we know is true.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    One of Monckton’s strong points during the Press Club debate is that he showed in no uncertain terms that the Warmists’ policies were potentially devastating for the working people of Australia.

    Yes, even the privileged Lord, thanks to his reality and humanity, stands much closer to the working man than do the ideologically-driven and self-righteous Left/Greens.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Arie Brand,

    Monckton is wrong? How about presenting some specific evidence, in your own words instead of second and third hand anecdotes.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Arie Brand@21

    You obviously are not the brightest button on the block. Monckton has a classics degree from Cambridge which indicates that he can think logically to get to that university in the first place. Also more than can be said for the unknown producer(s)of the Monckton “debunking” videos. They are boring and pointless and only a masochist would wade through that sort of stuff. They/he obviously don’t/doesn’t know where the real action is or it would have been featured at the beginning of much shorter videos. That ultimately is all that matters.

    There is only one proposition on which the whole structure of catastrophic AGW stands or falls. Destroy that and the whole edifice crumbles. Monckton, whatever else he may get right or wrong knows that and that was the focus of his attack on the catastrophists. All that needs to be shown is that the Earth’s climate is not sensitive to CO2 forcing and the CAGW game is up. Monckton, at the press club, showed from data that the high climate sensitivity postulated by the IPCC and its fellow travelers is nothing more than a guess and that it is in opposition to the empirical data. Further he pointed to the continuing work of Lindzen and others which is pointing to and adding strength to the same conclusion.

    The sort of stuff those videos touch on is irrelevant to the real destroyer of CAGW viz the empirical atmospheric and ocean temperature time series data. Monckton knows this. You don’t.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Bob Malloy@13:

    Yes it certainly was a broad statistical generalisation, since I am also in the 18-34 group.

    With such coarse groupings to work with how can one not make sweeping statements. If we’re out on the street handing out leaflets we need to know who to target.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Rereke Whakaaro@9:

    As for twitter… bah. Theoretically you have to convert someone who has a lot of followers, then they do the rest of the conversions for you, leading to retweets and the much hallowed “trending topic”. On a serious topic like CAGW… I’ll believe it when I see it.

    Calling all Skeptwits, Rereke has set the goal!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Arie Brand

    “The sort of stuff those videos touch on is irrelevant to the real destroyer of CAGW viz the empirical atmospheric and ocean temperature time series data. Monckton knows this. You don’t.”

    Apparently your faith in this obvious charlatan is impervious to falsification. Though not for you but hopefully for some less gullible bystander:

    Here is A/Prof. John Abrahams:

    “I wondered, what does Mr. Monckton know that 97% of the world’s leading climate scientists don’t?

    Is he some Galileo shouting truth from the rooftops?

    I had to find out. Last year, I performed a little investigation. I actually read the articles that Mr. Monckton used as evidence against the concerns of climate change.

    What I discovered was astonishing.

    None of the articles I read supported the claims or inferences that Mr. Monckton was promoting. Just to be sure, I began to write to the authors of the papers. Of the 16 authors I wrote to, all of them agreed with me: Mr. Monckton had misrepresented or misunderstood their work.

    So, where does Mr. Monckton’s science go astray? Nearly everywhere.

    Here are a few highlights of his mistaken understanding:

    Mr. Monckton claimed that the International Astronomical Union (IAU) had a symposium wherein they declared that recent warming was caused by the sun. I wrote to officials at the IAU and they stated that they made no such declaration. Mr. Monckton has twice admitted that he was in error on this claim.

    Mr. Monckton claimed that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) uses canvas buckets to measure ocean temperatures because more accurate methods are “not convenient, they go the wrong way”. I wrote to Sydney Levitus at NOAA and asked if this was true. He wrote back, “Mr. Monckton’s statement to the effect that NOAA uses temperature measurements gathered by dragging canvas buckets through the ocean are completely false. In fact, I know of no scientific group that would even think such a technique could supply useful measurements.”

    Mr. Monckton claimed that “the medieval warm period was real, global, and warmer than today”. He showed a number of papers which reportedly support his claim. Well, I wrote to a number of these authors and they all agreed that Mr. Monckton had not accurately presented their work. For instance, Dr. Anil Gupta told me, “You are right, we never said the medieval warm period was warmer than today”. Another researcher, Dr. David Anderson, stated, “Your interpretation (of our work) is more correct”. Dr. Lloyd Kiegwin said that I was “absolutely right,” and Dr. David Frank stated, “temperatures now, are indeed much warmer than during medieval times”.

