JoNova

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


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

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



The end of the Global Warming Scare would look a lot like this

Soon, the moment will come when the crowd will say “I always knew it was fake”.

Here are three signs we are at the beginning of The End.

1. Op-Ed writers will be pointing out how governments are unwinding  policies: Dominic Lawson: Britain Has Finally Rejected The Bogus Economics Of Climate Change. Germany (home of half the worlds solar energy production)  is winding up its pursuit of renewables, and eight Eastern European nations said “No Thanks” (legally) to the EU’s authoritarian dictat on carbon emissions, and hardly anyone complained…

And which energy source is ecologically correct Germany now developing faster than any other? Lignite, otherwise known as brown coal, the most carbon- intensive fuel known to modern man.

This makes the countries on the European Union’s eastern borders (notably Poland, for which indigenous coal is a dominant energy source) even more reluctant to accept the national emissions targets promoted by Brussels. Eight of these nations launched a legal challenge and last week they won a ruling by the European Court of Justice that Brussels had exceeded its powers in imposing such limits. The court brushed aside the European commission’s complaint that it would not otherwise be able to “protect the integrity of the EU-wide market of [carbon] allowances”.

The most telling point is that this verdict gained almost no coverage. As Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, observes: “In the past, Poland’s intractable hostility to green unilateralism was greeted by protestation in capitals around Europe. Today it is hardly noticed by the media, while green campaigners have become limp . . . Other and more pressing concerns are taking precedence and are completely overriding the green agenda.”

2. Yet another solar company will go ffhtt:  German Solar Giant Goes Belly Up.

3. And writers will tell us how skeptics are winning:

For years S. Fred Singer was one of a few voices to challenge the claims of impending doom from alleged manmade global warming.
TEXT BY MARK LANDSBAUM

We visited with him during his recent visit to Chapman University. It was a happy occasion. After years of criticizing the allegedly “settled science,” Singer’s side of the debate is enjoying new and widespread credibility. This is thanks to many convergent developments.

First, there’s that inconvenient problem for warmists that the scant atmospheric heating they pointed to as evidence of looming doom pretty much stopped about 15 years ago. It’s awkward to keep screaming that the sky is falling when everyone can see it isn’t.

Then there are the discoveries of how alleged climate experts for years bullied dissenters, plotted to keep opposing views out of peer-reviewed publications and doctored data to conveniently arrive at the necessary conclusions to keep “the cause” alive. “The cause” is how insiders referred to what they wanted you to believe is impartial science. But it always has been a cause, almost religiously so. We know these things now thanks to two massive leaks of emails revealing accounts of the insiders’ candid hand-wringing and scheming.

Also in recent years has been an awakening among respectable scientists, heretofore content to go along with the supposed “consensus” about manmade global warming’s threat. One of them, David M.W. Evans, formerly of the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change), became skeptical when he discovered the main global warming argument collapsing from 1998-2006.

Evans’ epiphany exemplified another of the convergent developments that have aided Fred Singer’s side. Evans and others simply compared warmists’ gloomy predictions with what really came to pass. The theory collapsed. Facts are stubborn. Contrived hypotheses, not so much.

In 1988, for instance, James Hansen, the “father of global warming,” predicted that global temperatures by 2000 would soar even if CO2 levels didn’t increase. But the temperature didn’t rise as he said it would, even though CO2 soared during those years. If warmists’ were correct, there should have been a corresponding rise in temperature.

Warmists recently celebrated when they thought they had offset what we call the Singer Effect. Physics professor Richard Mueller, previously a climate skeptic*, conducted the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature review and nearly duplicated the IPCC’s claim about temperature increases. Even though he found surface measuring stations “quality is largely awful,” and even though he discovered there are only about a third as many stations in the U.S. as there were 40 years ago, he nevertheless concluded, based on “more than 1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations around the world,” that “global warming is real.”

But let’s be blunt. So what?

Climates warm and cool, and always have. The Earth has been coming out of the Little Ice Age for a little more than a century. Of course, it’s warmer than it was. Global warming enthusiasts read too much into Mueller’s findings. He used essentially the same flawed raw data the warmists before him used. Is it surprising he came up with about the same amount of warming?

We don’t need Mueller’s best or even satellite, ocean, balloon or proxy measurements to prove that. The warmists’ favorite sources in Great Britain for alarmism, East Anglia’s Climate Research Center and the Meteorological Office, now grudgingly concede there has been no meaningful warming since 1997. The Earth may even be cooling, the Met says.

In the race to explain climate, it looks as if skeptics are pulling into the lead.

Read the whole article at the Orange County Register. Savour the moment. (I’m sure Fred Singer is, after all the flack that has been thrown at him over the last 20 years.)

The poor desperate fans of a dying religion will scoff that it’s only the O C Register. Sure, we say. Sure!  It’s only a quarter of a million readers…  ;-)

 

* OK. So this is the only line  that was wrong in the otherwise exemplary story. Mueller was never a skeptic.

H/t for the top links from GWPF and Benny Peiser

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (120 votes cast)
The end of the Global Warming Scare would look a lot like this, 9.1 out of 10 based on 120 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/d7263sf

225 comments to The end of the Global Warming Scare would look a lot like this

  • #
    Robert

    They say “It ain’t over till the fat lady sings.” Is there a large woman in the wings somewhere going through her scales right now?

    For the rational and observant the fact that all of these “green” companies continue to go into the red only to declare bankruptcy, and that is WITH all of the government subsidies and handouts they’ve received, should be sufficient to indicate they are not and never were viable solutions.

    Here in the US thus far we can’t go a month without hearing of some “green” firm that received hefty sums from the government going bankrupt and shutting down.

    Of course this is AFTER their executives and management have lined their pockets with the money from those government handouts, AFTER the promised jobs never appeared, and shortly before we find out about the ties the firm had to various government officials and/or their contributions to the Democratic party’s campaign chests.

    All while the “faithful” continue their crying and gnashing of teeth about how it is to save the planet, it’s for the children, it’s [insert reason here]…

    According to them it is never about the money, while reality continues to show those that are actually looking that “the money” is all it has ever been about. Here in the US the only thing green about these companies is the color of the currency they have fraudulently accepted from the public purse.

    Perhaps those of you in other nations should start calling your “greens” by the color of your paper currency. It would be far more accurate.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      It’s not over `til brown’s liar sinks. ;)

       
      (In the polls, dear AFP, in the polls.)


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Kevin Moore

      My feeling is that if the powers that be cannot achieve total mastery of the world through deception and money control then their alternatives could be horrendous.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Pooh, Dixie

      Re: [insert reason here]
      Insert “sustainability”
      It won’t be over until positions of power have been scrubbed clean of would-be authoritarians / tyrants / rent-seekers. Use your vote wisely.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      MangoChutney

      They say “It ain’t over till the fat lady sings.” Is there a large woman in the wings somewhere going through her scales right now?

      Conjured up the wrong image for me, I had a vision of a rotund lady weighing herslf

      Then I realised it was just me


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Robert

      And here we go again:

      Solar Trust of America files bankruptcy

      One MORE US Solar company “which last April won $2.1 billion of conditional loan guarantees from the U.S. Department of Energy” is filing for bankruptcy.

