So, here’s Tony going out on a limb, and taking a saw with him.
Rudd will lose the vote tomorrow.
Can you imagine him sitting on the Back Bench, a man who has strutted the World stage for so long, sucking up to whoever he can making himself so well known, and garnering support for that major position on that World Stage.
No!
He mentioned it today, and he’s always saying things cryptically. He said he will sit on those Back Benches until the next election, code that he is going to retire then.
Having assisted in the Labor political suicide, I suspect that a Federal election may even be closer than the due by date.
He will either go as soon as that election is called, resigning his seat, or (and here’s me sawing off the branch behind me) he’ll jump in a few weeks from now, or even sooner than that, and scurry off to the UN before their memory of KevinfromOz fades.
If he gets creamed tomorrow, what’s to say he’ll not even announce his immediate resignation at the post poll press conference, because in doing that, it will steal the thunder from Julia’s gloating winning speech.
He’s just that sort of man.
Forget being typecast as a Labor rat, as some have suggested he will be if he leaves early. What he has done this week has forever cast him as a Labor Rat anyway. Julia’s already airbrushed him from Labor history anyway, from her speech at the ALP conference.
He knows something that he’s not telling.
I know this leaves me open for ridicule at around 10AM Monday, but I really do have this sneaking suspicion about him.
I think Tony’s analysis is pretty good. It is certainly feasible, and that is all it needs to be a scenario.
I also think there is a slot for him at the UN. But as a member of the Cabinet he is bound by whatever rules of collective responsibility are used in Australia. These rules may prevent him from just walking away to go to a new job. So he quits as Minister, and to cover the reason why, he also has a go at Gillard in a “tussle” for the Leadership. He doesn’t expect to win (but will take the job if he does), but does expect to be expelled to the back benches for his effrontery. From there, he can resign his seat, and sneak away overseas while the media are focussed on who will stand in his place, and what a by-election might do to future policy, and will Julia call and early General Election?, etc. There, a slightly longer alternative scenario.
Again, old Thread, so no one will probably come back to read this comment.
Scenario.
Labor Party Caucus Room, and the result of the vote has just been announced with a whopping slap in the face victory for Julia.
Ever magnanimous, Rudd rises and says that in the interest of Party healing he should resign immediately. (having that private thought that he’s told no one, that he already has a place to go to)
Knowing that they need his vote on the floor of the Reps, this is out of the question for the Labor Party.
“No, Kevin”, they say, “you cannot go. We need your vote on the floor of the Reps.”
“Oh, I insist,” replies Kevin.
“No, sorry.”
“OK, then he has to go,” Kevin says, (ever the smiling assassin) finger pointing directly at Kevin Arbib, one of the major architects in his coup when Julia took his job. You see, a resigning Senator (who was due to face the people at the next half Senate election anyway) has to be replaced by an appointment from his own State for the remaining time he has left to serve, and he’s given a ‘pair’ in the meantime, and there’s no critical need for that extra vote in the Senate that there is currently in the Reps.
Party Room dissolves to Press conferences etc, while giving Party machine heads a suitable time to allow for time to pass, nut out a future cushy position for Senator Arbib, and for Mark to practice the standard ‘party meme’ for resignations, you know, be with my family, move in a different direction, evaluate things as I approach 40, blah blah blah, and then, while all the hubbub is still going one, make his entrance to make his exit.
No, this is not as it seems.
And Kevin, whose vote is needed on the floor of the Reps. The ONLY time he’s needed is when the Speaker says, “Division required, Ring the bells for four minutes.”
The rest of the time, he’s working furiously on that, er, other position, you know, the one he hasn’t told anyone about.
This is just so transparent.
The sooner there is a general election, the sooner he can go. Kevin will be also working furiously to ensure that election is sooner rather than later, and within seconds of the Holden Statesman leaving for the Gov Gen’s office with Julia in the back, Kev will be on the move.
I read it Tony and it sounds plausible, however there is no way those two can keep it all together for another 18 months, there will be more blood spilt and an earlier than expected election.
So, further to this, I see Julia has just mentioned at a ‘presser’ that Australia will still be seeking that position on the UN Security Council.
Now, with all the domestic problems she has here, why on Earth would she even mention that.
Say, what about this then.
Who is better placed in that Forum to pursue Australia’s interests than good old Kevin.
Watch for the following.
Let’s send a special envoy off to that Forum to pursue our interests. The Foreign Minister is the man for that job, but he has so many other jobs to do as well. Let’s make sure someone can best keep Australia at the forefront, and send Kevin.
That way, because he’s a special envoy, doing Australia’s business, we can ask for a ‘Pair’ on the floor of the Reps.
Bill Shortens ambition to be Prime Minister is well known.
Rudd will stay put to make sure that those who stabbed him in the back don’t succeed in attempts to stab Julia in the back. This will give him clear air after the next election.
Arbib left because because of the faceless men tag. The consequences of still being in parliament if there is another coup attempt to topple Julia before the next election would cause enemy buildup and affect his employment opportunities outside of parliament.
I know some of you wish I’d just give this away, but Rudd knows something.
Here’s a guy in the perfect place to keep his finger on the (International) pulse as Foreign Minister. Why would he give that away (even under goading as it was) to challenge for a position he knew he couldn’t win.
Witness the broken man as he resigned rather than go to a vote at the coup that saw him deposed as PM.
Witness his resignation as Foreign Minister, and his presser after being smacked down this time around. He couldn’t stop smiling from ear to ear.
Perhaps the numbers for PM were in fact the least of the numbers he was seeking.
The position at the UN Security Council comes up for a vote in October. We (Australia) are pitted up against Luxembourg and Finland.
That position is Kevin’s IN to the UN. The position is for two full years starting in January 2013.
With him sitting in that seat if we win, he is in Position A to wheel and deal for the UN Secretary General’s position which will fall vacant after Ban Ki-moon’s tenure runs out.
I feel sure that Kevin will do anything to get that Security Council position, anything.
He has to be there and able to wheel and deal, and if that position does go to Australia, then he is in the best place to give it his sole concentration.
Maybe, just maybe, the numbers for PM were the least of his worries. Perhaps he’s been doing the numbers for that Security Council seat, and his sudden move now is due that maybe now he is within sight of getting that support.
He’s hanging around here so that Julia can shore up what is needed to remain with the numbers here. Think Peter Slipper taking the position as Speaker giving her one extra vote on the floor, and how (even going on yesterday’s vote when Tony Abbott called for the suspension of business motion) the Independents still voted with the Government, no matter what the Pokies man says.
I know all this has maybes, ifs, and perhaps, and probably even smacks of conspiracy theory, but Kevin knows something, and now Labor has to find a way to get by without him.
Kevin is backing Julia so solidly for now, because it’s probably based on a promise. They just have to do whatever is needed to shore up things before Kevin leaves, and I’m willing to bet it will be sooner rather than later.
The way is being paved.
The main thing to come out of all of this.
This mob have nothing but lies, and will do anything to hold onto power.
Remember right at the top I mentioned here’s me going out on a limb with a saw. That still applies, but He KNOWS something, and he can’t let the cat out of the bag, well, just yet, anyway.
When he gave the press conference announcing his intention to challenge, he was grinning like a Cheshire cat that had just scored all the cream.
I don’t think he gives a rat’s arse what happens tomorrow. I believe he got promised whatever it was he was chasing at the UN (or elsewhere), and tomorrow will just be a matter of him going through the motions to make it all look legit.
Whatever the outcome, Rudd, Gillard and a sizable chunk of the Cabinet have now written the Coalition’s advertising campaign for the next election – whenever it is. After the last few days, I think it safe to say the election outcome will be a forgone conclusion.
Perhaps the puppet masters have decided it was time for the Greens to supplant Labor as the second dominant force in Australian politics. The whole thing has a surreal air to it that I have never experienced in Australian politics before. Not even when Whitlam crashed and burned.
Every two years or so I get a bad fever and the runs and a good cleanout.
When it’s over I feel great and ready to go again.
This country has been constipated for too long and whatever happens on Monday I don’t think any of us will feel good next week or for a long time to come.
Tony and other posters, do people think Rudd will be closer in tommorows ballot than the predicted 30? Imo he will be much higer than that which will be a major hit for Gillard’s leadership as it is further evidence of division. If Rudd does somehow win, I wouldn’t surprise me if he goes to an election considering that he has openly been critical of the independents and Greens but also because they will most likely not side with him.
After the events of last week and in reality since June 2010, if Abbott does not win the next election then it will be a worser defeat than John Hewson’s loss of the 1993 election. He should win easily but who knows what will happen as we are discussing Politics.
Since he was so happy conceding defeat I think you are probably correct – he’ll pull the pin in while to run to the UN – the most undemocratic institution in the world.
A compromise candidate is badly needed, like Smith… and with Crean at his side, a winning ticket.
Hi Tony, I was just wandering about when I spotted you. Of course you realise both Rudd and Julia are in favour of the CO2 tax, so its a pox on both their houses.
Well, here’s a story that may explain why some in our society lean more heavily towards collectivism, with a need to control resources through centralisation….. and perhaps taking control of wealth via energy taxes?
New research shows
“that the switch from hunter-gathering to farming about 8,000-9,000 years ago was closely followed by the emergence of emperors and elites who took control of all wealth, including access to young women”.
“Such men set up systems to impregnate hundreds, or even thousands, of women while making sure other men were too poor or oppressed to have families”.
“Ms Betzig also studied primitive societies. She found that the small bands of hunter-gatherers were the most egalitarian, with men and women able to have the number of children they wanted”.
Hmmm, it may be that because you and I are resistant to being herded (thinking like the herd and/or being controlled) that we may be more of the hunter-gatherer ilk?
But sure, it is mind boggling isn’t it? That Genghis Khan has something like 16 million male descendents carrying his genetic traits…..for some, that need to stand over and corral others is strong….I don’t think human nature has changed overly in 700 odd years….it is about power over others so as to control access to resources (including energy). We are probably just a little more sophisticated and subtle about it than Genghis Khan, or clever enough to obscure our true motivations. But ultimately, those who have resources can ensure the wellbeing of their genetic line.
This comment is possibly a bit late in coming but I feel it’s important to make.
Some weeks ago, Viscount Monckton wrote an article titled “Advance Australia Fox!” which was greeted with enthusiasm on this website.
In the article Monckton describes FOX News as “fair and balanced and unafraid to do a straightforward job of reporting”.
Despite my deep misgivings about the hyping of a channel which for many years has been the source of some of the most shrill propaganda in support of US military aggression, I was to some extent won over by the idea that this would give a voice to climate sceptics and those who oppose the carbon tax – among whom I count myself.
I feel it’s necessary now to state that there is nothing that could ever induce me to support anything like FOX News, now or ever.
The simple fact is FOX plays on the crudest stereotypes of right wing war mongering, mindless patriotism and xenophobia, and rather than giving crediblity to the sceptics in the climate debate, merely makes them look idiotic by association.
I am inspired to write this after watching one of FOX’s popular show hosts, Tucker Carlson, call for the “annihilation” of Iran.
Carlson’s statements above consititue hate speech and incitement to genocide. The fact that such grotesque views were actually aired is enough to turn me against FOX NEWS forever, period!
Those who would marry issues of high principle, science and truth to either a left of right political agenda are, in my view, manipulators, and need to be be called out as such, no matter how seductive and tempting they may be in their politically tinged rhetoric.
Viscount Monckton, in calling for the “Australian FOX” is making a mockery of all those who follow his pied piper’s call, and I ain’t dancing to that tune!
Sorry but once the phrase “hate speech” (or “hate crime” or any of the rest of the drivel inspired along those lines) has been brought up I stop listening to the speaker.
A crime is a crime, if it is already on the books as such there is no reason to make it more special (or give the victims special treatment) by calling it a “hate crime” either it was a crime or it wasn’t, the motivations for it are irrelevant.
Iran broadcasts a considerable amount of “hate speech” are you equally disgusted with them? Or are you just wanting to get your panties in a wad so you can yammer on about “US military agression”?
Perhaps we should have left you to the mercies of Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, et. al. Maybe we should just leave the dictators in various nations to subjugate and enslave their “citizens”. Would that make you feel better?
Then what would you rant about if you couldn’t point the finger at us and blame your problems on “US military agression”?
I am a bit late comming to this but here goes. I have watched that video and to exaggerate the intent of what was said into a “hate speech” claim and a call for “genocide” would be drawing a long bow indeed. I am sure that a lot of people everywhere in the world, including many in the middle east, would love to see the current political set up in Iran disappear and Amadinejad and the mad mullahs sent on to whatever afterlife awaits them.
Perhaps you should consider the military aggression of countries other than the US. It is most probable that people of your frame of mind would have been supporting Neville Chamberlain in his efforts to placate Hitler and would have been so disgusted at that warmonger Churchill. What a wanker for him to be suggesting British “millitary aggression” against poor old Adolf (sarc).