    Mr. Monckton also wrote that Arctic sea ice is fine, it has been steady for a decade. Monckton used information from a research group called IARC-JAXA. I wrote to two scientists there, Dr. Larry Hinzman and Dr. John Walsh. They both agreed that Monckton had not correctly presented that data. Just to be sure, I wrote to Dr. Mark Serreze from the National Snow and Ice Data Center. He emphatically stated, “Monckton is wrong”.

    I could go on and on … but we get the picture. Monckton’s science is wrong and Monckton’s interpretation of others’ work does not agree with the originators of the data.”

    Anyway I will sign off here as well because anyone who enter this “swampland of personal insult and misrepresentation” can only take small doses of its atmosphere at the time.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anonymous

    It’s not just Monckton, Jo, you’re also playing your part. Well done. :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Arie Brand at #32

    OK Arie I’ll bite. I won’t even cite Chris Monckton’s line by line rebuttal of Abraham. Oops, sorry. You can rebut his rebuttal if you like. No quoting Dr Cook thankyou, your own work please or the teacher will be unhappy.

    On the other hand what I want to know is what you think of the two peer reviewed papers (other than his own) that he cited in the debate. Dr Denniss seemed to have nothing to say to them, so one might think they are rather scientific and comprehensive. It could just be that the 2XCO2 values derived during that work, respectively 0.6 and 0.7 C, falsify the CAGW hypothesis.

    I am sure you might dislike the CAGW hypothesis to be falsified, so I thought you might wish to comment about these two papers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Arie Brand,

    You seem to quote Monckton – so how about linking to the papers or sources to substantiate your allegations he made those statements?

    Aas for the MWP and Greenland, it is still not possible to grow crops in those locations on Greenland that the Vikings could during the MWP. And it is still not possible to grow grapes in parts of Scotland that the Romans could all those years ago.

    For existing temperatures to be warmer than the MWP, then it might be helpful if both Greenland and the UK showed evidence that those two land masses returned to their MWP temperatures. As they haven’t, it is clear that today’s temperatures are NOT warmer than the MWP.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Let’s hope that 9% translates into more unbiased coverage.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Arie Brand:

    Mark Serreze, huh. Wasn’t he the joker who forecast the end of the arctic ice by 2009. It’s still there doing what it’s always done, cycling from summer to winter. Doesn’t stop some from predicting its demise every year.

    The last big melt was due to unusual wind patterns blowing the ice to warmer waters. Only the most rabid warmists don’t acknowledge that now.

    It might have been Niels Bohr who opined:
    “Prediction can be tricky, particularly about the future.”

    Doomsayers should take note.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wilbert merel robichaud

    Arie Brand:“I wondered, what does Mr. Monckton know that 97% of the world’s leading climate scientists don’t?
    Chuckle!!75 out of 77 = 97% Did not take time to read the report did you?
    ” I began to write to the authors of the papers. Of the 16 authors I wrote to, all of them agreed with me: Mr. Monckton had misrepresented or misunderstood their work.” well bite me!! How could that be possible that authors agree with him? must be one of those unprecedented thingy we hear so much about.Instead of telling us what (IAU) said or ( (NOAA) said why not paste the Emails so we can all read them.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Andrew McRae: #31

    Calling all Skeptwits, Rereke has set the goal!

    In my comment at #11 (why do they move around like that?), I had my tongue firmly embedded in my cheek. Unfortunately, I don’t know the keyboard code for that emoticon.

    However, having said that, does anybody have influence with Justin Bieber?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tom

    Andrew McRae @ #5, Rereke Whakaaro @ #11: I find these analyses facinating. To them, I would like to add my own untested hypotheses for further research:
    1. That the vast majority of measured public support for the hypothesis of Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming comes from those employed in the non-productive (government) sector of the economy.
    2. That countries with the strongest tradition of a religion (guess which?) that teaches that the human race are evil sinners have the strongest measured public belief in the IPCC CAGW hypothesis.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Arie Brand: #32

    Anyway I will sign off here as well because anyone who enter this “swampland of personal insult and misrepresentation” can only take small doses of its atmosphere at the time.

    “And thus did our adversary quit the field of battle, to claim a victory within his own estate, from that which was a rout to all other estates of men.”