      As I said before, we can’t go a month if even that long here in the US without one of these firms making the news for filing for bankruptcy. Which leads me to believe that not only are they not viable solutions but that their management is completely inept.

      Further down in the comments Doug Proctor had the following to say:

      I’ll bet there was NEVER any true economic value to making solar panels or (we know this) putting them out to collect sunlight. It was all a game of numbers. And I’ll bet that the internal guys were cashing out as they went along, knowing that the subsidies were going to come to and end.

      Which seems very plausible as we continue to watch this unfold. Yet here in the states we continue to find out that many, if not all, of these solar and wind firms have members of the current administration on their stockholder list and/or have in the past made significant contributions to the Democratic party, which is facing an election year. A very elaborate money laundering scheme would also come to mind.

      No matter how you view it these “green” firms are showing themselves to be failures before they even start whether it is due to corruption, inept management, some type of scam, whatever the reason. So one has to wonder about those who continue to support them with claims such as “we need them to survive.”

      More like they need us to survive and that is only for as long as they can get free money.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    We are gaining the upper hand? I beg to differ.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Hmm,

      Words of wisdom from the mists of my memory:

      “The only battle you need to win in a war, is the last one.”

      “There is little apparent difference between the enemy withdrawing, and the enemy regrouping.”

      “A war never really ends. The battlefield simply moves elsewhere.”

      And my favourite:

      “If it looks like you are winning, it is probably a trap”.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Mark D.

        These are bittersweet logic.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Andrew

        @ Baa Humbug

        Yes but perhaps the most relevant is:

        “The price of freedom is eternal vigilence”
        (T. Jefferson)

        There will, of course, be no final victory, no slam-dunk or check mate…no bell will toll… because the “climate wars” or environmentalism or socialism (fascism, communism) and probably many other ‘isms to come represent only another front in the age-old conflict between totalitarianism and libertarianism.

        Hence the big Frech-made statue holding aloft a beacon in New York city harbour.

        And Greenism is, of course, only the latest manifestation of totalitarianism.

        Martin Durkin brilliantly pins down the historical origin of this latest ‘ism a two-volume essay (if you only have time to read one of these – opt for Vol II). Here’s the link:

        http://www.martindurkin.com/blogs/greens-warning-history-volume-two


        Report this

        00

    • #
      wes george

      Baa,

      If you look at the polls in Australia we have the upper hand. The Labour/Green coalition is heading towards a historic defeat in the next election.

      In the US, the Obama Administration was forced to ditch carbon tax proposals years ago. The far more competitive and diverse media in the US better communicated the implications of Climategate to the public. It became impossible to raise the issue of Globar Wurmin’ in Congress without having some Republican shouting out quotes from the Climategate scandal and skeptical scientists.

      http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

      We should never forget that the domination of Australian media by the ABC has left our cultural elites wallowing in a misinformed backwaters of climate creationism. Fortunately, the average Aussie seems to instinctive smell where Auntie is coming from…she has failed as a fair arbitrator of the news…. I hope the coming Coalition government will establish an inquiry into breaches of journalistic standards by our state-owned information services and consider privatisation as a solution to the institutionalised cultural corruption in the ABC.

      It’s also important to remember that Climate Derangement Syndrome was only ever a sociological disorder among Western nations. In China, India, Russia, S. America, etc, climate morbidity rates were extremely low outside the diplomatic classes, perhaps because people living close to the land are far less likely to suffer climate derangement then those living in first class urban comfort. Go figure.

      Granted, as Rereke wisely points out, the last battles are still to come. Heck, the Greens don’t even know they’re losing. No one has told them yet. (That’s one benefit of having one-eyed Auntie as our news reader!)

      So I guess the message should be travel with grace and don’t get cocky.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Andrew

      @ Baa Humbug

      Yes but perhaps the most relevant is:

      “The price of freedom is eternal vigilence”
      (T. Jefferson)

      There will, of course, be no final victory, no slam-dunk or check mate…no bell will toll… because the “climate wars” or environmentalism or socialism (fascism, communism) and probably many other ‘isms to come represent only another front in the age-old conflict between totalitarianism and libertarianism.

      Hence the big Frech-made statue holding aloft a beacon in New York city harbour.

      And Greenism is, of course, only the latest manifestation of totalitarianism.

      Martin Durkin (‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’) brilliantly pins down the historical origins of Greenism in his two-volume essay (NB. if you only have time to read one – opt for Vol II as it recaps Vol I). Here’s the link:

      http://www.martindurkin.com/blogs/greens-warning-history-volume-two


      Report this

      00

      • #

        @Wes and Andrew

        * They have minions throughout the political system
        * They have minions throughout the beurocratic system
        * They have the universities covered
        * They have the primary and high schools covered
        * They have infiltrated the science organizations
        * They have people in upper management of some of the worlds largest companies
        * They are strewn throughout the UN and EU, both political and beurocratic arms.
        * They are rife in the MSM including public media
        * They are very well organized in countless NGO groups with strong political ties.

        We have the upper hand? Thank god for that, else things might be worse LMFAO


        Report this

        00

  • #
  • #
    Jack Savage

    Celebrations are premature. This madness will morph into a new one and so on ad infinitum.
    So keep up the great work!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      mobilly1

      Agree with that Jack .
      Here in WA over the last 3 years our power prices have gone up 57%
      thats under a Liberal Government , The same thing has happened in NSW
      SA ,Vic ,QLD under Labor Governments.
      Here in WA the recommendation is another 23% increase in electricity.
      As we near another election in WA the Liberal Government are now saying
      the increase will only be 5% , Go figure
      In the now Liberal states QLD,NSW and Vic, I wonder what price increases they
      are proposing , As its not pretty here .
      The Pseudo Government Privatising of Transport and Energy is just that .
      Call the Companys Private yet the Government announce their price increases,
      The new buses and trains they are buying ,These Pseudo Private companies are not listed on the stock exchange . All new Government contracts seem to go to
      Serco, Imagine that! a Global Corporation running our Hospitals and Prisons .
      Yes I think there is a long way to go yet.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Brian H

        The Liberals need a stern talking-to, and to be advised that “There is a tide in the affairs of men. Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life Is bound in shallows and in miseries.” From, appropriately, Julius Caesar.

        The harder they oppose and roll back the AGW nonsense, the better they will do. (True everywhere, actually, with the possible temporary exception of Germany.)


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Peter Miller

    The problem is the global warming industry has now become so big and so many people still believe passionately in it; the fact they are goofy, greenie and/or gullible is unfortunately irrelevant.

    The goofy and gullible have always thought it trendy to be greenie, regardless of the economic cost and the scientific facts – there are so many instances of this from Australia’s proposed carbon taxes to the EU’s airline fuel levy, that it has now become self-evident.

    Sadly, the whole global warming scam seems to be based on the following:

    1. Denial of the existence of natural climate cycles.

    2. Tinkering with historic temperatures to make them lower in order to enhance the scare factor, includes denial of the existence of the MWP.

    3. Soviet style demonisation, rejection and isolation tactics on anyone daring to suggest the science (climate) is not settled.

    4. Ignoring the climatic/temperature evidence of the last 12-15 years.

    5. Obsession with rising CO2 being man’s contribution to any rise in global temperature, when in reality if there is indeed any, it is most likely to be the result of the huge increase in agriculture and irrigation over the past 20-30 years.