And that nice Emperor and his millitary minions in Tokyo. Doesn’t he dress well and “what an interesting culture and how much more sophisticated than us evil western warmongers” and any other non thinking “how cool is that” BS that currently comes from the moral and cultural relativists. So what if they were devastating China and killing 100s of thousands of people out of hand, “I am sure they will not bother us if we just say nice things about them”. And, you know, after WW2 those evil and militarily aggressive Americans stayed in Germany and Japan as awfull oppressive dictators. Not like those nice Russians who packed up and left all of those Eastern European countries to have the freedom they deserved /sarc.
Well Mr Fenton, I for one am glad for the US millitary and for their so called “millitary aggression”. Perhaps you should look at the aggression from the people who currently run Iran. Most of the terrorist organisations in the middle east from Hamas to Hezbollah are organised and funded by Iran. Iran is currently staging terrorist attacks around the world and was recently caught in a plot to assasinate the Saudi ambassador in New York. The rulers of Iran constantlly call out for death to America and Mr Amadinejads has repeatedly stated that it is a religious and moral duty for Muslims anywhere in the world to kill any American anywhere they find them. They also constantly and clearly call for, not only the destruction of Israel, but the death of every Jew in Israel. But golly gee wiz, I am sure that he doesn’t mean it and he is only frustrated by those evil American oil companies run by those evil capitalists and their awfull “millitary aggression” all controlled by those evil Jews who are one who are really in control of the US government/sarc. And after all of this, those awfull and aggressive Americans still let him come and go to the UN building in New York and make his anti US tirades and still let him appear on US TV. I would have though that with their evil millitary agressive nature they would have had him offed by now or arrested him and sent him to Gitmo for prolonged torture or whatever.
And I am sure that they are only developing nuclear weapons just to see if they are smart enough to do it. Grow up mate. The sooner Amadinejad and the mad mullahs are no longer in control of Iran the better of we will all be, including the people in Iran, and the fact that the people at Fox news are the only ones prepared to air this so that the “people” can have a debate about it the better. This is why their ratings are now more than all of the other lefty channels combined. The trouble with you mate, is that you see the airing of any subject that you find distateful or uncomfortable and that you disagree with as “Hate Speech” or “pandering to patriotism” or some other “stereotypical” put down practiced by the the politically correct cultural marxists who seem to have infested every aspect of the public discourse accross the western world. These are same types as the intellectual elites here in Australia who talk about the 80/80 rule. That is 80% of the population has an IQ of less than 80 and so we need to control what they say, what they hear, and any other choice they may think thay have so that they don’t get out of control and “destroy the planet” or “attack their foreign looking neighbours” or “vote for the wrong party” or “call people I like names” or spend money on things we think they shouldn’t. Heaven forbid if they say something that offends or insults anybody.
Perhaps you should apply a bit more critical though to what you say before you mouth a bunch of leftist cant.
cameronH: Right on, mate! This American agrees with you 100%
One thing puzzles me though:
If the “intellectual elites” in Australia really believe that 80% of the population has an IQ of less than 80, that is remarkable — because IQ tests are periodically “renormed” so that the average IQ is 100.
If 80% of the population had an IQ < 80, then most of the other 20% would have to be geniuses to bring the average back to 100. I'm sure your "intellectual elites" think that they are geniuses, but it seems more likely that they are just innumerate.
I just clicked on the link embedded behind your name as well as the link to the quote from Tucker Carllson. The Fox News Program Redeye is a late night semi comedy program. You took him completely out of context and the video clip itself was tantamount to a lie by omission. Did you bother to go to Foxnews for the rest of the clip to gain a contextual understanding of what Mr. Carlson was saying? I doubt it!
When I visited the link by clicking on your name it took me to a far left news blog. You are a disingenuous peddler of far left fantasy BS. Conspiracies, paranoia and half truths. You are some one I wouldn’t trust as far as I can throw the house I am in!
“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure–one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
– David Rockefeller, Memoirs (2002)
“Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing.”
– George Orwell
Remember the eccentric hippy-type religious or eco nutters who used to parade round cities bearing large sandwich boards on their shoulders proclaiming on one side that “THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH” and on the other “REPENT YE SINNERS OR YOU”LL ALL DIE”? They generally attracted either scorn, smiles or perhaps pity for the depths their paranoid self-delusion had brought them to. They usually died sad, lonely penniless men.
How times have changed since the advent of computers. Deluded people like Peter Gleick, James Hansen, David Karoly, Tim Flannery and many other CAGW proponents now parade computer modelling as their “sandwich boards” but still bearing the same messages of doom. The big difference is that they have learnt how to turn it into a lucrative profession as greedy governments, financial institutions and other carpet-baggers saw the money making opportunities and potential for power and control and not only jumped aboard the bandwagon but provided funds and resources to feed and perpetuate the scam.
Flannery and others found that even if they were inevitably later proved to be wrong,the scarier and more ridiculous they could make their alarmist predictions the more they could advance their financially rewarding “careers” if they found a government stupid enough to believe them. Maybe even making them head of a useless money-eating bureaucracy.
Occasionally some particularly “rabid” self-deluded believer like Peter Gleick will over-reach and destroy themselves but for the rest the gravy-train will roll on until even taxpayers funds for the heavy subsidies needed will start to dry up. By that time the scientific shysters and “canny” investors will have made their money and gone leaving the gullible “little people” to survey the ruins and wonder what the hell happened!
Was listening to 3AW this afternoon and John Elliot raised an alarming point for the Coalition regarding the Senate. If Abbott wins the next election then he will obviously have a majority in the House of Representatives but the Senate could be a problem. Let’s look at the current Senate numbers:
Labor 31
Liberal/National Party 34
Greens 9
Democratic Labor Party 1
Independent 1
They are going to struggle to have control in the Senate unless there is a massive swing towards them in the next election. This could ring alarm bells when trying to abolish the Carbon Tax.
Two attempts to repeal the tax blocked in the senate, grounds for a double dissolution. Both houses fully dissolved, hopefully greens decimated, tax gone.
Unless he does, Juliar, it’s unlikely that all the current government’s “carbon” laws can be repealed.
The ALP will probably get a worse thrashing than Whitlam in 1975 so it’s just possible after 2013 that they might abstain from opposing any repeal bills in the Senate. That way they can salve their political consciences while not antagonising an angry electorate and providing Abbott with a DD “trigger”
Could someone please explain to me just why anyone at the UN, or any where else for that matter, would want to give Rudd a job.
He will have no pull with Oz politicians, or industry when he’s gone, & a trail of hate to live down. The man is nothing but a burden for anyone who hires him.
Personally I blame the mess we are in on two things:
– the Proportional Representation system that allows ‘full weighted’ vote transference – in effect what you voted for first seems too little valued in the system; its just too easy to tip the scales. The Greens know this well.
this leads to:
– No real means of ‘performance review’ for the previously sitting member. If you are annoyed with the previous lot you either vote for them again and send no ‘signal’ to change OR you vote for the other guys and change the whole game again with no clear signal – as either you were really annoyed with the current lot or the new guys are just that much better… OR with PR you end up due to preference trading with someone completely different that you did not really want in the seat anyways – and no party gets a signal to change their ways. It all gets ‘lost’ in the machinery..
If it were down to me in addition at each election you would be able to vote for the sitting member in terms of them getting benefits from their office, simple Yes/No. Don’t get greater than 50% Yes; no pension plan, nothing. I wonder how that would sharpen peoples mind to ensure they represent their electorate?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there are quite a few politicians who go into it with noble intentions and do actually represent their electorate – the trouble is we have no real way to set up a form of political ‘natural selection’ to ensure good representative behavior is rewarded and seen to be encouraged by the actual electoral system we have…
Today (27/2/12) I attended a Perth Writers Festival talk at the University of Western Australia titled:
“I Believe In An Open Mind, But Not So Open That Your Brains Fall Out”
It included the blurb:
“Does every opinion on climate change need to be given the same weight, no matter what the qualifications of the opinion giver? Has the media’s approach confused the messages around climate change?”
The speakers were: Misha Ketchell (journalist – The Age, Crickey, The Conversation, The Drum), Stephan Lewandowsky (UWA cognitive scientist, currently investigating the distinction between scepticism and denial), Alom Shaha (UK science educator) and James Paterson (Editor of the IPA Review).
The thesis under consideration was whether we should remove the right of some people to speak about climate change. Three of the panel, in a vote for censorship that would make any totalitarian proud, were in agreement. Only James Paterson from the IPA demurred.
Just a hundred metres or so from the Dolphin Theatre, where the discussion was unfolding, stands a stone bust of that great thinker Socrates. The inscription on it reads, “Socrates who sought truth always by the path of open discussion and free enquiry. May his spirit preside here at all times.”
How ironic that UWA professor and cognitive scientist Stephan Lewandowsky, under the guise of making a distinction between scepticism and denial, should promote censorship in direct contrast to the ancient wisdom of Socrates, whose example one might fairly have thought would be an inspiration not a hindrance.
Lewandowsky, who advocates that the opinion of certain types of scientists (such as geologists) should be discounted in the debate over climate change, described himself as “a practising scientist”. He informed us that his field is psychology and his specialty cognition. By his own standard he is not qualified to speak on the issue of climate change. But his terminology of “practising scientist” is clearly self-serving, being designed to confer legitimacy.
Indulging in intellectual dishonesty from the outset, Lewandowsky proclaimed, “There is absolutely no debate in the scientific community regarding climate change.” This is an outrageous lie; a lie that denies the enormous disputation over the role humans play in affecting the climate. Ironically, this cognitive ‘expert’ here exhibited cognitive dissonance in spades.
Lewandowsky assured us that the science of climate was settled when he said, “The debate is not about the existence of climate change or whether humans are causing it.” Later, notwithstanding his avowed certainty, he said, “The uncertainty is what should scare us.” Make up your mind professor. Either all the science is in and we know what’s in store, or we are still so uncertain we should be scared.
The good professor assured us not to get him wrong – that he was “all in favour of debate”, just with the teeny-weeny caveat that only those who publish in the peer-reviewed literature should have a voice. Other voices are illegitimate. As an example he cited an (unnamed) NZ weatherman who appeared on the Sunrise TV program (sometime) during which he opined on the climate debate. Apparently this weatherman has written a book on palmistry. So Lewandowsky treated us to a series of quotes from the palmistry book to illustrate just what a figure of fun the weatherman really is, and thus his opinions on climate are illegitimate.
What a sorry argument. It’s called ad hominem. Is that the best you’ve got professor? Do you really think that this type of argument convinces anyone but those already converted to the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) religion?
But it’s all Lewandowsky has. He never once discussed the science, and his grasp of the issues is obviously quite tenuous. At one point he claimed that most of Australia’s ‘carbon tax’ “will go into clean energy funding”. James Paterson picked him up quick smart, pointing out that most all of the money raised by the tax would be used to compensate consumers and businesses.
Misha Ketchell’s ideological bent was bared for all to see as he exhibited the left’s pathological hatred for The Australian newspaper, attributing to it all sorts of nefarious deeds and motives. He continued with an attack on The Heartland Institute and its purported support for the tobacco industry. Next out came a homage to the book “Merchants of Doubt”, a deeply flawed and inaccurate polemic by activist historian Naomi Oreskes.
Ketchell assured us any questioning of AGW could be safely dismissed because it is all part of a conspiracy to create doubt. Ketchell even referred to documents “leaked” from the Heartland Institute, when he slandered Professor Bob Carter, calling him a paid shill for vested interests. Note that he used the word “leaked”. The Heartland documents in question were fraudulently obtained/stolen in a probably career-ending example of subterfuge by climate activist Peter Gleick. Ketchell was never going to tell the audience about that; nor ever use this sordid episode as an example of deceit that might qualify the perpetrator for the censorship Ketchell so passionately advocates.
The pro-AGW panellists lamented the media’s role in pushing “misinformation” – that is, casting doubt on the AGW orthodoxy. They accused the ‘sceptics’ and ‘deniers’ of being well funded; and claimed there is a pressing need to get to the bottom of who is funding opposition and for what motives. Next we heard that CSIRO scientists were being intimidated from speaking out in favour of the AGW orthodoxy! Yes, you ‘heard’ right. It’s as if the AGW promoters live in a different fantasy universe to the rest of us, where the media rubbishes AGW, the sceptics have all the funding and climate scientists are afraid to be pro-AGW. The true believers have converted the tiny recognition given to the sceptics into an all-encompassing monster. They want it all their own way and wish to deny every last oxygen molecule to their ideological enemies.
It was interesting that there was not a climate sceptic amongst the speakers, James Paterson included (who incidentally, was the only one of the four panellists not to receive a round of applause when introduced). Poor Misha Ketchell is so up on the AGW issue (not) that at one point he struggled to pronounce “anthropogenic” and had to ask if he was saying it correctly. And he’s going to tell us that we may not ask questions? He can’t even pronounce the single most important word in this whole dispute – anthropogenic.