    A pity he couldn’t argue the actual science though, I hoped I might learn something new.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brett_McS

    Monkton is a fantastic speaker, and seems to have eidetic memory, but at the recent talk in Newcastle I was equally impressed with Jo and her husband David Evans. They are not as flamboyant, but they are clear and interesting, and I suspect they would be as effective at turning opinions given more exposure. I was especially impressed with David’s story, which I had not heard before; a true man of integrity.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bit Smarter

    Wow this is where you deniers live – thanks for making me feel smart


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Tom: #39

    I don’t know about Andrew, but I can’t comment in regard to to this research because the form of employment; country of origin; and philosophical belief, were not recorded determinants.

    However, it has been observed on many occasions, that the majority of people will act in accordance with the majority of their peers, irrespective of what they personally believe.

    It appears to be part of our inbuilt survival mechanism, to follow orders from the leader, and go along with fellow members of the tribe. This desire (need) to comply, might well extend to sources of income (and indirectly survival), and to belief systems (and indirectly admittance to an afterlife).

    Hence, the majority of journalists believe in AGW because the majority of journalists believe in AGW. I think the journalistic saying is: “Nobody likes a spotted Zebra”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brett_McS

    Tom #39, your number 2 is probably the opposite of the truth. A strong belief in traditional religion more than likely inoculates people from the passing fad religion that is greenism/leftism.

    Traditional religions have been around for thousands of years, so they are necessarily consistent (in some sense) with a stable society. The green/leftist religion is, by contrast, completely destructive and will lay waste to any society taken in by it, in short order.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Quoting John Abraham:

    I wrote to Sydney Levitus at NOAA and asked if this was true. He wrote back, “Mr. Monckton’s statement to the effect that NOAA uses temperature measurements gathered by dragging canvas buckets through the ocean are completely false. In fact, I know of no scientific group that would even think such a technique could supply useful measurements.”

    Both John and Sydney should probably read a bit of the “Real” Climate blog where they not only accept that a variety of buckets have been used, but not only buckets, also engine intakes and more recently the argo buoys.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/of-buckets-and-blogs/

    In addition, they explain the use of correction factors which apparently is sufficient to turn bad data into good data… presto!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    Brett @43

    Traditional religions have been around for thousands of years, so they are necessarily consistent (in some sense) with a stable society. The green/leftist religion is, by contrast, completely destructive and will lay waste to any society taken in by it, in short order.

    Serious religions have a set of basic tenets that sets a moral framework, whereas Greenism is just an idea (a good idea in itself but ) which many have latched onto for their own purposes.
    Indeed religions have been hijacked by evil men too, to control the followers but it’s much easier to do with Greenism because it lacks a coherent moral framework, that would serve to counter such abuse.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    And to my previous comment @ 45:
    The same might be said for socialism.
    Just look at the excesses that followed the French Revolution, by those self appointed Guardians of Public Safety, Robespierre et al. They lacked a moral compass to guide them through such difficulties as the situation in Lyon, where they slaughtered thousands , of those they were supposedly protecting.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mal

    “As far as believers of Global Warming are concerned, it’s absolutely rational to bully, namecall, whip up smear campaigns, and mock the skeptics.” This is an extraordinary good description of what is is that climate denialists (because that is what you are)do. This entire site seems to be an exercise in this sort of rhetoric.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Mal @ 49

    Playing “dive bomber troll” are we Mal?

    Why don’t you have the guts to go back and answer the posts to comments you have made in previous threads?

    Or, like a baby, are you relying on somebody else to clean up your mess?

    Oh, now I get it – you vote for the Greens.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Rereke @ 10,

    You quoted Grant,

    “An enemy soldier, presenting his back whilst running away, is a more productive use of ammunition than trying to hit a crouching or kneeling man who is pressing an attack”.

    and say,

    It is now taught as the statement that marked the end of “chivalry in warfare”, and one of the reasons why his detractors (on both sides of the war) hated him.

    In peace, give me statesmen. But in war give me George S. Patton and Ulysses S. Grant. Monkton is the only one we have molded after Grant and Patton. We need more like him.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Roy Hogue: #51

    I am sorry. I did not put the second quote in its proper context.

    The lecture I was referring to was about the futility of diplomacy (Chamberlain) against open military aggression (HItler), and about the stupidity of striving for a “higher ideal” when the matter would be best solved by a swift kick to the reproductive equipment (metaphorically speaking, of course).

    Another brilliant quote from the same lecture: “It needs inadequate politicians to start a war, and outstanding generals to end one.”

    We now live in an age of inadequate bureaucrats, masquerading both as inadequate politicians and as inadequate generals.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Another brilliant quote from the same lecture: “It needs inadequate politicians to start a war, and outstanding generals to end one.”