    6. Scary stories with no base in fact, such as the supposed demise of the polar bear population, ocean acidification (CO2 as the culprit) and melting ice caps – a little in the Arctic, more than offset by the Antarctic.

    And, of course, then there is the BIG ONE:

    7. The temperature feedback process from clouds – supposedly as temperature rises from increasing CO2 levels (I think everyone agrees there will be a little bit of this), then evaporation increases and therefore there are more clouds to trap the heat. This, of course, conveniently forgets that snowy white cloud tops reflect more sunlight back into space. Evidence is growing this feedback effect is in fact negative and not positive as stated by the IPCC and numerous others.

    Without positive feedback from increasing cloud cover, if indeed that occurs with increasing temperature, then there is no global warming scare and there is no reason for the cancerous global warming industry, which seeks to suck the economic life blood out of western countries.

    Is this the beginning of the end for the global warming scam? Probably not, but it may be the end of the beginning.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      “Soviet style demonisation, ..” I dont think that the old Soviet Union would have bought it (AGW)..they would have labled it as a capitalist plot! ;P


      Report this

      00

      • #

        They would do exactly what they (and China) are doing now. That is, use the stupidity of the West to strengthen their own position.

        Russians know AGW is a croc. But Green activism in the West suits their purposes. So long as the West can’t drill for oil and gas, and can’t build new coal fired power stations, they are left at the mercy of Russian Gas and Oil. (Why do you think Putin imprisoned the Oil & Gas olygarch whatshisname a few years back)

        China gets to build all the green tech fandangled gadgets the West needs, and their rare earth minerals go up in value exponentially.

        Russia and China LOVE AGW, though they’re not stupid enough to believe in it themselves.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Love the idea; not Warmists but 3G’s (goofy, green and gullible).

      Pay them back for the Warmist tag.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Nick

    The people that made the judgments and decisions that got the West to the point of wasting $ billions, maybe $ trillions are still out there. These minds are forming judgments and making decisions with seriously floored thinking.

    There will be something new to latch onto, and the same behavior will be repeated for the same outcomes.

    They will dissipate and fragment, which makes them harder to find. What has not happened is the elimination, as a result of the consequences, of this thinking.

    There has been no learning from this exercise. It will appear again, in a different form, from a different direction.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernard B.

    I have a lot of respect for Fred Singer, who is a real scientist.

    This should be mandatory reading by skeptics and believers alike:

    http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=3263


    Report this

    00

  • #
    dogstar060763

    I think it’s premature to start celebrating some kind of ‘victory’ over climate alarmists. I would love it to be true, but I think we all know, deep down, that the CAGW gravy train has by now become a institutionalised construct with tendrils buried so deep in every orifice of government and public finance that removing that kind of toxic infection will be complex, time-consuming and potentially very risky to the patient.

    I can’t imagine rent-seeking NGOs being too willing to admit the game is up, either. Quite the contrary, in fact. I think, if anything, the vitriol and bile from CAGW evangelists is likely to grow ever-more shrill and potentially dangerous as this year progresses and those climate budgets in cash-strapped government departments begin to look even more precarious.

    As climate sceptics, we are not dealing with ‘settled science’ fanatics any more. We’re not even dealing with snakeoil salesmen. We are facing off against a global quasi-political religion, driven by fanatical, narrow-minded dogma which is now so belligerent, so cocksure, that it feels no hesitation in openly – and publicly – calling for the state-sanctioned ‘treatment’ of those who dare to dissent from it’s approved manifesto.

    As climate sceptics, we are now openly described by these dangerous zealots as ‘confused’ and in need of ‘re-education’.

    If any of that sounds at all familiar and gives you cause for concern, then here’s something else that, as a climate sceptic, you should be very worried about: The UN-sponsored Rio+20 ‘Earth Summit’ is now just a few months away. And the Watermelons are in no mood to play nice.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Don Wilkie

      Absolutely right! As a good anti-illusionist would advise “always watch the other hand”. Even though they know they are losing this skirmish, the warmists will keep up the pretense of CAGW as a distraction to provide cover for the back-door endorsement of the UN’s Agenda 21 doctrine of “sustainability” – now there’s a weasel-word if ever there was one – at RIO + 20.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Bernard B.

        Why is ‘sustainability’ such a dirt word in these quarters?

        I live off the land. My source of revenue, whatever little I need, comes from felling and selling firewood. I only cut as many trees as would grow back every year. I could make more money by cutting more trees, but sooner or later I’ll clear cut my property. This would not be sustainable.

        This is true of any activity humans do. If it can go on forever, it’s sustainable.


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Why is ‘sustainability’ such a dirt word in these quarters?

          Two words explains it succinctly…..TROJAN HORSE


          Report this

          00

          • #
            crakar24

            Bernard,

            Lets use your analogy and take it one step further, if we wish to keep our society at its current level then we will require a power source that is reliable.

            Solar and wind are not sustainable sources of power for obvious reasons but also because they need to be built, then maintained, then upgraded (higher capacity etc) so these are not “sustainable”.

            You cannot simply sit on your back porch and watch them grow, generate electricty, repair themselves and ungrade themselves just like your tree chopping analogy tries to claim.

            The words “sustainable” or “renewable” are the new catch phrases used today to capture a new green ideology that might seem nice but in reality they are impracticable and if you dont believe me just look at the tangled mess the Australian government has got itself into trying to prove me wrong.

            We have a tax being applied to our 500 highest emitters for what purpose i do not know because they are going to pass this extra cost onto me but the government is going to give me money as compensation so i end up even. This situation is so absurd that in the end the government end up paying the very tax that they introduced and it is estimated that this tax via compensation will leave a 3 billon dollar black hole in the budget, not only that it will make our exporters so uncompetitive that they will go broke destrying our economy.

            Now why are we slitting our own throats? Well because we want a sustainable, renewable clean energy future of course.

            Oh by the way if you live in Oz you can kiss your only source of income away as soon it will be an offence to cut down a tree i suggest you go out and get a real job like the rest of us.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Bernard B.

            Crakar,

            I live in Canada and as to a ‘real job’ I provide a tangible product that people here need for their very survival. I don’t think many jobs are more ‘real’ than that. Besides, I also grow and raise most of my food and sell/barter the surplus. Growing food is also a ‘real’ job.

            If you think sustainability is expensive, try unsustainability. Just one example: 20 years ago, the northern cod fishery off Newfoundland collapsed completely. A 500-year old livelihood ended and 30,000 fishermen lost their source of income. For years biologists warned about overfishing in that area, only to be ignored by politicians and bureaucrats. The cod by the way never came back, and probably will not for centuries.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            crakar24

            Bernard,

            Lets get one thing straight, the chopping down of trees has no place in the NWO. Also its great that you grow your own food but do you use fertilisers? Pesticides of any kind? Well they are going to, nothing but “back to nature” in the brave new world remember you need to start thinking “sustainable”.

            Lets use your COD example (which i happen to agree with by the way), in the NWO sustainable means you only catch what you need, it means walking down to the waters and throwing in a line and catching dinner no more and no less.

            Do you use a tractor to grow your food? well not anymore you need to catch a horse and use it, what about power to your house? Sorry only candles for you and come those cold winter nights………….well take Matty B ‘s advice and wear a jumper.