The audience was comprised mostly of AGW true believers who gave warm applause to various panellists as they uttered various shibboleths, although there was general agreement (judging by the general mirth) that Tim Flannery has no credibility nor authority, as James Paterson skewered our Climate Commissioner by the simple expedient of quoting several of his ridiculous predictions (regarding permanently low dam levels, never-to-be-seen-again rain and the like).
Paterson acquitted himself well, speaking clearly and in a measured tone, correcting the exaggerations and untruths of the others at various points (and without rising to provocations). He did slip when he referred to ‘carbon’ as ‘pollution’ and when he stated that sceptics had not published in the peer-reviewed literature.
One wonders how the talk would have unfolded had the Perth Festival been honest enough to allow a genuine, rational sceptic with scientific credentials (such as Professor Bob Carter) a voice. But, of course, the whole purpose of the exercise was to stifle and silence dissent. The forces of darkness would never allow somebody who understands the science a platform to speak. That may just frighten the horses; and we couldn’t have that could we?
It was fascinating to observe the disconnect: A group of mostly closed-minded true believers in anthropogenic global warming discussing the limits of open-mindedness. They arrived with their minds closed shut tight and departed the same way.
It is quintessential irony that we were attending a talk on the limits of open-mindedness. These folks wouldn’t know an open mind if they fell right into one. They are in the vanguard of the anti-Enlightenment movement. Maybe we should censor them? No, that would be hypocritical; and besides, it is just too much fun observing the ridiculous contortions they adopt as they contrive to preserve the bankrupt and failing AGW ideology that sustains them.
Lewandowsky believes that rightly that palmistry is a pseudoscience and deserving of derision. What makes psychology so different? It is a “science” with very little objective scientific principle to verify it, a hodgepodge of opinion, guesstimates and assumptions based upon the practitioner’s biases and unsubstantiated opinions. By all means let’s not dismiss it as a useless tool, but to suggest that it has the objectivity of physics or chemistry, backed by a solid foundation of experimental data, is a joke.
There are a number of areas in Psychology which are quite rigorous in processes applied to their investigation.
That said, every time a “Psychologist” appears in the media to comment on why people behave the way they do and wear the clothes they do and drive dangerously and so on, I feel very uncomfortable.
That is not psychology, just people showing off.
And so we have Lew explaining why people who can’t see the “Reality” of Global warming are actually suffering from a mental illness.
If the Psychology Dept want to be taken seriously as a science they need to stop their “professors” from repeatedly breaking laws of reason when they speak. Lewandowsky does more than anyone to besmirch the reputation of the subject, but the fact that he is not censured for his unscientific activism is a cringworthy reflection on the entire profession.
I agree, KK. I know you have a psychology background so I am not trying to be offensive- Medicine is also not entirely scientific either, but scientific methods and principles are applied to say treatment of cancers, relative benefits of one chemotherapy over another, one surgical approach or another etc. But to suggest that Medicine is not a blend of art, instinct and science would be laughable, in spite of pretense to the contrary by my colleagues I’m sure. Psychology, by it’s very nature, is even moreso. It is not it’s “fault”, but that is they way it is and how it has evolved. Hard sciences are much more rooted in objectivity, so for Lewandowsky to spout on like he does is disingenuous at best, at next best a downright misrepresentation and at worst, well words fail me. Stefan casts aspersions on scientific integrity every time he opens his mouth in ignorance- I think he is certifiable, quite frankly, but that is only my opinion. I’m sure I could bend the DSM 4 criteria to accomodate that if I tried!
Thanks for that great report Stephen. It really confirms that the UWA is rapidly becoming the premier bastion of academic censorship in Australian Universities! It’s extraordinary that they are so insecure despite their belief in the “consensus” of “settled science” as regards the hypothesis of AGW, that they seek to actively prevent their gullible brainwashed adherents from even hearing that in the absence of any empirical evidence to the contrary, the null hypothesis of natural variability still prevails.
West Australians should start a petition to have the statue of Socrates removed from UWA grounds until they once again seek to adhere to the principles he espoused!
Is the Window Closing? An excellent article by Art Horn, IceCap meteorologist.
“Real world evidence from nearly four decades of satellite data has proven that large increases in carbon dioxide have not shown any sign of closing the window at the top of the atmosphere. No amount of computer modeling or rhetoric from famous people or proclamations from large institutions or speeches from our leaders in Washington can change this. The data alone should be enough for thoughtful, reasonable people to re-consider the causes of climate change”.
I too have a background in psychology and no way do I consider myself a scientist as I have no physics, chemistry or hard mathematics. Psych tries hard to say they are scientific by using stats to evaluate efemoral data – what a person says they believe,versus heart rate, breathing etc and it may show that someone is lying, for example, but hard science? One thing I did learn was that a model depends upon the variables included and climate has so many that were ignored, adjusted, manipulated etc that the results had to be irrelevant in many instances.
Stick to the facts – David Evans’ writings do it for me.
“All science is either physics or stamp collecting”… attributed to Sir Ernest Rutherford. The problem I have with that quote though, is that it pre-dates quantum mechanics and chaos science… if there is just a little bit of true uncertainty (not just stochasticity from things like normal probability distributions), complex systems (like climate) must be truly unpredictable, no matter how deep your knowledge of physics. Collectors of climate stamps, and determinative modellers who have convinced themselves there are no unknown unknowns at the scale of their model, have about the same basis for claiming to know “the” truth as those who once believed that all swans are white.
Lovely quote from an aticle by Steven F Hayward at IceCap, which has relevance to the attitudes prevalent at UWA
‘Why the Climate Skeptics are Winning’
“The Gleick episode exposes again a movement that disdains arguing with its critics, choosing demonization over persuasion and debate. A confident movement would face and crush its critics if its case were unassailable, as it claims. The climate change fight doesn’t even rise to the level of David and Goliath. Heartland is more like a David fighting a hundred Goliaths. Yet the serial ineptitude of the climate campaign shows that a tiny David doesn’t need to throw a rock against a Goliath who swings his mighty club and only hits himself square in the forehead.”
WUWT is Running Dr David M.W. Evans sceptics case.
Here is my contribution to comments;
Will Nitschke says:
February 26, 2012 at 2:40 pm
Yes in Australia there is actually a department of climate change.”
========================
Australians aren’t silly, we also have a climate commission to make sure the “message” gets thru. http://climatecommission.gov.au/
I’ve recently received a letter from The Director, Paul Ryan further to my request as to procedures for correction to published reports. I’m just now in the process of having them quantify their risk assessments regarding a report Professor McMichaels on dengue fever.
From their feedback to me, thus far, they appear to be the propaganda machine for the Department of Climate. Here is a example from my first foray with them, questioning the veracity of their claims about mosquito borne diseases, with regards to mosquito disease transportation factors.
=========================
I refereed them to Gething Et El. (2010) and Paaijmans et al. (2011). Paul Ryans response in part:
“Both papers refer to malaria, which is a quite different illness to dengue fever. Malaria is is spread by different mosquito’s (Anopheles) v’s ( Aedes aegypti), and is a different type of illness. The Paaijimans et al. paper presents research on a link between temperature and malaria parasite infectiousness. The papers comment regarding dengue fever is not part of the papers research, and is unusual given the differences discussed above.
“There are many variables to consider in understanding and projecting future movements of infectious disease carried by mosquito, such as temperature, mosquito behavior infectiousness and human interferences (medication, preventative action.
“How climate change will affect malaria, as well as other other mosquito-borne infectious diseases, is a complex issue and there are no easy answers. The ‘Critical Decade – Climate Change and Heath’ focuses on dengue fever, as a more quantifiable risk fo Australia.”
=========================
I’m relate here only two of my many questions of them.
1. A dengue fever epidemic was recognised in the Torres Strait Islands of Queensland in late 2003. Two fatal cases of dengue haemorrhagic fever occurred in early 2004. This severe manifestation is more common when a patient is infected a second time, with a different virus serotype to the first infection. These are the first fatalities related to dengue fever in Australia in over a century.
2. Geographic distribution Aedes aegypti in Australia;
An introduced species, currently known to exist only in Queensland and predominantly northern coastal Qld, but previously known from WA, NT, and southern NSW. It exists in low populated areas of Australia.
I do wonder how much money was spent in advising Australians of the risk caused by climate change regarding this mosquito. I know it was in the millions. I’ll let you know exactly how much soon.
Despite my personal belief that Rudd is a dud, polls at the weekend suggest he is still popular with a large portion of the people, while Gillard is on the nose with most.
So will Gillards clear win this morning help, or will it mean a further drop in the polls for Labor???
In MHO, sticking by Gillard can only keep Labors numbers down.
With the result in what do you think will happen next? Labor slowly spiral into obscurity so at some point they will have to change leader but who and when will that be?
Not claiming any supernatural powers no cystal ball, however I can’t see them improving their position while ever Gillard is the captain, then again we ozzies are a fickle lot, always willing to accept a dollar or two for now effort.
When the compensation payments (bribes) roll through, those out there that put no thought into politics may just clime on for the ride.
If the numbers don’t improve greatly after July, I see another spill between September and November.
No one wants to be leader of the opposition coupled wih JG wants to be known as the last ALP prime minister.
Do not underestimate the media blast that is yet to come. The ALP could win the next election. Headlines like “Julia saves orphan”, “Tony molests small puppy dog.”
The wild card is Kev. He plays games and I have the feeling that he has just begun his end-game. Let’s wait and see the next move.
I must admit, I have been a little torn over the past couple of days. The conservative in me wanted guilleard to win because her unpopularity and propensity to blatantly lie means the LNP don’t actually have to do much to have a resounding victory at the next election.
On the other Hand, Rudd was clearly the choice of the Labor Voters. My respect for democratic input wanted Rudd to win this coup.
Two things have been abundantly clear over the last week:
1) The ALP know that it was the Carbon Tax that is the poster child of everything that is wrong with this Government
2) They truly believe that the $4 billion dollar bribe in the next financial year will be enough to make the australian people think the Carbon tax is a molehill rather than a mountain
3) They know they will lose the next election and guess who is going to have to deal with the fallout from when the carbon tax and the ETS really kicks in
This Governments’ job is so bad that they may well cripple the next governments chances at re-election.
Personally I think they’re utter amateurs and that they are a clear and present threat to the democracy in Australia.
They truly believe that the $4 billion dollar bribe in the next financial year will be enough to make the australian people think the Carbon tax is a molehill rather than a mountain
your post appeared while I was responding to cracker, in that reply I make a similar point.
When the compensation payments (bribes) roll through, those out there that put no thought into politics may just clime on for the ride.
I think their arrogance leads them to believe the little people are dumb.
I personally think people are now much better informed that any generation beforehand. It is so easy for people to check things online for themselves – and be exposed to a variety of perspectives on a particular topic – they don’t even need to go to a library anymore.
I’ll shut up now because I don’t want the enemy to learn from me.
Jo Nova got the Best Australian and New Zealand Blog,
Tallbloke got the Best European Blog,
Climate Audit (Steve McIntyre) got the Best Canadian Blog, AND
WUWT got the Best Science or Technology Blog!
No mention of RealClimate, SkepticalScience, NotNova, etc, etc, etc …
I should hope so … do you guys realise how much time I spent in creating email addresses, just so I could make sure my vote counted, and counted, and counted …
JoNova has won the Australian/NZ weblog award
ClimateAudit has won the 2012 Canadian weblog award
Tallblokes talkshop has won the auropean weblog award
Wattsupwiththat has won the best science and technology award
Clean sweep for the sceptics!
If you want to be entertained, watch TV. If you want to be informed and to participate, get blogging!
Democracy means that every period of years one gets the right to vote for a vague agenda but have no right of participation in its implementation.
Policy makers make rules but produce nothing. They expect voters to work increasingly harder to produce more for their ever increasing schemes that have ever increasing costs to each and every individual, and with regards to climate change, sovereignty implications that few understand.
Congratulations on your award. It’s well deserved. Thank you for all that you do.
re: Gleick. Two thoughts.
(1) Note that he was in the process of mobilizing professional ethics processes to be used as a means for censuring and silencing (us) heretics. Reminds me of the Wegman plagiarism complaint – nothing about the science, just a writer in a hurry careless with complete citations (that should have been caught in review). As far as I can determine he never represented that work as his own. And yet the press uses the incident to dismiss all his work.
(2) Gleick’s grants for studying truck pollution. Did he also contribute to this fraud? Or was he part of an effort by the ideologues in the EPA to recover from the fiasco? We should have double jeopardy rules for regulators as well as courts.
btw the fight is not over. a new BIPARTISAN effort to commodify CARBON DIOXIDE is up and running and Washington Post’s Ezra Klein does his best to assist:
26 Feb: Washington Post Blog: Ezra Klein: Henry Waxman’s plan to cut the deficit and stop global warming — at the same time
On Friday, Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.) joined former Reps. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) and Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md.) to publish an op-ed arguing that we could address our most pressing fiscal and environmental problems in one fell swoop by placing a price on carbon. “The United States could raise $200 billion or more over 10 years and trillions of dollars by 2050 while cutting carbon emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050,” they wrote. I spoke with Waxman about the idea on Friday. A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows…
EK: What always worries me about climate change is that I think it is, in an important way, dissimilar from budget issues. If the deficit goes up and up and up, and interest rates begin to rise, we can make different choices an the debt can still be brought down. It’s harder, maybe, but not fundamentally different. With carbon, it goes up and up and up and then we hit a point of no return, where we can’t get that carbon back out of the atmosphere.