    Silly quote if you ask me, I prefer Sun Tsu: War is like a fire, if you don’t put it out, it will burn itself out.

    Of course you don’t need outstanding generals to end a war, every war throughout all of history has managed to come to an end, for all sorts of reasons.

    Having outstanding generals might improve your chances of being the last man standing, but then again Hitler had access to excellent generals (and the latest equipment, and strong troops with high morale) and it didn’t help him any.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Rereke, re your comment in the next thread.

    By all means don’t let a good opportunity go to waste. A whole lot might be said on the subject though and Jo doesn’t have infinite server space.

    Anyway — I was tempted to observe that generals make poor presidents and presidents make poor generals. Now at the moment the U.S. is stuck with a president who thinks he’s both while, not surprisingly, being neither. It would seem, however that you have the same general observation.

    We now live in an age of inadequate bureaucrats, masquerading both as inadequate politicians and as inadequate generals.

    So I’m a day late and a dollar short on that one.

    The second statement was apropos also.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    54, last paragraph should read, “Your second statement was apropos also.”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] algo va calando, y la opinión pública es cada vez más escéptica del alarmismo del clima[-->]. También ayuda, cómo no, el que se les haya cazado en tantas trampas y malas prácticas a los [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Here is a little gem from the Weekend Australian’s article by Thomas Barlow a former Science Adviser to the Howard government. The whole article is worth a read as it encapsulates the reasons why thoughtful voters see through Gillard’s rationale for a carbon tax.

    …”Alex Wonhas leads CSIRO’s Energy Transformed Flagship. At the end of one of the carbon tax advertisements, he observes that “the transformation that we are about to undergo is a similar transformation to the industrial revolution”. Now scientists are renowned for hyperbole. The standards of proof they use when talking about the impact of their work are never the same as the standards they use in doing their work.

    But this claim takes the established double standard to an unprecedented level.

    The industrial revolution replaced wind power with coal power, it led to a dramatic increase in energy consumption and it enabled industry to produce manufactured goods at massively higher volumes and at drastically lower prices than was previously the case.

    Contrast this with the outcomes from Australia’s proposed clean energy future. Our little revolution here seeks to replace coal power with wind power, its overt intention is to decrease energy consumption and it can only increase the cost of manufactured goods. The debate today is entirely about who should pay for it.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Tel: #53

    … every war throughout all of history has managed to come to an end, for all sorts of reasons.

    I am not so sure. How do you define the “end” of a conflict if there is no decisive event?

    I am also a student of Sun Tzu, and although I am not aware of the quote you gave, he also said: “Victory is the main object in war. If this is long delayed, weapons are blunted and morale depressed”. He also said, “There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited”.

    The “troubles” in Northern Ireland have been going on since the time of William of Orange. The Hundred Years War stopped and started on innumerable occasions, only to flare up again. The Napoleonic Wars also stopped and then started again.

    A war can never be said to have come to an end unless there is a decisive victory, and that requires good and capable leadership. Something we actually lack today.

    The war in Iraq was started by inadequate politicians and ended by … whom? It ended by attrition, and so will flare up again at some point in the future. The same will be said for the current war in Afghanistan. And the war on terror, does not even have a clearly defined enemy, let alone clear aims and objectives.

    War is a lot like a forest fire. It is either burning, or it is out, or is smouldering underground only to flare up again.

    America (with its allies) does not currently have outstanding generals, so its military adventures are inadequate, and that is sapping its strength.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    DougS @4

    I nearly choked on my cornflakes when I read this in the paper; that the BBC is allowed to break the terms of its charter and not present an impartial view. The bias in the BBC on so many fronts is soooo obvious. I’ve also noticed an upsurge in GW references in the news lately both TV and newspaper, as if there’s another splurge on trying to convince the people that the emperor does actually has clothes.

    As usual, Christopher Booker expresses it so well

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/8656765/Steve-Jones-tells-the-BBC-dont-give-denialists-so-much-air-time.html


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Arie Brand needs to contact NOAA and ask them how they came about ocean and Sea Surface Temperatures for the period prior to the 1940′s. They do publish graphs purporting to show temperatures from that era afterall.

    OCEAN TEMPERATURES

    Over the 70% of the planet represented by the oceans, the only indication of temperature history comes from small islands and ships. In some cases, the air temperature is measured in the usual way from a Stevenson Screen located on an island or a ship, while in others the sea surface temperature (SST) itself is taken as a proxy for the atmospheric temperature overlying the ocean.