            Thats what sustainability is Bernard not this semi seudo existence that you preach about its either one or the other.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Gee Aye

            What is the term for argument by making things up or argument by paranoia?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            crakar24

            GA,

            What is the term for argument by making things up or argument by paranoia?

            It has many names GA, some examples are Bob Brown, The Australian Government and of course ecotards. Especially ones like your self that sniff around here.

            Just to explain how stupid you are, you think because coal will run out in say 2000 years it is not considered “sustainable” but waiting patiently for the wind to blow or the sun to rise or even for the clouds to roll away just so you have your precious electrickery is.

            The stupidiity of your position is these power systems dont grow on trees, they take resources to build, they take resources to maintain and they do harm to the environment.

            “Oh no lets not build a dam to generate electrickery think of all the little fishes lets destroy 50 square kilometers of bushland for our thermal salt (Gaia effegy) power plant. We can build a bicycle path around it so we can still sleep at night.

            Now go away idiot and annoy someone else.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Gee Aye

            I have no idea what you are writing about here? What has any of this got to do with me? If there is some link between your comments and myself, where is the evidence for this link?


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Don Wilkie

          Bernard – I suggest you read the whole of Agenda 21 and then you will appreciate why “sustainabilty” has become a “dirt word”.


          Report this

          00

          • #

            Don,

            this may even have been a typo, but it made me think.

            ….. then you will appreciate why “sustainabilty” has become a “dirt word”.

            When those environmental groups started to gain traction in the 70′s, here in Queensland, Joh, had a term for them that was a play on words, and in fact, was very clever, because one of those groups particularly was getting a lot of coverage.

            Joh called them ….. ‘Friends of the Dirt’.

            It fitted them to a ‘tee’.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Hey Tony, I’ve updated an old Skyhooks classic for ya…

            Sustainability; it’s not a dirty word
            Sustainability; it’s not a dirty word
            Sustainability; it’s not a dirty word
            Don’t you believe what you’ve seen or you’ve heard.


            Report this

            00

        • #

          Bernard B. asks:

          Why is ‘sustainability’ such a dirt word in these quarters?

          Because it means whatever the speaker wants it to mean.

          Take e.g. my recent posting on QANTAS partially fuelling aircraft with a blend of used cooking oil. That allegedly sustainable “solution” requires people to eat about a million servings of deep-fired chips to part-fuel a single SYD-ADL-SYD return flight.

          Yet QANTAS’ environmental spruiksman announces that CSIRO backs the concept as feasible.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          I work in local government in Australia. I had to go to a sustainability lecture last year as part of my job. The lecturer gave an example situation, then proceeded to ask us how we could make it sustainable (I think it was bus routes and pick ups).

          I laughed and challenged him, told him he didn’t know what ‘sustainable’ actually meant. He then told us all what sustainable meant to him. His idea is that a thing simply continues indefinitely with as little impact as possible.

          Well, duh, I knew he didn’t know what he was talking about. Call it efficiency then since that’s what they are meaning.

          Bernd F. is correct. It’s a feel-good buzz word which means anything their opinion is promoting. And has nothing at all to do with resources excavated out of the ground. The so-call peak materials (peak oil, peak mineral, ect).


          Report this

          00

      • #
        guthfrith

        Spot on Don, Agenda 21 has been working quietly in the background for 20 years. This is where the next battle for freedom will be held. Don’t put your baseball bats away just yet the psychopaths are alive and well.


        Report this

        00

    • #

      dogstar: Things are so obviously better for skeptics than they were in 2009, if we don’t cheer and celebrate winning some battles, when will we take a moment to congratulate ourselves — when the last fan of Big-Government stops asking for money? When every department of Climate Change has been renamed to the Dept of Biodiversity?

      Just because this is a never ending battle against those-who-want-more-than-their-due doesn’t mean we can’t pat ourselves on the back for each and every victory on the way.

      If we had done nothing, it would now be so much worse.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Robert

        If we had done nothing, it would now be so much worse.

        That is one of the few facts in this entire mess that doesn’t require any debate.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        dogstar060763

        Jo, I appreciate your reply and the sentiment therein. I agree that as climate sceptics we can be rightly proud of our achievements so far – and this website is a fantastic example of that. On a personal note, I feel it is almost a moral and civic duty to expose and frustrate the efforts of those who are using the cover of a bogus ‘man-made climate change catastrophe’ to enact a far more sinister political and social agenda in their pursuit of a ‘global governance’. The truth is, these people are much further down that road than many may think (in political, legal, social and economic terms) and halting, let alone, dismantling, this decades-old political project may yet take some time (and luck).

        I flagged up Rio+20 (coming to a wholly uncritical mainstream media channel channel near you in June of this year, folks) because I strongly suspect there is an appetite amongst pro-CAGW evangelists for some fairly aggressive grandstanding at the event. Climate zealots are still smarting from a series of disastrous own goals in more recent times – from ClimateGate2 and the Gleick Affair to the latest barmy (and frankly shocking) calls from warmists to consider climate sceptics as ‘mentally ill’. I fear our opponents, bristling with sneering malevolence, may now be looking for some ‘payback’ and Rio+20, given the historic cowardice and ignorance of our own politicians in the face of such well-rehearsed chicanery, represents a unique opportunity to advance the core intentions of Agenda 21. We need to be watching for some of the more subtle media messaging coming out of pro-warmist organisations leading up to and during the event, as they attempt to set the tone of the reporting.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        MattB

        Jo you know it is just as likely at that time that the internet will be full of “Biodiversity skeptic” websites. “There’s no such thing as an ecological community.” “Salt is natural and is great for potatos (at least they taste great when fried)”. “Greens want to install global government under the guide of so-called “Biodiversity”" Plimer will be quoted “look at all these species that the fossil record tells us existed in the past, species extinction is completely naturtal.”


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Jo you know it is just as likely at that time that the internet will be full of “Biodiversity skeptic” websites….
          …..look at all these species that the fossil record tells us existed in the past, species extinction is completely naturtal.

          I’ll be one of those people (If I’m still alive). The current enviro policies are dooming our continent to long lived drought and poor soils when the opposite can be achieved if only the greenie environut treehugging hairy armpitted sandal wearers would STFU and go live in a commune in Nimbin.

          Oh by the way, species extinction IS ENTIRELY NATURAL. If the climate doesn’t get ‘em, a meteor strike or a super volcano eruption or even another species predation (including human) will.

          Name me one single species that became extinct UNNATURALLY.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            MattB

            To quote Rereke… I rest my case.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            wes george

            Oh, Matthew, don’t forget to inform your shire’s voters that you aren’t really an “independent” councillor, but one who favours asinine Green policies of economic Zero Growth and strategic retreat.

            We’re all waiting for you to do the right thing.

            Tick tock, tick tock….

            :-)


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Whilst you’re resting your government funded fat ar$e case, how about naming that single species that became extinct unnaturally.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Cynthia

            Start with Dodo birds. Continue to USA passenger pigeons and Carolina parakeets, etc., etc., etc. If we consider a human tendency to kill off entire species for food, fur, feathers or some other body part, we could argue either way. Is this type of human behavior natural or unnatural? If it is natural, it still isn’t nice or even in humankind’s long term best interest.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Otter

          At the risk of being banned, I will just say this to your thinking, mattie~ You are a (Snipped out the intended name calling and useless words that do not help promote useful debate) CTS


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Jannie

      Great site, been lurking but never posted.