HW: I think we have to look at the fact that neither of these problems can be solved overnight. But if we could put in place a price on carbon and then use the sales of carbon allowances to raise revenues we could raise money and cut emissions at the same time, and we can have a transition that will be as orderly as possible. If we leave both to become much more severe then the answers will be more radical and painful.
EK: But is combining them the easiest way politically? Because from where I sit, the key change in the global warming conversation is that it’s become a cultural issue rather than a scientific one. So doesn’t this layer a culture war on top of an already difficult set of economic choices?
HW: I am amazed that the question of science and the clear consensus of opinion that we are experiencing global warming and it is caused to a great extent by people is thought of as controversial. We do have people who are science deniers and, in the House of Representatives, we’ve had party-line votes where the Republicans have voted to deny science. But I know a lot of those same Republicans know this is a problem that has to be dealt with. This last year was the highest on record. We’re seeing more bizarre climate episodes than we’ve seen before. It’s now February and the daffodils are growing. All these are signs that something is happening. We can’t deny the evidence… http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/henry-waxmans-plan-to-cut-the-deficit-and-stop-global-warming–at-the-same-time/2011/08/25/gIQAV4z0bR_blog.html
and this is how Klein began this piece:
‘“Taxmageddon” is coming. That’s what Hill staff are calling the pile-up at the end of 2012, when the Bush tax cuts are set to expire, the payroll tax cut is set to expire, the $1.2 trillion spending trigger is set to go off, and the debt-ceiling is expected to be breached. But some members of Congress see opportunity tucked behind this coming crisis.’
Jo,
Congratulations on the big win. The timing is perfect. An Australian skeptic blog wins best Australian or New Zealand blog on the same day Labor ties Julia to the mast of her sinking carbon ship 😉
Congrats Jo, well deserved and well earned with the long hard work that you do.
A bigger congrats goes to ALL THE PARTICIPANTS OF JOs BLOG, without whom this blog wouldn’t be what it is, a fair decent place to debate, argue and banter.
while we are amusing ourselves with Gleickgate and celebrating the integrity and success of the CAGW sceptic blogs today, it’s fitting i should add a little context on Ezra Klein who did the Washington Post puff piece on the new push for pricing carbon dioxide in the US. how Klein is still working for WaPo, is beyond my understanding:
Wikipedia: Ezra Klein
In February 2007 Klein created a Google Groups forum called “JournoList” for discussing politics and the news media. The forum’s membership was controlled by Klein and limited to “several hundred left-leaning bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, policy wonks and academics”. Posts within JournoList were intended only to be made and read by its members. Klein defended the forum saying that it “[ensures] that folks feel safe giving off-the-cuff analysis and instant reactions”. JournoList member, and Time magazine columnist, Joe Klein added that the off-the-record nature of the forum was necessary because “candor is essential and can only be guaranteed by keeping these conversations private”.
The existence of JournoList was first publicly revealed in a July 27, 2007 blog post by blogger Mickey Kaus. However, the forum did not attract serious attention until March 17, 2009 when an article published on Politico detailed the nature of the forum and the extent of its membership. The Politico article set off debate within the Blogosphere over the ethics of participating in JournoList and raised questions about its purpose. The first public excerpt of a discussion within JournoList was posted by Mickey Kaus on his blog on March 26, 2009.
Members of JournoList included, among others: Ezra Klein, Jeffrey Toobin, Eric Alterman, Paul Krugman, Joe Klein (no relation to Ezra Klein), Matthew Yglesias, and Jonathan Chait.
On June 25, 2010, Ezra Klein announced in his Washington Post blog that he would be terminating the Journolist group. This decision was instigated by fellow blogger Dave Weigel’s resignation from the Post following the public exposure of several of his Journolist emails about conservative media figures.
***Klein had justified excluding conservative Republicans from participation as “not about fostering ideology but preventing a collapse into flame war. The emphasis is on empiricism, not ideology”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Klein
and that, naturally, is a “soft” Wikipedia account of what JournoList was and what they tried to do.
Could gaining control of the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran (CBI) be one of the main reasons that Iran is being targeted by Western and Israeli powers? As tensions are building up for an unthinkable war with Iran, it is worth exploring Iran’s banking system compared to its U.S., British and Israeli counterparts.
Some researchers are pointing out that Iran is one of only three countries left in the world whose central bank is not under Rothschild control. Before 9-11 there were reportedly seven: Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Iran. By 2003, however, Afghanistan and Iraq were swallowed up by the Rothschild octopus, and by 2011 Sudan and Libya were also gone. In Libya, a Rothschild bank was established in Benghazi while the country was still at war…..
If the AGW conjecture is to be overturned the truth must be proven empirically and promulgated emphatically. I suggest it runs along these lines …
The reason radiation from a cooler object slows down the radiated heat transfer to itself from a warmer body is not because there is a compensating transfer of thermal energy back to the warmer body, because such would violate the Second Law. Rather it is because a standing wave is established which is represented by all the area under the Planck curve for the cooler body. This area represents the frequencies and intensities that are common to both the warm and cool objects.
The atmosphere (with over 50 gases and water vapour) does not radiate everything that a true blackbody would, but water vapour does help fill the area under that curve. So there is a standing wave, but its total power is not as much as a true blackbody. This is why some radiation escapes directly through the atmospheric window.
The standing wave has no thermal effect because none of its energy is ever converted to thermal energy. It just sends information back to the warmer body and a part of the warmer body’s radiation goes into the standing wave. The energy radiated by the warmer body which is represented by the area between the curves does get converted to thermal energy because it cannot resonate and thus contribute to the standing wave. The calculations of course agree with accepted physics, but the mechanism is not a two-way transfer of heat, as many appear to have supposed.
But there is no build up of the effect of carbon dioxide due to multiple repetitions of the capturing and re-emitting process envisaged in the IPCC energy diagrams and models. Each carbon dioxide molecule can only play a single role in a very limited sub-section of the total standing wave. Its contribution per molecule would be no more than a molecule of water, and so its total overall effect is comparable with its relative proportion to WV and other emitters in the atmosphere – insignificant.
Furthermore, there must be a compensating effect for reduced radiation by way of additional evaporation, diffusion etc because the very stable temperatures not far underground will be reflected in the close thermal equilibrium at the surface / atmosphere interface.
Second last post if anyone is interested in putting him in his place over there, also the conversation is quite interesting as Roy describes the only 5 possibilities as to why we have no more warming.
Cheers
[Ross has posted several lenghty pages but we have left them in moderation] ED
Neither “skeptics” or “deniers” are appropriate names. Perhaps “truth-seekers” would be more appropriate.
The greenhouse conjecture will not be debunked for a long time by actual climate data. But it can be debunked right now by new physics which is extending the work of Einstein and Planck.
Firstly we must recognise that radiation from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface is comprised only of standing (or stationary) waves which may be thought of as opposing waves along the same path between two particular points, one on the surface and one in the atmosphere. These opposing waves interfere iff they have the same frequency and amplitude.
In Wikipedia we read … It can arise in a stationary medium as a result of interference between two waves traveling in opposite directions. In the second case, for waves of equal amplitude traveling in opposing directions, there is on average no net propagation of energy.
In addition to the standing (or stationary) wave, there is also one way radiation from hot to cold and its frequencies are represented by the area between the Planck curves, which is the same as SBL effectively calculates by subtracting the area under the smaller (cooler) curve from the area under the larger (warmer) curve.
Standing waves cause resonant “vibration” between energy levels and the energy required to excite = energy emitted on relaxation for such standing waves.
So how could any extra energy appear from nowhere and get converted to thermal energy? A whole new and different process is required for that conversion. Climatologists seem to keep imagining physical vibration causing friction or something. It’s not like that. Energy cannot be created in the process of resonance associated with standing waves.
All radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface comprises standing waves transferring no net energy either way. Only the additional “top portion” of the radiation from the warmer surface is separate radiation which does cause heat transfer from warm to cool.
I warned you at the outset that Claes Johnson’s Computational Blackbody Radiation is ground breaking physics extending the work of Einstein and Planck. You are not going to find it in textbooks, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. There is far more to it than just imaging a lot of identical mass-less photon particles crashing into surfaces and transferring thermal energy.
Any textbook which tells you that radiation between two plates transfers the full SBL amount in each direction is wrong, because there simply cannot be any transfer of thermal energy along a different path from cold to hot as it violates the Second Law. “Net” radiation has no corresponding physical entity and is thus meaningless.
Only standing waves have an identical path and can thus interfere with each other if they have equal frequency and amplitude, as explained in Wikipedia.
The Second Law applies to every individual path between two particular points. Standing waves may be considered as two opposing waves, but they do of course have the same path, and that makes all the difference. It’s up to you whether you want to take an interest in these new developments in physics or stick to your old beliefs so you can feel good trying to prove the IPCC wrong using climate data and yet still agreeing with them that heat transfers from the atmosphere to a warmer surface. It doesn’t..
So, here’s Tony going out on a limb, and taking a saw with him.
Rudd will lose the vote tomorrow.
Can you imagine him sitting on the Back Bench, a man who has strutted the World stage for so long,
sucking up to whoever he canmaking himself so well known, and garnering support for that major position on that World Stage.No!
He mentioned it today, and he’s always saying things cryptically. He said he will sit on those Back Benches until the next election, code that he is going to retire then.
Having assisted in the Labor political suicide, I suspect that a Federal election may even be closer than the due by date.
He will either go as soon as that election is called, resigning his seat, or (and here’s me sawing off the branch behind me) he’ll jump in a few weeks from now, or even sooner than that, and scurry off to the UN before their memory of KevinfromOz fades.
If he gets creamed tomorrow, what’s to say he’ll not even announce his immediate resignation at the post poll press conference, because in doing that, it will steal the thunder from Julia’s gloating winning speech.
He’s just that sort of man.
Forget being typecast as a Labor rat, as some have suggested he will be if he leaves early. What he has done this week has forever cast him as a Labor Rat anyway. Julia’s already airbrushed him from Labor history anyway, from her speech at the ALP conference.
He knows something that he’s not telling.
I know this leaves me open for ridicule at around 10AM Monday, but I really do have this sneaking suspicion about him.
Tony.
00
Tony,
I like it, but I just fear that there is a little too much confirmation bias in that you are making a plausible case for what you want to happen.
00
What!
Falling out of the tree?
Nyuk nyuk nyuk!
Tony.
00
I think Tony’s analysis is pretty good. It is certainly feasible, and that is all it needs to be a scenario.
I also think there is a slot for him at the UN. But as a member of the Cabinet he is bound by whatever rules of collective responsibility are used in Australia. These rules may prevent him from just walking away to go to a new job. So he quits as Minister, and to cover the reason why, he also has a go at Gillard in a “tussle” for the Leadership. He doesn’t expect to win (but will take the job if he does), but does expect to be expelled to the back benches for his effrontery. From there, he can resign his seat, and sneak away overseas while the media are focussed on who will stand in his place, and what a by-election might do to future policy, and will Julia call and early General Election?, etc. There, a slightly longer alternative scenario.
00
Again, old Thread, so no one will probably come back to read this comment.
Scenario.
Labor Party Caucus Room, and the result of the vote has just been announced with a whopping
slap in the facevictory for Julia.Ever magnanimous, Rudd rises and says that in the interest of Party healing he should resign immediately. (having that private thought that he’s told no one, that he already has a place to go to)
Knowing that they need his vote on the floor of the Reps, this is out of the question for the Labor Party.
“No, Kevin”, they say, “you cannot go. We need your vote on the floor of the Reps.”
“Oh, I insist,” replies Kevin.
“No, sorry.”
“OK, then he has to go,” Kevin says, (ever the smiling assassin) finger pointing directly at Kevin Arbib, one of the major architects in his coup when Julia took his job. You see, a resigning Senator (who was due to face the people at the next half Senate election anyway) has to be replaced by an appointment from his own State for the remaining time he has left to serve, and he’s given a ‘pair’ in the meantime, and there’s no critical need for that extra vote in the Senate that there is currently in the Reps.
Party Room dissolves to Press conferences etc, while giving Party machine heads a suitable time to allow for time to pass, nut out a future cushy position for Senator Arbib, and for Mark to practice the standard ‘party meme’ for resignations, you know, be with my family, move in a different direction, evaluate things as I approach 40, blah blah blah, and then, while all the hubbub is still going one, make his entrance to make his exit.
No, this is not as it seems.
And Kevin, whose vote is needed on the floor of the Reps. The ONLY time he’s needed is when the Speaker says, “Division required, Ring the bells for four minutes.”