    This suffers even more from geographical spread problems than the land temperatures. The use of islands to represent vast ocean areas is one problem already mentioned. In addition, the temperature recorded on an island is often from the only town on that island and thus affected by its own urban heat island and other warming creep errors already mentioned.

    In the case of ships, the instruments are generally maintained properly and the micro-environment is not subject to much change. However, the ship is constantly travelling so that a temperature taken during the day in one location may be 200 nautical miles from the next temperature taken during the night.

    Ships travel on well-established routes so that vast areas of ocean, are simply not traversed by ships at all, and even those that do, may not record weather data on the way. Attempting to compile a `global mean temperature’ from such fragmentary, disorganised, and geographically unbalanced data is more guesswork than science.

    A Hole in the Bucket

    As to sea surface temperatures (SST), this data is even more fragmentary than the air temperature readings. Prior to around 1940, SST was collected by throwing buckets over the side of a ship, hoisting it on deck and dipping a thermometer in it.

    What could be wrong with the bucket method you may ask.

    How deep is the bucket dropped into the water? (SST varies with depth)
    How long does it take to hoist the bucket up to the deck? (the water is cooling while it is hoisted)
    Is the deck on which the bucket sits hot under the sun? (If so, the bucket water will heat)
    Or is the deck cool from sea splash and wind breeze? (If so, the water will cool)
    Is the bucket made of canvas, wood, or metal? (this affects evaporation and heat
    transfer rates)
    Is the thermometer dipped in immediately,
    or is there some delay? (time delay equals cooling or heating)
    Is the bucket left in the sun, or in the shade? (also affects heating/cooling rate)
    How long is the thermometer left in the bucket? (as the water cools or heats while
    waiting for the thermometer to settle)
    How carefully is the thermometer read? (usually by a 17-year-old cadet).

    Get the idea?

    Long-term climatic data gathered by buckets is little short of junk.

    Bucket data is only useful for immediate weather prediction purposes, not for long-term statistical climatic analysis. Any other data collected in such bizarre ways would be laughed out of any other scientific forum – but not from Greenhouse forums, where such data is tortured with esoteric precision until it confesses to anything you want it to.

    In 1989, MIT did an analysis of SST bucket data (brave fellows), but could only find a +0.2 deg.C warming between 1860 and 1940, hardly the stuff of catastrophes (Newell & al, MIT Technology Review, Nov/Dec 1989, p.80).

    via ‘What’s wrong with the surface record’ by John Daly

    Let us know when NOAA replies to your poignant questions Arie


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Rereke @ 58,

    America (with its allies) does not currently have outstanding generals, so its military adventures are inadequate, and that is sapping its strength.

    I’m not disagreeing with you. :-) But before I can get my mind around a statement like that I’d need to know what defines an “outstanding general”. And I confess I’ve a little trouble coming up with that definition when politics is driving the military decisions.

    My point always was the current fight against the alarmism and the impending tax. You don’t relent just because your opponent starts to lose ground. You press on all the harder.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Baa Humbug, yes the quote from John Abraham and Sydney Levitus saying:

    In fact, I know of no scientific group that would even think such a technique could supply useful measurements.

    Would have to be the biggest admission of ignorance I have seen in a long while. Apparently Sydney Levitus doesn’t even have a passing understanding of his own side’s argument in this debate, let alone anyone else’s position.

    However, I caution that John Abraham does not provide the full email of what he asked, and what the answer was — only a potted summary. There may be layers of BS at work here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Rereke Whakaaro:

    If you search “war is like a fire” in google books you find it pretty quickly in the Thomas Cleary translation of TAOW attributed to Li Quan who in turn attributes his source to “Spring and Autumn Annals“.

    Based on your definition of being at war, we might as well just redefine peace to be a very slow war of attrition. Past wrongs are never fully forgotten, and cultural / racial / religious differences never go away.

    If you want to use the Irish problems for your example then you might want to consider that the Irish Clans (and their half-cousins the Scots Clans) have been warlike and feuding amongst themselves since the Romans found them, and very likely before. The only thing they all agree on is the premium value of a very long and hard-fought grudge. They fought against Roman occupation and gained a reputation for being absolute savages, they battled Vikings on many occasions, and needless to say they didn’t react well to being colonised by the English either. The moment they shook off the yoke of British rule, they were left begging for the yoke of EU rule, and now that same EU wants them to pay back a few debts they are doing what Irish people do… getting cranky about it.