      Just have to support Dogstar’s thesis that it is too early to claim victory. Brecht or Sam Pekinpah or somebody said: “Do not rejoice in his defeat, you men. For though the world has stood up and stopped the bastard, the bitch that bore him is in heat again.” Talking about Hitler or Stalin or Bob Brown, or maybe all of them.

      The bitch has been engorged with Trillions of dollars euros and yuan, she has captured our children and institutions, (expect to pay a little prince’s ransom if you want to get them back.) They own the language, they own the cognoscenti and literati, even brain dead supermodels are socialists. The only things we have on our side are truth a reason and the internet, not much really, and a few extra dollars now we are getting older.

      Ok a little celebration is in order, and a congratulations to Jo Nova and her ilk. It has been good work to get even this far. A few years ago I thought this battle had been lost, as well as the war. So Onya Jo, and you too Sirius.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    crosspatch

    Here is an example:

    This story was posted on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle (sfgate.com) in the very early morning hours this morning. The article has now been removed from the front page. The only way to find it is to click the “news” section, scroll down to the “Environment” section, select “More Environment News”. In other words, the story is now buried.

    You can see why when you see the comments. The story was being BLASTED by readers in one of the most left-wing areas of the US, San Francisco, California.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/29/MNEU1NREB0.DTL


    Report this

    00

    • #
      crosspatch

      I notice that whenever a story begins to collect comments that are overwhelmingly against the left-wine meme, the story gets unlinked from the front page and “news” pages and gets buried.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Lou Skannen

    Jack,

    Another program waiting in the wings is the Law of the Sea Treaty. It has extensive environmental provisions (as well as provision for taking control of half the earth’s crust by a UN-sponsored body). As long as there remains a “CO2 = pollution” faction at the UN, the treaty is particularly dangerous.

    Lou


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crosspatch

    The problem is that this “joke” has pumped hundreds of billions globally into the pockets of certain people. This money was, in effect, stolen from people who haven’t even been born yet in the form of government debt that will be paid off over many decades.

    When the next generation enters the labor force and is saddled with the taxes to pay for that debt, they are not going to be laughing at the “joke”. They are more likely to cut off our pensions to pay for it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    If the does come when there is a consensus that the whole AGW scare is not only wrong but an orchestrated fraud, you have to wonder how much support the UN will be able to muster for issues/events which really do require a global response ( e.g. bird flu epidemics etc.)


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Robert

      I think you are approaching that idea from the wrong angle.

      Rather than wonder “how much support the UN will be able to muster” one should ask the question “Is the UN necessary and should they be given ANY support?”

      Based on their track record thus far, I would hope people would realize the answer to both parts of that question should be “No”.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    cb

    “Also in recent years has been an awakening among respectable scientists, heretofore content to go along with the supposed “consensus” about manmade global warming’s threat.”

    Such will be the new Voices Of The Consensus; and of course those who are ‘reasonable’ will be allowed to join their numbers. ‘Science’ must, after all, maintain its position of The One Truth To Rule Them All.

    And so the filth of Leftism marches on, on a road made of bricks of no-integrity, no-honor, ‘maturity’, ‘debate’, etc.

    And in a few years, or sooner, the hippies will achieve the ends of which AGW was just one more pseudo justification.

    The way I see it, is that there was an opportunity to FORCE their blatant dishonesty, lying, corruption… their FILTH, into the public eye. To wake the whole world up to the threat of leftism-socialism. Instead the ‘reasonable’ people ‘debated’… were ‘nice’, were ‘understanding’. And now there will be no more time for another round of opposing their cr@p.

    It is over. They won. They won because all these ‘climate heroes’ are stupid, humanist, f@ckups. Who in the end, as the GOP does, acted out as the ‘opposite side’, but in reality served as a third column.

    So how is this, in any way, good news? The problem NEVER was AGW, it was the laws, policies, regulations, etc that the hippies were crafting in the background.

    Abandon hope, for now there is none. The truth is a beautiful thing – pity no one gave a sh@t.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    I wouldn’t trust Mueller as far as I could throw him and after the way he announced his “results”, I don’t think Judith Curry should either.

    Pointman


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    The solar panel plant: 2,000 workers! Perhaps if they had stayed smaller, borrowed less, they’d be in a niche business … unless the game was in subsidies, which means, the bigger you are, the more profitable you are.

    I’ll bet there was NEVER any true economic value to making solar panels or (we know this) putting them out to collect sunlight. It was all a game of numbers. And I’ll bet that the internal guys were cashing out as they went along, knowing that the subsidies were going to come to and end.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mfo

    European Union Ambassadors are squabbling over who is going to sit on the board of the United Nations’ $1 billion Green Climate Fund. According to Danish EU presidency spokesman Jakob Alvi, “It shows that the EU unity we had in Durban has been eroded”. Excellent. Germany isn’t going to share a seat with anyone and Poland wants a permanent seat to protect it’s coal industry from an EU/UN stitch-up. Its handbags at dawn and all about the cash.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cleanwater

    There is no creditable experiment that proves that the “greenhouse gas effect” exists in fact there is an experiment that proves that it does not exist.
    http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/206-the-experiment-that-failed-which-can-save-the-world-trillions-proving-the-greenhouse-gas-effect-does-not-exist


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    As yourself if this will change the behavior of anyone who counts in this fight against control of your every movement, every decision.

    Well, will it? I thought not. ;-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    It looks like this announcement today:

    The Climate Change Department issued a memo yesterday detailing its plan to shed 30 per cent of its staff over the coming year through voluntary redundancies, closing programs and natural attrition.

    Yes, Julia and Wayne are cutting 30% of the staff at the Department of Climate Change. Love to be a fly on the wall of caucus.

    Not with a bang but a whimper – T.S. Elliot


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Pooh, Dixie

      Fire and Ice
      Some say the world will end in fire,
      Some say in ice.
      From what I’ve tasted of desire
      I hold with those who favor fire.
      But if it had to perish twice,
      I think I know enough of hate
      To say that for destruction ice
      Is also great
      And would suffice.
      – Robert Frost

      It is cooling.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      crakar24

      This tells us a lot, it tells us that we are in deep shit when it comes to financial matters if they are prepared to cut the numbers by so much.

      What i do find interesting is that this government puts the defence of this country at a lower priority than to building effigies to false Gods. Remember this is the same department that not long ago got 175K to build up moral, when i look around where i work i think to myself “we could do with a few more people” but no we cant have any and if the boss wants a team buiding exercise to improve moral we have to pay for it ourselves. We are so tight with money at the moment that if my boss wants to shout us a bbq he needs to a two star to sign off on it. How stupid is that? but yet these morons get throw money hand over fist because convincing us we need a tax we dont need is a much higher priority.

      On another note, one of those onfotainment programs showed how holdfast bay? council was contemplating bringing in new AGW rules which means some beach front properties would be aquired by council due to the threat of rising sea levels. The owners of said properties are seething understandably. The program centred on the council and how mean they were but in the end it was AGW that looked the most stupid.