The rest of the time, he’s working furiously on that, er, other position, you know, the one he hasn’t told anyone about.
This is just so transparent.
The sooner there is a general election, the sooner he can go. Kevin will be also working furiously to ensure that election is sooner rather than later, and within seconds of the Holden Statesman leaving for the Gov Gen’s office with Julia in the back, Kev will be on the move.
Tony.
00
Cunning Kevin on the brain.
That should read Mark Arbib.
Tony.
00
I read it Tony and it sounds plausible, however there is no way those two can keep it all together for another 18 months, there will be more blood spilt and an earlier than expected election.
Cheers
00
So, further to this, I see Julia has just mentioned at a ‘presser’ that Australia will still be seeking that position on the UN Security Council.
Now, with all the domestic problems she has here, why on Earth would she even mention that.
Say, what about this then.
Who is better placed in that Forum to pursue Australia’s interests than good old Kevin.
Watch for the following.
Let’s send a special envoy off to that Forum to pursue our interests. The Foreign Minister is the man for that job, but he has so many other jobs to do as well. Let’s make sure someone can best keep Australia at the forefront, and send Kevin.
That way, because he’s a special envoy, doing Australia’s business, we can ask for a ‘Pair’ on the floor of the Reps.
Gee! Wasn’t that convenient.
Tony.
00
My take.
Bill Shortens ambition to be Prime Minister is well known.
Rudd will stay put to make sure that those who stabbed him in the back don’t succeed in attempts to stab Julia in the back. This will give him clear air after the next election.
Arbib left because because of the faceless men tag. The consequences of still being in parliament if there is another coup attempt to topple Julia before the next election would cause enemy buildup and affect his employment opportunities outside of parliament.
00
ATTENTION memoryvault,
maybe you might have a look at this as well.
I know some of you wish I’d just give this away, but Rudd knows something.
Here’s a guy in the perfect place to keep his finger on the (International) pulse as Foreign Minister. Why would he give that away (even under goading as it was) to challenge for a position he knew he couldn’t win.
Witness the broken man as he resigned rather than go to a vote at the coup that saw him deposed as PM.
Witness his resignation as Foreign Minister, and his presser after being smacked down this time around. He couldn’t stop smiling from ear to ear.
Perhaps the numbers for PM were in fact the least of the numbers he was seeking.
The position at the UN Security Council comes up for a vote in October. We (Australia) are pitted up against Luxembourg and Finland.
That position is Kevin’s IN to the UN. The position is for two full years starting in January 2013.
With him sitting in that seat if we win, he is in Position A to wheel and deal for the UN Secretary General’s position which will fall vacant after Ban Ki-moon’s tenure runs out.
I feel sure that Kevin will do anything to get that Security Council position, anything.
He has to be there and able to wheel and deal, and if that position does go to Australia, then he is in the best place to give it his sole concentration.
Maybe, just maybe, the numbers for PM were the least of his worries. Perhaps he’s been doing the numbers for that Security Council seat, and his sudden move now is due that maybe now he is within sight of getting that support.
He’s hanging around here so that Julia can shore up what is needed to remain with the numbers here. Think Peter Slipper taking the position as Speaker giving her one extra vote on the floor, and how (even going on yesterday’s vote when Tony Abbott called for the suspension of business motion) the Independents still voted with the Government, no matter what the Pokies man says.
I know all this has maybes, ifs, and perhaps, and probably even smacks of conspiracy theory, but Kevin knows something, and now Labor has to find a way to get by without him.
Kevin is backing Julia so solidly for now, because it’s probably based on a promise. They just have to do whatever is needed to shore up things before Kevin leaves, and I’m willing to bet it will be sooner rather than later.
The way is being paved.
The main thing to come out of all of this.
This mob have nothing but lies, and will do anything to hold onto power.
Remember right at the top I mentioned here’s me going out on a limb with a saw. That still applies, but He KNOWS something, and he can’t let the cat out of the bag, well, just yet, anyway.
Tony.
00
And if we get beat by Luxemburg………..what then?
00
crakar24,
as one commentator at one of the articles I checked said:
Tony.
00
Hear Hear to that brother.
When he gave the press conference announcing his intention to challenge, he was grinning like a Cheshire cat that had just scored all the cream.
I don’t think he gives a rat’s arse what happens tomorrow. I believe he got promised whatever it was he was chasing at the UN (or elsewhere), and tomorrow will just be a matter of him going through the motions to make it all look legit.
Whatever the outcome, Rudd, Gillard and a sizable chunk of the Cabinet have now written the Coalition’s advertising campaign for the next election – whenever it is. After the last few days, I think it safe to say the election outcome will be a forgone conclusion.
Perhaps the puppet masters have decided it was time for the Greens to supplant Labor as the second dominant force in Australian politics. The whole thing has a surreal air to it that I have never experienced in Australian politics before. Not even when Whitlam crashed and burned.
00
Every two years or so I get a bad fever and the runs and a good cleanout.
When it’s over I feel great and ready to go again.
This country has been constipated for too long and whatever happens on Monday I don’t think any of us will feel good next week or for a long time to come.
Sh*t
00
Well …. thank you for sharing
00
Tony and other posters, do people think Rudd will be closer in tommorows ballot than the predicted 30? Imo he will be much higer than that which will be a major hit for Gillard’s leadership as it is further evidence of division. If Rudd does somehow win, I wouldn’t surprise me if he goes to an election considering that he has openly been critical of the independents and Greens but also because they will most likely not side with him.
After the events of last week and in reality since June 2010, if Abbott does not win the next election then it will be a worser defeat than John Hewson’s loss of the 1993 election. He should win easily but who knows what will happen as we are discussing Politics.
00
That’s it then. To coin some, er, military terms.
Australian Parliament – snafu
Australian Labor Party – fubar
Australian Public – bohica
Tony.
00
Tony you forgot WOFTAM
00
bohica?
00
Umm!
Bend over here it comes again.
(sorry if that offends, but it is, er, apt!
Tony.
00
I gotta say that much the same scenario has gone through my thoughts.
00
Since he was so happy conceding defeat I think you are probably correct – he’ll pull the pin in while to run to the UN – the most undemocratic institution in the world.
00
After a long hot day I love the smell of a thunderstorm about to hit.
00
A compromise candidate is badly needed, like Smith… and with Crean at his side, a winning ticket.
Hi Tony, I was just wandering about when I spotted you. Of course you realise both Rudd and Julia are in favour of the CO2 tax, so its a pox on both their houses.
00
Well, here’s a story that may explain why some in our society lean more heavily towards collectivism, with a need to control resources through centralisation….. and perhaps taking control of wealth via energy taxes?
New research shows
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/how-despots-and-conquerors-changed-the-genetic-makeup-of-the-world/story-fnb64oi6-1226281753345
Ok, a little tongue-in-cheek, but it did get me thinking for a bit…..
00
Are you saying its about time we had another large change in society?
Do you think the present system is working well for the average Joe Blow?
How can we ensure that those who plunder the Tax Purse are brought to justice.
How can we make sure Politicians work for the benefit of all.
A tough ask.
🙂
00
Imwd
So! We are all cousins, descended from those rampant impreganators?
Hi Cuz
🙂
00
Hmmm, it may be that because you and I are resistant to being herded (thinking like the herd and/or being controlled) that we may be more of the hunter-gatherer ilk?
But sure, it is mind boggling isn’t it? That Genghis Khan has something like 16 million male descendents carrying his genetic traits…..for some, that need to stand over and corral others is strong….I don’t think human nature has changed overly in 700 odd years….it is about power over others so as to control access to resources (including energy). We are probably just a little more sophisticated and subtle about it than Genghis Khan, or clever enough to obscure our true motivations. But ultimately, those who have resources can ensure the wellbeing of their genetic line.
00
This comment is possibly a bit late in coming but I feel it’s important to make.
Some weeks ago, Viscount Monckton wrote an article titled “Advance Australia Fox!” which was greeted with enthusiasm on this website.
In the article Monckton describes FOX News as “fair and balanced and unafraid to do a straightforward job of reporting”.
Despite my deep misgivings about the hyping of a channel which for many years has been the source of some of the most shrill propaganda in support of US military aggression, I was to some extent won over by the idea that this would give a voice to climate sceptics and those who oppose the carbon tax – among whom I count myself.
I feel it’s necessary now to state that there is nothing that could ever induce me to support anything like FOX News, now or ever.
The simple fact is FOX plays on the crudest stereotypes of right wing war mongering, mindless patriotism and xenophobia, and rather than giving crediblity to the sceptics in the climate debate, merely makes them look idiotic by association.
I am inspired to write this after watching one of FOX’s popular show hosts, Tucker Carlson, call for the “annihilation” of Iran.
You can find the video here.
Carlson’s statements above consititue hate speech and incitement to genocide. The fact that such grotesque views were actually aired is enough to turn me against FOX NEWS forever, period!
Those who would marry issues of high principle, science and truth to either a left of right political agenda are, in my view, manipulators, and need to be be called out as such, no matter how seductive and tempting they may be in their politically tinged rhetoric.
Viscount Monckton, in calling for the “Australian FOX” is making a mockery of all those who follow his pied piper’s call, and I ain’t dancing to that tune!
Hereward 🙂
00
Sorry but once the phrase “hate speech” (or “hate crime” or any of the rest of the drivel inspired along those lines) has been brought up I stop listening to the speaker.
A crime is a crime, if it is already on the books as such there is no reason to make it more special (or give the victims special treatment) by calling it a “hate crime” either it was a crime or it wasn’t, the motivations for it are irrelevant.
Iran broadcasts a considerable amount of “hate speech” are you equally disgusted with them? Or are you just wanting to get your panties in a wad so you can yammer on about “US military agression”?
Perhaps we should have left you to the mercies of Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, et. al. Maybe we should just leave the dictators in various nations to subjugate and enslave their “citizens”. Would that make you feel better?
Then what would you rant about if you couldn’t point the finger at us and blame your problems on “US military agression”?
Talk about a worn out talking point…
00
Make him feel better? Hereward and his ilk positively pine for the good old days.
00
I am a bit late comming to this but here goes. I have watched that video and to exaggerate the intent of what was said into a “hate speech” claim and a call for “genocide” would be drawing a long bow indeed. I am sure that a lot of people everywhere in the world, including many in the middle east, would love to see the current political set up in Iran disappear and Amadinejad and the mad mullahs sent on to whatever afterlife awaits them.
Perhaps you should consider the military aggression of countries other than the US. It is most probable that people of your frame of mind would have been supporting Neville Chamberlain in his efforts to placate Hitler and would have been so disgusted at that warmonger Churchill. What a wanker for him to be suggesting British “millitary aggression” against poor old Adolf (sarc).
And that nice Emperor and his millitary minions in Tokyo. Doesn’t he dress well and “what an interesting culture and how much more sophisticated than us evil western warmongers” and any other non thinking “how cool is that” BS that currently comes from the moral and cultural relativists. So what if they were devastating China and killing 100s of thousands of people out of hand, “I am sure they will not bother us if we just say nice things about them”. And, you know, after WW2 those evil and militarily aggressive Americans stayed in Germany and Japan as awfull oppressive dictators. Not like those nice Russians who packed up and left all of those Eastern European countries to have the freedom they deserved /sarc.
Well Mr Fenton, I for one am glad for the US millitary and for their so called “millitary aggression”. Perhaps you should look at the aggression from the people who currently run Iran. Most of the terrorist organisations in the middle east from Hamas to Hezbollah are organised and funded by Iran. Iran is currently staging terrorist attacks around the world and was recently caught in a plot to assasinate the Saudi ambassador in New York. The rulers of Iran constantlly call out for death to America and Mr Amadinejads has repeatedly stated that it is a religious and moral duty for Muslims anywhere in the world to kill any American anywhere they find them. They also constantly and clearly call for, not only the destruction of Israel, but the death of every Jew in Israel. But golly gee wiz, I am sure that he doesn’t mean it and he is only frustrated by those evil American oil companies run by those evil capitalists and their awfull “millitary aggression” all controlled by those evil Jews who are one who are really in control of the US government/sarc. And after all of this, those awfull and aggressive Americans still let him come and go to the UN building in New York and make his anti US tirades and still let him appear on US TV. I would have though that with their evil millitary agressive nature they would have had him offed by now or arrested him and sent him to Gitmo for prolonged torture or whatever.
And I am sure that they are only developing nuclear weapons just to see if they are smart enough to do it. Grow up mate. The sooner Amadinejad and the mad mullahs are no longer in control of Iran the better of we will all be, including the people in Iran, and the fact that the people at Fox news are the only ones prepared to air this so that the “people” can have a debate about it the better. This is why their ratings are now more than all of the other lefty channels combined. The trouble with you mate, is that you see the airing of any subject that you find distateful or uncomfortable and that you disagree with as “Hate Speech” or “pandering to patriotism” or some other “stereotypical” put down practiced by the the politically correct cultural marxists who seem to have infested every aspect of the public discourse accross the western world. These are same types as the intellectual elites here in Australia who talk about the 80/80 rule. That is 80% of the population has an IQ of less than 80 and so we need to control what they say, what they hear, and any other choice they may think thay have so that they don’t get out of control and “destroy the planet” or “attack their foreign looking neighbours” or “vote for the wrong party” or “call people I like names” or spend money on things we think they shouldn’t. Heaven forbid if they say something that offends or insults anybody.