    I don’t think it makes a very useful definition of warfare to just define it as the natural human condition. I feel it makes more sense to just say that if people know they are at war, then we say they are indeed at war, and if they have to question, “Are we actually at war?” then then the answer is “No, that’s not actually war”. Needless to say, all definitions that attempt to take a real world and split it into two distinct states are going to be wrong on some detail or other, but that’s too bad.

    By the way, using your definition of war, the US Civil War never really ended… something that might become relevant again as the US economy becomes more heavily dependent on agriculture to make up the loss of manufacturing base; even more so if foreign oil starts to dry up.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    KeithH

    “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 !!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    In the second comment, I noted that alarmists were concerned. And to prove me correct, this thread has a lot of pro-warmists dropping by to only deliver ad hominems trying to goad the skeptics. What they have accomplished, however, is an affirmation of their own impotence, and the strength of the skeptic position.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JPeden

    Arie Brand:
    July 23rd, 2011 at 1:44 pm #32

    Here is A/Prof. John Abrahams:

    “I wondered, what does Mr. Monckton know that 97% of the world’s leading climate scientists don’t?

    Well, Arie and John, just off the top of my head:

    1]Perhaps Monckton knows that the CO2=CAGW hypotheses have produced not even one correct empirical prediction yet as compared to reality and the null hypothesis, which has continuously found that there’s nothing new going on in “climate” in need of a new, CO2=CAGW explanation, and which itself is therefore not in any significant need of the particular “physics” used in the GCM’s which have thus far made the completely faulty CO2=CAGW based predictions?

    That is, i] perhaps Monckton knows that so far there is objectively still nothing new transpiring in the climate since the advent of the current rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations which needs the partcular CO2=CAGW “physics” to explain it; and also, ii] that as disproof of the CO2=CAGW hypotheses, the predicted events based upon the CO2=CAGW hypotheses have simply not occurred! i.e., no ‘hot spot’, no measured increase in Oceanic heat content, Trenberth’s own admission of the “lost heat” otherwise required by the CO2=CAGW ‘physics’; no increase in atmospheric temperatures over at least the last 15 years, increasing Antarctic sea ice and net World sea ice, decreasing to all time low Accumulated Cyclone Energy amounts, record low numbers of higher category Hurricanes; insignificant and decellerating to even decreasing sea level ‘rise’, and so on.

    Or, 2] perhaps Monckton knows the same thing the Chinese and Indians know: that the very same fossil fuel combustion which the CO2=CAGW hypotheses claim to be the cause of an alleged and still unmanifested “catastrophe”, is in reality instead a necessary part of the cure to the existing real, manifested catastrophes their nations already suffer from as a result of underdevelopment, a fate which the 97% of Climate Scientists, enc., instead seem to want the developed nations to return to, “before it’s too late”, despite any empirical proof whatsoever of what they claim to “know”?

    Such that in general, 3] perhaps Monckton knows what we all know, that the alleged cure to the alleged disease Climate Scientists claim to be caused by CO2=CAGW is already known to be worse than the still only alleged disease.

    Or else, Arie and all your “knowledgeable” Climate Scientists – and, again, consistent with China and India’s where-the-rubber-meets-the-road scientific determination as to the lack of worth attending to the CO2=CAGW ‘hypotheses’ – please tell us why the ipcc Climate Science, enc., knew to exclude Countries containing ~5 billion of the Earth’s ~6.7 billion people from having to follow the allegedly urgent Kyoto Protocol cure, right from the beginning? Huh? Maybe so that the underdeveloped Countries such as India and China would be able to then share equitably in James Hansen’s never manifested “destruction of Creation” climate events? Eh, I don’t think so.

    Or, 4] perhaps Mockton knows that ipcc Climate Science is not practicing real scientific method and principle science, but is instead only a massive Propaganda Operation?

    Which, 5] also explains why the Climate Scientists themselves and their similarly feckless Believers do not practice what they preach. Another thing which we all know!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Arie Brand:
    July 23rd, 2011 at 1:44 pm #32

    Here is A/Prof. John Abrahams:

    “I wondered, what does Mr. Monckton know that 97% of the world’s leading climate scientists don’t?

    Well Arie, for one, he knows that the “97%” is a mock up. It consists of 75 of 77 scientists cherry picked out of a sample of over 10k. He knows that it is a beauty poll, and not a scientific poll, and cannot be used for any type of meaningful conclusions. He knows that those quoting the numbers are ignorant of science since that figure has no scientific credibility or meaning to it.

    What do you know?


    Report this

    00