      What we are witnessing is the collapse of one of the greatest and most elaborate scams ever attempted and it is frightening to think just how close they came to pulling it off. Yes you will find isolated pockets of resistance huddled in the dark corners of the internet for many years to come much like paganism for example but the main battle is over its just mopping up duties to complete.

      Well done to all who contributed and a big thankyou to Jo of course.

      Cheers

      Crakar24


      Report this

      00

      • #
        rukidding

        Yes Crakar 175,000 on moral building and now a 30% reduction in the department.Now that really will do some moral building.Nothing like losing your job to build moral.:-)


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Robert

          .Nothing like losing your job to build moral.:-)

          I know our test lab was just ecstatic when it was closed as the work had been outsourced to India. /sarc


          Report this

          00

  • #
    pat

    could someone please inform the Coalition’s climate spokesman….oops…the Coalition’s defence spokesman…oops the Coalition’s communications spokesman:

    4 April: Brisbane Times: Lenore Taylor: US behind China on carbon – Turnbull
    CHINA is more likely than the United States to provide global climate change leadership, the former Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull believes…
    In an interview with The Monthly magazine, Mr Turnbull agrees the growth in Chinese emissions is ”the big problem” compared with the other major world emitter, the US.
    But, he says, ”the Americans are in a period of dysfunctionality on this … the Chinese are very alert to it and are introducing an emissions trading scheme. It’s a trial and it’s got a very small price, but the Chinese do take it seriously…
    Mr Turnbull said he found it astonishing that climate change denialism was now a pre-requisite for Republican presidential candidates in the US, where a ”war against science” had been successfully waged by vested interests.
    The Coalition’s position is to accept the science of climate change, although Mr Abbott once famously described the idea that the scientific debate was settled as ”absolute crap”.
    Mr Turnbull also said he thought there was little prospect that military action in Afghanistan would result in ”what many in the West think of as victory”, with the corruption in the Karzai government inhibiting the possibility of winning ”hearts and minds” and any kind of peace requiring compromise with elements of the Taliban.
    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/us-behind-china-on-carbon–turnbull-20120403-1wast.html

    helloooo!

    3 April: Australian Financial Review: Letter from Marcus and Kelly Ehrlich, Point Piper NSW
    Thank you Alan Stokes for giving voice to the silent cry from across the country, begging to be heard, “Malcolm Turnbull, Australia needs you” (March 28).
    We agree, it’s time for a circuit-breaker. It’s the opportunity for a Malcolm. We are vocal in our way: among our friends over the dinner table; in pairs, in groups, individually; on Facebook seeking “likes” from like-minded.
    “Hurry Malcolm”, “Please Malcolm”, “When Malcolm?” are our chants.
    Yes, we need him but – as you rightly point out – he won’t have to do it alone. Think of all the intelligent, articulate, passionate Australians desperate to put their hands up. To participate.
    We are not a lazy country or people. It’s simply that we’re despondent, repulsed, not interested in political condescension. We have ideas, we have vision. We tried to give money to President Barack Obama (but he wouldn’t take it)…
    Yes, we need Malcolm Turnbull. And he needs us. Where and when is the rally? We’ll be there.
    http://afr.com/p/opinion/we_want_malcolm_turnbull_to_lead_4xmpIThyuHxhMrs1TftEWJ


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robber

    Don’t forget that those contributing and lead authors for the next IPCC report have their doors shut, their earplugs in, busy preparing to tell us once again that it’s worse then we thought :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ally E.

    It’s definitely unravelling. Soooo good to witness! Thank you, Jo. :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    so much compo offered, other perhaps more vital programs, will have to be cut! federal election now.

    4 April: Daily Telegraph: Simon Benson: Budget a battleground – ministers rage over $3 billion carbon tax cutbacks
    SENIOR government ministers have privately lashed out at having to make savings in the May Budget to help pay for the $3 billion shortfall in this year’s carbon tax compensation bill.
    As Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Treasurer Wayne Swan warn of tough measures to return the Budget to surplus, several ministers confirmed that they were being made to help pay for the early rollout of the carbon compensation package in May.
    “Everyone is being asked to contribute to pay for this compensation package,” one minister said. “But in the process, we are going to hit people even harder.”…
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/budget-a-battleground-ministers-rage-over-3-billion-carbon-tax-cutbacks/story-e6freuzr-1226318006964


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JMD

    we are at the beginning of The End

    Yet gold is trading at multiple month lows in all major currencies, even the Euro of all pieces of worthless government scrip. The government still “controls your money” with a firm grip, it will not give it up.

    We are at the end of the beginning if we are lucky. Watch as the hydra sprouts two more heads, likely tech stocks & mortgage credit…again.

    Better get yourself to the rifle range Jo. Kangaroo’s also make excellent Jerky.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    And on the morning news on the ABC – 30% of the staff of the dept of climate madness are to go. HOORAY!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    bishop hill has a thread going on this. once u understand who is really behind CAGW, it will be pointless to keep calling it a socialist conspiracy. either we get together to stop this attempt to creat a western financial system based on carbon dioxide, or we will all suffer the consequences:

    3 April: Guardian: Leo Hickman: Rick Perry criticises UK initiative to influence US climate sceptics
    The governor says the UK government was ‘misdirected’ to try to ‘educate’ policymakers and ‘move them from a state of denial’
    Rick Perry, the governor of Texas and former Republican presidential candidate, has criticised the UK’s Foreign Office for funding an environmental group which aimed to “educate” Texan policymakers about climate science and “move them from a state of denial and inaction to one of acceptance and effective action”.
    In 2009, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) gave £13,673 to the US-based Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) to part-fund a project entitled “Influencing climate security policy and legislation in Texas”, the Guardian has learned. The money was used to fly two Texan state politicians, including the climate sceptic Republican Troy Fraser, to the UK to receive a briefing with climate scientists and government officials. A conference was also held at the Texas Capitol in Austin in which a video of Prince Charles personally addressing Texan politicians on the subject of climate change was shown…

    An FCO spokeswoman said the aim of its Low-Carbon High-Growth Strategic Programme Fund, which was established by the Labour government in 2009 but superseded by the current government with the Prosperity Fund Programme, was to promote a “low-carbon, high-growth global economy”. She added: “The programme identified the US as a priority country because of its high carbon emissions. Texas was singled out as an influential state which could shift the US federal position on addressing carbon emissions, and because Texas also has higher emissions than the UK. Overall, the project was very successful in achieving its purpose which was to gain widespread acceptance among key Texan policymakers of the science of climate change and the need for urgent action.”
    Jim Marston , the director of EDF’s regional office in Texas, said the FCO’s money was used to part-fund the environmental campaign group’s efforts to “educate Texas officials about the science and economics of global warming”. He said: “There are people in Texas, including Governor Perry, who are uneducated [on this subject]…

    Marston: “…Troy Fraser, a conservative Republican who was chair of the energy committee, did come on the trip to the UK. He came back very enthused. Sadly, his enthusiasm has decreased since, partly because the issue [of climate change] has become so politicised. He went with a Democrat. We like to pair them up. We were trying to influence people who were important, but not fully engaged on the issues. We have a good reputation for working with Republicans. We’re fiercely bipartisan. That’s one reason why we were approached by the FCO.”…
    Details about the FCO’s spending on climate change and energy projects were obtained by the Guardian after a Freedom of Information request.