Perhaps you should apply a bit more critical though to what you say before you mouth a bunch of leftist cant.
00
cameronH: Right on, mate! This American agrees with you 100%
One thing puzzles me though:
If the “intellectual elites” in Australia really believe that 80% of the population has an IQ of less than 80, that is remarkable — because IQ tests are periodically “renormed” so that the average IQ is 100.
If 80% of the population had an IQ < 80, then most of the other 20% would have to be geniuses to bring the average back to 100. I'm sure your "intellectual elites" think that they are geniuses, but it seems more likely that they are just innumerate.
00
The trouble is, Bob, that every time they “renorm” the IQ, I get smarter.
I am therefore all for it … 🙂
00
Howard,
I just clicked on the link embedded behind your name as well as the link to the quote from Tucker Carllson. The Fox News Program Redeye is a late night semi comedy program. You took him completely out of context and the video clip itself was tantamount to a lie by omission. Did you bother to go to Foxnews for the rest of the clip to gain a contextual understanding of what Mr. Carlson was saying? I doubt it!
When I visited the link by clicking on your name it took me to a far left news blog. You are a disingenuous peddler of far left fantasy BS. Conspiracies, paranoia and half truths. You are some one I wouldn’t trust as far as I can throw the house I am in!
00
Are you the same “Hereward Fenton” as the lunatic that helps run the Australian 9/11 Truther site http://www.911oz.com ?
00
Mind Control Quotes
“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure–one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
– David Rockefeller, Memoirs (2002)
“Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing.”
– George Orwell
00
Remember the eccentric hippy-type religious or eco nutters who used to parade round cities bearing large sandwich boards on their shoulders proclaiming on one side that “THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH” and on the other “REPENT YE SINNERS OR YOU”LL ALL DIE”? They generally attracted either scorn, smiles or perhaps pity for the depths their paranoid self-delusion had brought them to. They usually died sad, lonely penniless men.
How times have changed since the advent of computers. Deluded people like Peter Gleick, James Hansen, David Karoly, Tim Flannery and many other CAGW proponents now parade computer modelling as their “sandwich boards” but still bearing the same messages of doom. The big difference is that they have learnt how to turn it into a lucrative profession as greedy governments, financial institutions and other carpet-baggers saw the money making opportunities and potential for power and control and not only jumped aboard the bandwagon but provided funds and resources to feed and perpetuate the scam.
Flannery and others found that even if they were inevitably later proved to be wrong,the scarier and more ridiculous they could make their alarmist predictions the more they could advance their financially rewarding “careers” if they found a government stupid enough to believe them. Maybe even making them head of a useless money-eating bureaucracy.
Occasionally some particularly “rabid” self-deluded believer like Peter Gleick will over-reach and destroy themselves but for the rest the gravy-train will roll on until even taxpayers funds for the heavy subsidies needed will start to dry up. By that time the scientific shysters and “canny” investors will have made their money and gone leaving the gullible “little people” to survey the ruins and wonder what the hell happened!
00
Was listening to 3AW this afternoon and John Elliot raised an alarming point for the Coalition regarding the Senate. If Abbott wins the next election then he will obviously have a majority in the House of Representatives but the Senate could be a problem. Let’s look at the current Senate numbers:
Labor 31
Liberal/National Party 34
Greens 9
Democratic Labor Party 1
Independent 1
They are going to struggle to have control in the Senate unless there is a massive swing towards them in the next election. This could ring alarm bells when trying to abolish the Carbon Tax.
00
Somebody had a solution to this earlier.
It was to reduce the tax to say 0.0001 cents per tonne and effectively neutering it?
00
I believe that the legislation sets a minimum price of $15 per tonne so it may not be legally possible to set it at such low levels.
00
Two attempts to repeal the tax blocked in the senate, grounds for a double dissolution. Both houses fully dissolved, hopefully greens decimated, tax gone.
00
With the added benefit of Labor having to put the Greens last for their own survival.
00
It is a big risk for Abbott to go to another election just after the election that he is likely to win in 2013?
00
Unless he does, Juliar, it’s unlikely that all the current government’s “carbon” laws can be repealed.
The ALP will probably get a worse thrashing than Whitlam in 1975 so it’s just possible after 2013 that they might abstain from opposing any repeal bills in the Senate. That way they can salve their political consciences while not antagonising an angry electorate and providing Abbott with a DD “trigger”
00
ClimateAudit’s latest is a must read, quite amusing. Includes mention of a couple of aussie characters.
http://climateaudit.org/2012/02/25/gleick-and-americas-dumbest-criminal/
00
Could someone please explain to me just why anyone at the UN, or any where else for that matter, would want to give Rudd a job.
He will have no pull with Oz politicians, or industry when he’s gone, & a trail of hate to live down. The man is nothing but a burden for anyone who hires him.
00
Personally I blame the mess we are in on two things:
– the Proportional Representation system that allows ‘full weighted’ vote transference – in effect what you voted for first seems too little valued in the system; its just too easy to tip the scales. The Greens know this well.
this leads to:
– No real means of ‘performance review’ for the previously sitting member. If you are annoyed with the previous lot you either vote for them again and send no ‘signal’ to change OR you vote for the other guys and change the whole game again with no clear signal – as either you were really annoyed with the current lot or the new guys are just that much better… OR with PR you end up due to preference trading with someone completely different that you did not really want in the seat anyways – and no party gets a signal to change their ways. It all gets ‘lost’ in the machinery..
If it were down to me in addition at each election you would be able to vote for the sitting member in terms of them getting benefits from their office, simple Yes/No. Don’t get greater than 50% Yes; no pension plan, nothing. I wonder how that would sharpen peoples mind to ensure they represent their electorate?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there are quite a few politicians who go into it with noble intentions and do actually represent their electorate – the trouble is we have no real way to set up a form of political ‘natural selection’ to ensure good representative behavior is rewarded and seen to be encouraged by the actual electoral system we have…
00
A CASE OF OPEN AND SHUT MINDS
Today (27/2/12) I attended a Perth Writers Festival talk at the University of Western Australia titled:
“I Believe In An Open Mind, But Not So Open That Your Brains Fall Out”
It included the blurb:
“Does every opinion on climate change need to be given the same weight, no matter what the qualifications of the opinion giver? Has the media’s approach confused the messages around climate change?”
The speakers were: Misha Ketchell (journalist – The Age, Crickey, The Conversation, The Drum), Stephan Lewandowsky (UWA cognitive scientist, currently investigating the distinction between scepticism and denial), Alom Shaha (UK science educator) and James Paterson (Editor of the IPA Review).
The thesis under consideration was whether we should remove the right of some people to speak about climate change. Three of the panel, in a vote for censorship that would make any totalitarian proud, were in agreement. Only James Paterson from the IPA demurred.
Just a hundred metres or so from the Dolphin Theatre, where the discussion was unfolding, stands a stone bust of that great thinker Socrates. The inscription on it reads, “Socrates who sought truth always by the path of open discussion and free enquiry. May his spirit preside here at all times.”
How ironic that UWA professor and cognitive scientist Stephan Lewandowsky, under the guise of making a distinction between scepticism and denial, should promote censorship in direct contrast to the ancient wisdom of Socrates, whose example one might fairly have thought would be an inspiration not a hindrance.
Lewandowsky, who advocates that the opinion of certain types of scientists (such as geologists) should be discounted in the debate over climate change, described himself as “a practising scientist”. He informed us that his field is psychology and his specialty cognition. By his own standard he is not qualified to speak on the issue of climate change. But his terminology of “practising scientist” is clearly self-serving, being designed to confer legitimacy.
Indulging in intellectual dishonesty from the outset, Lewandowsky proclaimed, “There is absolutely no debate in the scientific community regarding climate change.” This is an outrageous lie; a lie that denies the enormous disputation over the role humans play in affecting the climate. Ironically, this cognitive ‘expert’ here exhibited cognitive dissonance in spades.
Lewandowsky assured us that the science of climate was settled when he said, “The debate is not about the existence of climate change or whether humans are causing it.” Later, notwithstanding his avowed certainty, he said, “The uncertainty is what should scare us.” Make up your mind professor. Either all the science is in and we know what’s in store, or we are still so uncertain we should be scared.
The good professor assured us not to get him wrong – that he was “all in favour of debate”, just with the teeny-weeny caveat that only those who publish in the peer-reviewed literature should have a voice. Other voices are illegitimate. As an example he cited an (unnamed) NZ weatherman who appeared on the Sunrise TV program (sometime) during which he opined on the climate debate. Apparently this weatherman has written a book on palmistry. So Lewandowsky treated us to a series of quotes from the palmistry book to illustrate just what a figure of fun the weatherman really is, and thus his opinions on climate are illegitimate.
What a sorry argument. It’s called ad hominem. Is that the best you’ve got professor? Do you really think that this type of argument convinces anyone but those already converted to the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) religion?
But it’s all Lewandowsky has. He never once discussed the science, and his grasp of the issues is obviously quite tenuous. At one point he claimed that most of Australia’s ‘carbon tax’ “will go into clean energy funding”. James Paterson picked him up quick smart, pointing out that most all of the money raised by the tax would be used to compensate consumers and businesses.
Misha Ketchell’s ideological bent was bared for all to see as he exhibited the left’s pathological hatred for The Australian newspaper, attributing to it all sorts of nefarious deeds and motives. He continued with an attack on The Heartland Institute and its purported support for the tobacco industry. Next out came a homage to the book “Merchants of Doubt”, a deeply flawed and inaccurate polemic by activist historian Naomi Oreskes.
Ketchell assured us any questioning of AGW could be safely dismissed because it is all part of a conspiracy to create doubt. Ketchell even referred to documents “leaked” from the Heartland Institute, when he slandered Professor Bob Carter, calling him a paid shill for vested interests. Note that he used the word “leaked”. The Heartland documents in question were fraudulently obtained/stolen in a probably career-ending example of subterfuge by climate activist Peter Gleick. Ketchell was never going to tell the audience about that; nor ever use this sordid episode as an example of deceit that might qualify the perpetrator for the censorship Ketchell so passionately advocates.
The pro-AGW panellists lamented the media’s role in pushing “misinformation” – that is, casting doubt on the AGW orthodoxy. They accused the ‘sceptics’ and ‘deniers’ of being well funded; and claimed there is a pressing need to get to the bottom of who is funding opposition and for what motives. Next we heard that CSIRO scientists were being intimidated from speaking out in favour of the AGW orthodoxy! Yes, you ‘heard’ right. It’s as if the AGW promoters live in a different fantasy universe to the rest of us, where the media rubbishes AGW, the sceptics have all the funding and climate scientists are afraid to be pro-AGW. The true believers have converted the tiny recognition given to the sceptics into an all-encompassing monster. They want it all their own way and wish to deny every last oxygen molecule to their ideological enemies.
It was interesting that there was not a climate sceptic amongst the speakers, James Paterson included (who incidentally, was the only one of the four panellists not to receive a round of applause when introduced). Poor Misha Ketchell is so up on the AGW issue (not) that at one point he struggled to pronounce “anthropogenic” and had to ask if he was saying it correctly. And he’s going to tell us that we may not ask questions? He can’t even pronounce the single most important word in this whole dispute – anthropogenic.
The audience was comprised mostly of AGW true believers who gave warm applause to various panellists as they uttered various shibboleths, although there was general agreement (judging by the general mirth) that Tim Flannery has no credibility nor authority, as James Paterson skewered our Climate Commissioner by the simple expedient of quoting several of his ridiculous predictions (regarding permanently low dam levels, never-to-be-seen-again rain and the like).
Paterson acquitted himself well, speaking clearly and in a measured tone, correcting the exaggerations and untruths of the others at various points (and without rising to provocations). He did slip when he referred to ‘carbon’ as ‘pollution’ and when he stated that sceptics had not published in the peer-reviewed literature.
One wonders how the talk would have unfolded had the Perth Festival been honest enough to allow a genuine, rational sceptic with scientific credentials (such as Professor Bob Carter) a voice. But, of course, the whole purpose of the exercise was to stifle and silence dissent. The forces of darkness would never allow somebody who understands the science a platform to speak. That may just frighten the horses; and we couldn’t have that could we?
It was fascinating to observe the disconnect: A group of mostly closed-minded true believers in anthropogenic global warming discussing the limits of open-mindedness. They arrived with their minds closed shut tight and departed the same way.