    Besides part-funding EDF’s project in Texas, the FCO also funded environmental NGOs in Brazil working to reduce deforestation, as well as giving the accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers £306,904 to help the Indian government encourage the “procurement of energy-efficient products”, which included the developing of energy-efficient labelling for washing machines. The full list of projects in the US, Canada, Russia, China, Indian, and Brazil, excluding aspects of work in Russia and China which the FCO withheld on the grounds it would be “prejudicial to international relations”, has been published on the Guardian website.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/03/rick-perry-climate-sceptic-policymakers?intcmp=122

    cick on the link above the 25 pages of spending so that u can more easily read all the details:

    3 April: Guardian: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s climate projects – document
    The full list of the FCO’s projects in six countries, excluding some details on Russia and China which it withheld on the grounds it would be ‘prejudicial to international relations’, is published here
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2012/apr/03/fco-climate-projects

    Richard Black was with BBC World Service for years:

    Wikipedia: BBC World Service
    The English language service broadcasts 24 hours a day. In June 2009 the BBC reported that the World Service’s average weekly audience reached 188 million people. The World Service is funded by grant-in-aid through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office by the British Government. From 2014, it will be funded by the compulsory BBC licence fee levied on every household in the United Kingdom using a television to watch broadcast programmes…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_World_Service


    Report this

    00

  • #

      

    The end of the Global Warming scare hinges on understanding that there has been a false assumption made by the early physicists. Let me explain why ….

    Not all photons are equal. You cannot assume (as the IPCC energy diagrams imply) that the electromagnetic (EM) energy being radiated will always be converted to thermal energy in the Earth’s land, ocean or ice surfaces.

    The early physicists did in fact assume this when considering (and trying to explain) the observed effect of radiation from a cooler body slowing the rate of heat transfer from a warmer body. This does happen, and is well measured and documented. The “net” heat transfer (as they called it) can be calculated from the difference in the two amounts of radiative flux.

    So they assumed that the energy in the radiation was in fact converted to thermal energy in each body. The mathematical subtraction then of course only showed a “net” effect of heat transfer from hot to cold. But the underlying assumption was still there that there were in fact two separate heat transfer processes. Yet one of these would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLoT).

    So, can we find an example of EM radiation not being converted to thermal energy when we might expect it to be?

    A microwave oven can warm items with water molecules in them, including liquid water. This does not violate the SLoT simply because energy is added using electricity. But it can only melt ice by conduction from adjacent water molecules that it has already warmed, not by direct action on the ice.

    However, the process is nothing remotely like the normal natural absorption of sunlight which also warms water and melts ice.

    Not all photons striking water or ice molecules automatically convert EM energy to thermal energy as happens with solar radiation. If they did (as some people imply they do because they assume there is two-way heat flow which results in an apparent net one way flow) then why does far less energy flow into ice in a microwave oven than into water?

    There is another mechanism which explains all observed facts without violation of the Second Law, and this is discussed in my paper linked from my site http://climate-change-theory.com

     


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike

    The problem is that we still have an extremely large entity at the centre of society sucking in large sums of money.

    While ever it exists, the scammers will be drawn to it and try to get vast amounts of the dollars for themselves. War On Terror anyone?

    Roll on the next big scare campaign…


    Report this

    00

    • #
      JMD

      I second Mike’s comment except to say it is not just a scare campaign that does the trick.

      With inflating stock & bond markets, even the marks think they are getting rich. Even after a massive devaluation like in 2008, the marks still don’t wise up, though they wonder why a $ doesn’t buy what it used to.

      “They control our money”. I couldn’t have said it better myself.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    KeithH

    Accidentally stumbled on ABC Lateline last night and saw signs of change. The normally “soft on Labour” Emma Alberici gave Gillard’s evil “spin twin” Penny Wong a real grilling. It was a joy to see Wong squirm when Emma refused to be talked over and kept her on subject even when she tried the”all the fault of Tony Abbott” ploy!

    It was also a laugh when Wong was questioned on Craig Thomson and kept saying it should be left to the “independent” Fair Work Australia!

    Have a look at another Gillard lie/broken promise!

    “Latest appointment to fair work australia swells union ranks within the tribunal”.

    “While AMMA in no way seeks to undermine the professionalism and capability of those the Rudd Government has appointed to FWA, their backgrounds do reflect a particularly partisan approach, despite the Government’s earlier promises this would not be the case.

    “I will not be Prime Minister of this country and appoint some to staff the key positions in this body,” then- Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd told The 7.30 Report back in April 2007. “I will not stand by and have this body become the agency of ex-trade union officials. People will be appointed on their merit.”

    Then-Deputy Opposition Leader Julia Gillard made similar promises in a May 2007 National Press Club address: “Our new industrial umpire will be independent of unions, business and government. It will definitely not be a return to the old industrial relations club. Appointments will not favour one side over the other. Labor will remove all perceptions of bias.”

    AMMA Chief Executive Steve Knott has called on the Deputy Prime Minister to stop her partisan appointment process to Fair Work Australia and ensure future appointments to the tribunal reflect a balanced approach.

    “It belies belief that no private sector business appointments, with practical experience in running a business, have been represented in the Deputy Prime Minister’s FWA appointments,” Mr Knott said.

    “This is particularly so given the increased powers of FWA can have such a profound impact on the Australian industry and the economy.

    “The Deputy Prime Minister can’t hide behind a short list process handed to her by public servants as the reason for these decisions, as such appointments rightly rest with the Minister.

    “Clearly the Deputy Prime Minister is not engaging in meaningful discussions with other stakeholders, such as promised consultation with the Shadow Industrial Relations Minister.”

    The partisan appointment process may also reflect the Deputy Prime Minister’s differing view from that of Kevin Rudd, or a change in position from the Prime Minister, as the appointment of an endless tribe of trade union officials or ex-trade union officials continues.”

    http://www.amma.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=345:latest-appointment-to-fair-work-australia-swells-union-ranks-within-the-tribunal&catid=39:media-releases&Itemid=118


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I’ve always said that this (whatever name they give it now, it’s changed so many times) has always been about the money.

    It may be that what will bring it down is in fact ‘the money’.

    As we are now finding out, the cost of all this is absolutely horrendous.

    That new Tax on those CO2 emissions in fact may not be enough to spread across all the programs, so some are being wound back.

    A small part of that money will go towards the construction of power plants to replace those coal fired power plants, or so we are told.

    So, is there anything (read Renewable here) that can realistically replace the levels of power supplied by those large scale coal fired plants?

    There’s a lot of people out there pushing the barrow that Concentrating Solar (CS) Power (Solar Thermal) can achieve this, but are they correct when they tell us this.

    There have been huge advances in Generator technology over the years, and now, at those new technology large scale coal fired plants, and especially at those large Nuclear plants, they have generators that are capable of an output of 1000MW and more, just from the one generator.

    So, hey, why not just hook up one of those generators at a CS plant. Problem solved.

    Well, no.

    There is an engineering reason why something like this cannot happen.

    At the new Post of mine that I have linked to, I explain why, and then I do a costings exercise for an equivalence basis, and while the exercise may be done with a large scale nuke, the absolutely ridiculous result shows that if CS is the answer, then someone is asking the wrong question.

    Concentrating Solar – Failure – At Every Step

    Now, what is worth looking at here is that while I am talking of replacing ONE large scale plant, this can only be achieved with many of these CS plants.