It is quintessential irony that we were attending a talk on the limits of open-mindedness. These folks wouldn’t know an open mind if they fell right into one. They are in the vanguard of the anti-Enlightenment movement. Maybe we should censor them? No, that would be hypocritical; and besides, it is just too much fun observing the ridiculous contortions they adopt as they contrive to preserve the bankrupt and failing AGW ideology that sustains them.
00
Lewandowsky believes that rightly that palmistry is a pseudoscience and deserving of derision. What makes psychology so different? It is a “science” with very little objective scientific principle to verify it, a hodgepodge of opinion, guesstimates and assumptions based upon the practitioner’s biases and unsubstantiated opinions. By all means let’s not dismiss it as a useless tool, but to suggest that it has the objectivity of physics or chemistry, backed by a solid foundation of experimental data, is a joke.
00
Hi Winston
There are a number of areas in Psychology which are quite rigorous in processes applied to their investigation.
That said, every time a “Psychologist” appears in the media to comment on why people behave the way they do and wear the clothes they do and drive dangerously and so on, I feel very uncomfortable.
That is not psychology, just people showing off.
And so we have Lew explaining why people who can’t see the “Reality” of Global warming are actually suffering from a mental illness.
🙂
00
If the Psychology Dept want to be taken seriously as a science they need to stop their “professors” from repeatedly breaking laws of reason when they speak. Lewandowsky does more than anyone to besmirch the reputation of the subject, but the fact that he is not censured for his unscientific activism is a cringworthy reflection on the entire profession.
00
Yep!
00
I agree, KK. I know you have a psychology background so I am not trying to be offensive- Medicine is also not entirely scientific either, but scientific methods and principles are applied to say treatment of cancers, relative benefits of one chemotherapy over another, one surgical approach or another etc. But to suggest that Medicine is not a blend of art, instinct and science would be laughable, in spite of pretense to the contrary by my colleagues I’m sure. Psychology, by it’s very nature, is even moreso. It is not it’s “fault”, but that is they way it is and how it has evolved. Hard sciences are much more rooted in objectivity, so for Lewandowsky to spout on like he does is disingenuous at best, at next best a downright misrepresentation and at worst, well words fail me. Stefan casts aspersions on scientific integrity every time he opens his mouth in ignorance- I think he is certifiable, quite frankly, but that is only my opinion. I’m sure I could bend the DSM 4 criteria to accomodate that if I tried!
00
Thanks for that great report Stephen. It really confirms that the UWA is rapidly becoming the premier bastion of academic censorship in Australian Universities! It’s extraordinary that they are so insecure despite their belief in the “consensus” of “settled science” as regards the hypothesis of AGW, that they seek to actively prevent their gullible brainwashed adherents from even hearing that in the absence of any empirical evidence to the contrary, the null hypothesis of natural variability still prevails.
West Australians should start a petition to have the statue of Socrates removed from UWA grounds until they once again seek to adhere to the principles he espoused!
00
Thankyou for a brilliant and informative post.
00
A good example of ponerization. Not to be confused with ponerisation. 😉
00
Some entertainment parody I found described at Climate realists.
“Hitler is told that man-made global warming is a scam.wmv” [strong language]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=627ORsap1wo&feature=youtu.be
00
Is the Window Closing? An excellent article by Art Horn, IceCap meteorologist.
“Real world evidence from nearly four decades of satellite data has proven that large increases in carbon dioxide have not shown any sign of closing the window at the top of the atmosphere. No amount of computer modeling or rhetoric from famous people or proclamations from large institutions or speeches from our leaders in Washington can change this. The data alone should be enough for thoughtful, reasonable people to re-consider the causes of climate change”.
I recommend it as a “must read”!
http://www.icecap.us/
00
I too have a background in psychology and no way do I consider myself a scientist as I have no physics, chemistry or hard mathematics. Psych tries hard to say they are scientific by using stats to evaluate efemoral data – what a person says they believe,versus heart rate, breathing etc and it may show that someone is lying, for example, but hard science? One thing I did learn was that a model depends upon the variables included and climate has so many that were ignored, adjusted, manipulated etc that the results had to be irrelevant in many instances.
Stick to the facts – David Evans’ writings do it for me.
00
OWOTN,
I was once told the only real science was physics…….the rest are lessor versions of.
Disclaimer: No i am not a physicists.
00
“All science is either physics or stamp collecting”… attributed to Sir Ernest Rutherford. The problem I have with that quote though, is that it pre-dates quantum mechanics and chaos science… if there is just a little bit of true uncertainty (not just stochasticity from things like normal probability distributions), complex systems (like climate) must be truly unpredictable, no matter how deep your knowledge of physics. Collectors of climate stamps, and determinative modellers who have convinced themselves there are no unknown unknowns at the scale of their model, have about the same basis for claiming to know “the” truth as those who once believed that all swans are white.
00
Lovely quote from an aticle by Steven F Hayward at IceCap, which has relevance to the attitudes prevalent at UWA
‘Why the Climate Skeptics are Winning’
“The Gleick episode exposes again a movement that disdains arguing with its critics, choosing demonization over persuasion and debate. A confident movement would face and crush its critics if its case were unassailable, as it claims. The climate change fight doesn’t even rise to the level of David and Goliath. Heartland is more like a David fighting a hundred Goliaths. Yet the serial ineptitude of the climate campaign shows that a tiny David doesn’t need to throw a rock against a Goliath who swings his mighty club and only hits himself square in the forehead.”
http://www.icecap.us/
00
WUWT is Running Dr David M.W. Evans sceptics case.
Here is my contribution to comments;
Will Nitschke says:
February 26, 2012 at 2:40 pm
Yes in Australia there is actually a department of climate change.”
========================
Australians aren’t silly, we also have a climate commission to make sure the “message” gets thru.
http://climatecommission.gov.au/
I’ve recently received a letter from The Director, Paul Ryan further to my request as to procedures for correction to published reports. I’m just now in the process of having them quantify their risk assessments regarding a report Professor McMichaels on dengue fever.
From their feedback to me, thus far, they appear to be the propaganda machine for the Department of Climate. Here is a example from my first foray with them, questioning the veracity of their claims about mosquito borne diseases, with regards to mosquito disease transportation factors.
=========================
I refereed them to Gething Et El. (2010) and Paaijmans et al. (2011). Paul Ryans response in part:
“Both papers refer to malaria, which is a quite different illness to dengue fever. Malaria is is spread by different mosquito’s (Anopheles) v’s ( Aedes aegypti), and is a different type of illness. The Paaijimans et al. paper presents research on a link between temperature and malaria parasite infectiousness. The papers comment regarding dengue fever is not part of the papers research, and is unusual given the differences discussed above.
“There are many variables to consider in understanding and projecting future movements of infectious disease carried by mosquito, such as temperature, mosquito behavior infectiousness and human interferences (medication, preventative action.
“How climate change will affect malaria, as well as other other mosquito-borne infectious diseases, is a complex issue and there are no easy answers. The ‘Critical Decade – Climate Change and Heath’ focuses on dengue fever, as a more quantifiable risk fo Australia.”
=========================
I’m relate here only two of my many questions of them.
1. A dengue fever epidemic was recognised in the Torres Strait Islands of Queensland in late 2003. Two fatal cases of dengue haemorrhagic fever occurred in early 2004. This severe manifestation is more common when a patient is infected a second time, with a different virus serotype to the first infection. These are the first fatalities related to dengue fever in Australia in over a century.
2. Geographic distribution Aedes aegypti in Australia;
An introduced species, currently known to exist only in Queensland and predominantly northern coastal Qld, but previously known from WA, NT, and southern NSW. It exists in low populated areas of Australia.
I do wonder how much money was spent in advising Australians of the risk caused by climate change regarding this mosquito. I know it was in the millions. I’ll let you know exactly how much soon.
00
Australia
Your views are, at best worth 30% of the input of the Australian Labor Party
The other 70% is ruled by the self interest and political ambitions of the Australian Labor Partys Politicians.
Voting for labor are we – What a Loser!
Roll on the complete and final destruction of the Union Front called the Australian Labor party!
00
Despite my personal belief that Rudd is a dud, polls at the weekend suggest he is still popular with a large portion of the people, while Gillard is on the nose with most.
So will Gillards clear win this morning help, or will it mean a further drop in the polls for Labor???
In MHO, sticking by Gillard can only keep Labors numbers down.
00
Bob,
With the result in what do you think will happen next? Labor slowly spiral into obscurity so at some point they will have to change leader but who and when will that be?
00
Not claiming any supernatural powers no cystal ball, however I can’t see them improving their position while ever Gillard is the captain, then again we ozzies are a fickle lot, always willing to accept a dollar or two for now effort.
When the compensation payments (bribes) roll through, those out there that put no thought into politics may just clime on for the ride.
If the numbers don’t improve greatly after July, I see another spill between September and November.
00
No one wants to be leader of the opposition coupled wih JG wants to be known as the last ALP prime minister.
Do not underestimate the media blast that is yet to come. The ALP could win the next election. Headlines like “Julia saves orphan”, “Tony molests small puppy dog.”
The wild card is Kev. He plays games and I have the feeling that he has just begun his end-game. Let’s wait and see the next move.
00
Bob,
I must admit, I have been a little torn over the past couple of days. The conservative in me wanted guilleard to win because her unpopularity and propensity to blatantly lie means the LNP don’t actually have to do much to have a resounding victory at the next election.
On the other Hand, Rudd was clearly the choice of the Labor Voters. My respect for democratic input wanted Rudd to win this coup.
Two things have been abundantly clear over the last week:
1) The ALP know that it was the Carbon Tax that is the poster child of everything that is wrong with this Government
2) They truly believe that the $4 billion dollar bribe in the next financial year will be enough to make the australian people think the Carbon tax is a molehill rather than a mountain
3) They know they will lose the next election and guess who is going to have to deal with the fallout from when the carbon tax and the ETS really kicks in
This Governments’ job is so bad that they may well cripple the next governments chances at re-election.
Personally I think they’re utter amateurs and that they are a clear and present threat to the democracy in Australia.
00
Madjack:
your point 2)
your post appeared while I was responding to cracker, in that reply I make a similar point.
00
Bob,
I think their arrogance leads them to believe the little people are dumb.
I personally think people are now much better informed that any generation beforehand. It is so easy for people to check things online for themselves – and be exposed to a variety of perspectives on a particular topic – they don’t even need to go to a library anymore.
I’ll shut up now because I don’t want the enemy to learn from me.
00
I have noticed that is it only the Socialist parties (ALP in Australia, and Labour in NZ) refer to the voters as, “the little people”.
00
Jo, hearty congrats on winning a bloggie! Well deserved”
00
The good guys have got the quadrella …
Jo Nova got the Best Australian and New Zealand Blog,
Tallbloke got the Best European Blog,
Climate Audit (Steve McIntyre) got the Best Canadian Blog, AND
WUWT got the Best Science or Technology Blog!
No mention of RealClimate, SkepticalScience, NotNova, etc, etc, etc …
00
Quintella! WUWT got the lifetime achievment award as well!
00
I should hope so … do you guys realise how much time I spent in creating email addresses, just so I could make sure my vote counted, and counted, and counted …
Just kidding, it was on merit I am sure.
Congratulations Jo.
00
First winner is Jo Nova!
Congratulations !!
00
Wadda go Jo! Congrats!
00
Little Birdie says YOU WON web blog awards BIG CONGRATULATIONS – well deserved HURRAH!!!!!
00
Well Done Jo!
00
If the news is right Jo, my congrats.
00
Congrats Jo, a very well deserved win in the Bloggies! thanks for being there!!! <3
00
http://twitter.com/#!/Bloggies
JoNova has won the Australian/NZ weblog award
ClimateAudit has won the 2012 Canadian weblog award
Tallblokes talkshop has won the auropean weblog award
Wattsupwiththat has won the best science and technology award
Clean sweep for the sceptics!
If you want to be entertained, watch TV. If you want to be informed and to participate, get blogging!
00
I’ll second that.
00
It’s good to see the peoples choice happening somewhere in Australia Today!
HAW HAW HAW!
00
Congratulations to all of them.
Now there is a “consensus” worth talking about.
00
The News Is Correct.
Link to twitter feed.
Scroll down to best Australian or New Zealand Blog.
Announced 45 minutes ago as at the above timestamp for this Comment.
Tony.
00
Congratulations Jo.
00
Jo,
Congratulations on winning best Australian blog – don’t know much about Australian blogs but I know you are the best!
Cheers from Tempe Arizona!
00
Well done Jo – richly deserved…
00
Three cheers to Jo for all the hard work over the years to make this the best science blog in the southern hemisphere.
Also good news for Tall Bloke, Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts.
00
Something from Lindzen worth reading
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf
00
An Extraordinary Website deserves Recognition.
Light moderation allows instant communication and feedback via comments and thumbs encourages participation.
Being part of this site is a chance to learn and develop understanding of Science,
Engineering, Global Warming and its peripherals like Money, The Economy, Taxation, The
United Nations, Research Grants, Academic Rigor, Corruption, Greed and so on.
Lots of great tutors, thanks all for the education!
🙂
00
Democracy means that every period of years one gets the right to vote for a vague agenda but have no right of participation in its implementation.
Policy makers make rules but produce nothing. They expect voters to work increasingly harder to produce more for their ever increasing schemes that have ever increasing costs to each and every individual, and with regards to climate change, sovereignty implications that few understand.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/staggering-cost-of-co2-permits-revealed/story-fn7j19iv-1226122430767
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/latest/8916664/carbon-tax-billions-to-help-poor-nations/
00
Congratulations on your award. It’s well deserved. Thank you for all that you do.
re: Gleick. Two thoughts.
(1) Note that he was in the process of mobilizing professional ethics processes to be used as a means for censuring and silencing (us) heretics. Reminds me of the Wegman plagiarism complaint – nothing about the science, just a writer in a hurry careless with complete citations (that should have been caught in review). As far as I can determine he never represented that work as his own. And yet the press uses the incident to dismiss all his work.
(2) Gleick’s grants for studying truck pollution. Did he also contribute to this fraud? Or was he part of an effort by the ideologues in the EPA to recover from the fiasco? We should have double jeopardy rules for regulators as well as courts.
http://www.cdtoa.org/news/carbnews/1479-ca-legislators-threaten-hearings-if-ucla-fires-carb-whistleblower
00
The Weblog Awards @Bloggies
.
Best Australian or New Zealand Weblog:
JoNova joannenova.com.au
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Congrats JoNova and guys and gals at the site too!
.
_Jim
00
Jo,
Congratulations! Well done!
Also David Evan’s “The Skeptics Case” on WUWT is a very good read.
00
Congratulations Jo and to all your helpers , behind the scene.
00
Outstanding!
00
Congratulations on the 2012 Weblog Awards win!!!
Very well deserved and well done!!!
00
Fantastic result on winning the 2012 Weblog award for this region!
Congratulations!
Paul
00
well done Jo and thank you for your efforts
00
Just heard the news. Congratulations Jo – well deserved, plus Anthony, Tallbloke, Steve M.
Great news. Who cares about the Oscars – the Bloggies are the big one!
00
Heartiest congratulations, Jo!
00
Congratulations on your blog win, Jo … better hurry back from the beach … schnell, schnell …
00
congratulations Jo. many thanx to you and your helpers for defending the scientific method.
to have WUWT win two awards, including the Lifetime Achievement Award is fantastic…and well-deserved.
congrats also to Big Mac and Tallbloke.
the dinosaur media’s days are numbered.
00
A heartfelt congrats on the award Jo!
00
Congrats on the Bloggies award Jo. My vote went to Australian Climate Madness, but if we had to lose to anyone, I’m glad it was you. 😉
00
btw the fight is not over. a new BIPARTISAN effort to commodify CARBON DIOXIDE is up and running and Washington Post’s Ezra Klein does his best to assist:
26 Feb: Washington Post Blog: Ezra Klein: Henry Waxman’s plan to cut the deficit and stop global warming — at the same time
On Friday, Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.) joined former Reps. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) and Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md.) to publish an op-ed arguing that we could address our most pressing fiscal and environmental problems in one fell swoop by placing a price on carbon. “The United States could raise $200 billion or more over 10 years and trillions of dollars by 2050 while cutting carbon emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050,” they wrote. I spoke with Waxman about the idea on Friday. A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows…
EK: What always worries me about climate change is that I think it is, in an important way, dissimilar from budget issues. If the deficit goes up and up and up, and interest rates begin to rise, we can make different choices an the debt can still be brought down. It’s harder, maybe, but not fundamentally different. With carbon, it goes up and up and up and then we hit a point of no return, where we can’t get that carbon back out of the atmosphere.
HW: I think we have to look at the fact that neither of these problems can be solved overnight. But if we could put in place a price on carbon and then use the sales of carbon allowances to raise revenues we could raise money and cut emissions at the same time, and we can have a transition that will be as orderly as possible. If we leave both to become much more severe then the answers will be more radical and painful.
EK: But is combining them the easiest way politically? Because from where I sit, the key change in the global warming conversation is that it’s become a cultural issue rather than a scientific one. So doesn’t this layer a culture war on top of an already difficult set of economic choices?
HW: I am amazed that the question of science and the clear consensus of opinion that we are experiencing global warming and it is caused to a great extent by people is thought of as controversial. We do have people who are science deniers and, in the House of Representatives, we’ve had party-line votes where the Republicans have voted to deny science. But I know a lot of those same Republicans know this is a problem that has to be dealt with. This last year was the highest on record. We’re seeing more bizarre climate episodes than we’ve seen before. It’s now February and the daffodils are growing. All these are signs that something is happening. We can’t deny the evidence…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/henry-waxmans-plan-to-cut-the-deficit-and-stop-global-warming–at-the-same-time/2011/08/25/gIQAV4z0bR_blog.html
and this is how Klein began this piece:
‘“Taxmageddon” is coming. That’s what Hill staff are calling the pile-up at the end of 2012, when the Bush tax cuts are set to expire, the payroll tax cut is set to expire, the $1.2 trillion spending trigger is set to go off, and the debt-ceiling is expected to be breached. But some members of Congress see opportunity tucked behind this coming crisis.’
nothing whatsoever to with CAGW, u see.
00
Jo,
Congratulations on the big win. The timing is perfect. An Australian skeptic blog wins best Australian or New Zealand blog on the same day Labor ties Julia to the mast of her sinking carbon ship 😉
00
Congrats Jo, well deserved and well earned with the long hard work that you do.
A bigger congrats goes to ALL THE PARTICIPANTS OF JOs BLOG, without whom this blog wouldn’t be what it is, a fair decent place to debate, argue and banter.
Well done to everybody.
00
Major congratulations Jo!
Well deserved win on the Bloggie awards!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/weblog-awards-2/
00
while we are amusing ourselves with Gleickgate and celebrating the integrity and success of the CAGW sceptic blogs today, it’s fitting i should add a little context on Ezra Klein who did the Washington Post puff piece on the new push for pricing carbon dioxide in the US. how Klein is still working for WaPo, is beyond my understanding:
Wikipedia: Ezra Klein
In February 2007 Klein created a Google Groups forum called “JournoList” for discussing politics and the news media. The forum’s membership was controlled by Klein and limited to “several hundred left-leaning bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, policy wonks and academics”. Posts within JournoList were intended only to be made and read by its members. Klein defended the forum saying that it “[ensures] that folks feel safe giving off-the-cuff analysis and instant reactions”. JournoList member, and Time magazine columnist, Joe Klein added that the off-the-record nature of the forum was necessary because “candor is essential and can only be guaranteed by keeping these conversations private”.
The existence of JournoList was first publicly revealed in a July 27, 2007 blog post by blogger Mickey Kaus. However, the forum did not attract serious attention until March 17, 2009 when an article published on Politico detailed the nature of the forum and the extent of its membership. The Politico article set off debate within the Blogosphere over the ethics of participating in JournoList and raised questions about its purpose. The first public excerpt of a discussion within JournoList was posted by Mickey Kaus on his blog on March 26, 2009.
Members of JournoList included, among others: Ezra Klein, Jeffrey Toobin, Eric Alterman, Paul Krugman, Joe Klein (no relation to Ezra Klein), Matthew Yglesias, and Jonathan Chait.
On June 25, 2010, Ezra Klein announced in his Washington Post blog that he would be terminating the Journolist group. This decision was instigated by fellow blogger Dave Weigel’s resignation from the Post following the public exposure of several of his Journolist emails about conservative media figures.
***Klein had justified excluding conservative Republicans from participation as “not about fostering ideology but preventing a collapse into flame war. The emphasis is on empiricism, not ideology”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Klein
and that, naturally, is a “soft” Wikipedia account of what JournoList was and what they tried to do.
00
I’ll add this for the record here – can’t find it elsewhere:
Ninemsn poll today:
Do you think the Labor Party is fit to lead the country?
YES: 27164 (18.9%)
NO: 116628 (81.1%)
TOTAL: 143792
Jo – congratulations on your big win too! 🙂
00
http://americanfreepress.net/?p=2743
00
If the AGW conjecture is to be overturned the truth must be proven empirically and promulgated emphatically. I suggest it runs along these lines …
The reason radiation from a cooler object slows down the radiated heat transfer to itself from a warmer body is not because there is a compensating transfer of thermal energy back to the warmer body, because such would violate the Second Law. Rather it is because a standing wave is established which is represented by all the area under the Planck curve for the cooler body. This area represents the frequencies and intensities that are common to both the warm and cool objects.
The atmosphere (with over 50 gases and water vapour) does not radiate everything that a true blackbody would, but water vapour does help fill the area under that curve. So there is a standing wave, but its total power is not as much as a true blackbody. This is why some radiation escapes directly through the atmospheric window.
The standing wave has no thermal effect because none of its energy is ever converted to thermal energy. It just sends information back to the warmer body and a part of the warmer body’s radiation goes into the standing wave. The energy radiated by the warmer body which is represented by the area between the curves does get converted to thermal energy because it cannot resonate and thus contribute to the standing wave. The calculations of course agree with accepted physics, but the mechanism is not a two-way transfer of heat, as many appear to have supposed.
But there is no build up of the effect of carbon dioxide due to multiple repetitions of the capturing and re-emitting process envisaged in the IPCC energy diagrams and models. Each carbon dioxide molecule can only play a single role in a very limited sub-section of the total standing wave. Its contribution per molecule would be no more than a molecule of water, and so its total overall effect is comparable with its relative proportion to WV and other emitters in the atmosphere – insignificant.
Furthermore, there must be a compensating effect for reduced radiation by way of additional evaporation, diffusion etc because the very stable temperatures not far underground will be reflected in the close thermal equilibrium at the surface / atmosphere interface.
00
Please take a deep breath before proceeding.
An article in the Guardian Newspaper. “Peter Gleick lied, but was it justified by the wider good?”
Not if you want to build trust and win people over is my comment.
00
Looks like Ross James does not like posting on an award winning site and has decided to go and pick on spencer instead.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/ten-years-after-the-warming/#comment-35440
Second last post if anyone is interested in putting him in his place over there, also the conversation is quite interesting as Roy describes the only 5 possibilities as to why we have no more warming.
Cheers
[Ross has posted several lenghty pages but we have left them in moderation] ED
00
Can it get any worse than this?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/27/why-yes-linking-climate-change-to-earthquakes-does-seem-to-be-bordering-on-the-insane/
I bet in some ways it can, waiting for the link between AGW and the orbital properties of the Moon.
00
Neither “skeptics” or “deniers” are appropriate names. Perhaps “truth-seekers” would be more appropriate.
The greenhouse conjecture will not be debunked for a long time by actual climate data. But it can be debunked right now by new physics which is extending the work of Einstein and Planck.
Firstly we must recognise that radiation from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface is comprised only of standing (or stationary) waves which may be thought of as opposing waves along the same path between two particular points, one on the surface and one in the atmosphere. These opposing waves interfere iff they have the same frequency and amplitude.
In Wikipedia we read … It can arise in a stationary medium as a result of interference between two waves traveling in opposite directions. In the second case, for waves of equal amplitude traveling in opposing directions, there is on average no net propagation of energy.
In addition to the standing (or stationary) wave, there is also one way radiation from hot to cold and its frequencies are represented by the area between the Planck curves, which is the same as SBL effectively calculates by subtracting the area under the smaller (cooler) curve from the area under the larger (warmer) curve.
Standing waves cause resonant “vibration” between energy levels and the energy required to excite = energy emitted on relaxation for such standing waves.
So how could any extra energy appear from nowhere and get converted to thermal energy? A whole new and different process is required for that conversion. Climatologists seem to keep imagining physical vibration causing friction or something. It’s not like that. Energy cannot be created in the process of resonance associated with standing waves.
All radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface comprises standing waves transferring no net energy either way. Only the additional “top portion” of the radiation from the warmer surface is separate radiation which does cause heat transfer from warm to cool.
I warned you at the outset that Claes Johnson’s Computational Blackbody Radiation is ground breaking physics extending the work of Einstein and Planck. You are not going to find it in textbooks, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. There is far more to it than just imaging a lot of identical mass-less photon particles crashing into surfaces and transferring thermal energy.
Any textbook which tells you that radiation between two plates transfers the full SBL amount in each direction is wrong, because there simply cannot be any transfer of thermal energy along a different path from cold to hot as it violates the Second Law. “Net” radiation has no corresponding physical entity and is thus meaningless.
Only standing waves have an identical path and can thus interfere with each other if they have equal frequency and amplitude, as explained in Wikipedia.
The Second Law applies to every individual path between two particular points. Standing waves may be considered as two opposing waves, but they do of course have the same path, and that makes all the difference. It’s up to you whether you want to take an interest in these new developments in physics or stick to your old beliefs so you can feel good trying to prove the IPCC wrong using climate data and yet still agreeing with them that heat transfers from the atmosphere to a warmer surface. It doesn’t..
00