    Getting the finance for one plant, even for one CS plant is a worry. Imagine trying to do that, and all the other associated Administrative requirements for many of them, and to replace the existing ONE plant, you will need many of these new CS plants.

    So, perhaps it will be the money that will be the downfall of this whole schemozzle that we are being conned by.

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      rukidding

      Well Tony they have got 10 billion to play around with in Australia.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        rukidding,

        And therein lies the rub.

        Let’s just pretend for one minute that this $10 Billion will now become available EVERY year from now on.

        They could spend that $10 Billion JUST ON THESE CONCENTRATING SOLAR PLANTS, and start an absolutely furious program to approve them, do all the Admin, select the sites, and construct them absolutely flat out.

        They could do this for then next SIX years, at that $10 billion each year.

        (And there is absolutely no way they can get that many plants to the power delivery stage in that time) but at the and of that, they will have enough of those Concentrating Solar power plants to replace ….. ONE large scale coal fired power plant.

        Tony.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Bob Massey

          They haven’t even got the money to pay the Carbon Tax compensation package apparently the Labor government are 3 billion shortfall in this years budget, the Dept of Climate Change has to lose 300 employees and other government departments are under the same pressure. It’s falling apart alright and it won’t be long now!


          Report this

          00

          • #

            I’m just waiting for the hue and cry from companies like Coles and Woolies.

            Note that the compensation is directed at (some) householders, eg the Residential Sector which only has a demand of 38% of all electricity being generated.

            If electricity goes up across the board by at least 3 to 5 cents per kwh, then imagine how much it will inflate those power bills of every shop, and especially places like Coles and Woolies, which are in the Commerce sector, (37%), and there’s no compensation for any of them, or the Industry sector (24%).

            If you think your average household power bill is large, think Coles and Woolies with their cold rooms, and row upon row of banks of cold food storage. That’s for one Coles or Woolies, and how many of them do you think there are.

            Their power bill increase will be in thousands of dollars each bill, and if you think those costs are not going to be passed on in higher prices for you weekly ‘shop’ then you have probably believed the spin that we will be over compensated.

            The spin has started already. What you may see as an increase due to the CO2 tax will be the absolute base price, and will be nowhere near the true price increase.

            These people must take us for fools.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

    • #

      Concentrating solar wasn’t feasible in 1981/1982 when I looked at the SERIWA research establishment North of Perth. It was a long way from being commercially viable and all that’s happened in the intervening 30 years is (expensive, largely taxpayer-funded) fiddling at the edges which has improved performance by a few percent; but not nearly enough for it to be commercially viable.

      Besides, Australia is a very dusty place most of the time. And when it’s not, the vegetation rockets towards the skies and grows from every crevice. The area of reflectors that has to be kept clean for maximum efficiency is no less than the area for direct PV.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    handjive

    Jonova’s last post referred to the Stakeholders Forum.

    The Stakeholders Forum review progress in implementation of Agenda21.

    The Rio+20 in June 2012. Earth Summits.

    Small, decisive skirmishes against the junk IPCC junk science have indeed been won, but, these are peripheral.

    Like a plague of green locusts, they roll forward, consuming everything at their gabfests, sucking up public funds, and spitting out carbon footprints like there is no tomorrow in their quest to re-distribute other peoples money into their personal funds.

    Overturning this well established looting of public funds by these ‘green’ frauds is no where near over.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    didn’t think it was possible for ABC radio to get much worse, but turned on something called “The Entrepreneurs” on Radio National late last nite, and of course was immediately being assaulted by a South African who has worked out a way to get in on the Green Thing in China. turns out this program is actually produced by an organisation in London called Monocle. did some digging and discovered Radio National is full of Monocle programming, at taxpayers’ expense!

    apart from Entrepreneurs, they are poducing Culture, Section D, Urbanist, The Menu. so who are they?

    18 Oct 2011: UK Telegraph: Emma Barnett: Net radio station aims for BBC World Service audience
    Monocle magazine, a monthly publication that focuses on global affairs and lifestyle, has launched a 24-hour internet radio station styled on the BBC World Service.
    At a time when the BBC World Service faces deep cuts, Monocle founder and editor-in-chief, Tyler Brule, believes there is a gap in the market to produce a new radio service, Monocle 24, for a similar global audience.
    “From the point of view its ambitions for global reach and coverage of world affairs, Monocle 24 will probably resemble and sound like many commonwealth public service broadcasters, including BBC World Service, as well as shades of ABC and Canada’s CBC,” he said.
    “We are hoping to create a station which follows the tradition of the great Commonwealth broadcasters. It’s no surprise that we have drawn a lot of great people from the BBC World Service.”
    Monocle 24 launches this week and is a mix of speech and music audio. It has four live shows a day, hourly foreign news from provided by Sky and ABC Australia, and global weather reports.
    Brule founded Monocle just over four years ago …
    The studios are housed alongside the magazine’s office in Midori House, in central London. Hosting duties will be met by Monocle’s existing writers, who are based around the world, although news bulletins be read by several ex-BBC World Service broadcasters including Nick Kelly and Emma North.
    Highlights will include The Urbanist, which is to be hosted by Andrew Tuck, Monocle’s editor, and examines the world’s great cities. The Entrepreneurs will meanwhile look at innovators across a range of industries, while The Menu will focus on the best eateries and bars around the world.
    Brule decided to take the plunge into 24 hour radio following the success of the Monocle Weekly podcasts. Over three years, the free, 45-minute shows were downloaded up to 650,000 times per month…
    Brule isn’t phased about radio’s declining advertising revenues, saying Monocle 24 is “profitable from the start” having managed to persuade luxury brands such as Rolex and J Crew to sponsor shows and advertising breaks…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/digital-media/8832451/Net-radio-station-aims-for-BBC-World-Service-audience.html

    Wikipedia: Tyler Brule
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_Br%C3%BBl%C3%A9

    22 March: ABC: Breakfast: Monocle magazine: Tyler Brule
    Monocle magazine describes itself as ‘a briefing on global affairs, business, culture and design.’ It has a global circulation of about 70,000 and Australia is its fourth largest market. The magazine’s web-based radio service, Monocle 24, has a content-sharing agreement with Radio National that includes its Culture program and The Urbanist. Monocle has also shunned online social networking.
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/monocle-magazine-tyler-brule/3905730

    and if u want to read more about Mr. Brule (i’ve taken the accents off his name btw), then nothiing (except perhaps the ABC’s New Dimensions program, or Bob Brown’s Intergalactic Oration) could possibly match this NYT insanity:

    5 Jan 2010 NYT: Alex Williams: Mr. Zeitgeist (Tyler Brule)
    In addition to his global media company, for which he won Advertising Age’s “editor of the year” award in October, he writes a column, Fast Lane, in The Financial Times, in which he chronicles his adventures as a globe-trotting connoisseur, bent on unearthing the rarefied and idiosyncratic. (He was also a columnist for T: The New York Times style magazine.) …
    That lifestyle also invites ridicule. Christopher Fowler, a British writer, recently mocked the elitist tone in his blog. “Is style guru Tyler Brule the world’s most annoying man?” Mr. Fowler asked, in a post entitled, “Things You Could Wish Upon Tyler Brule.” It is impossible, he added, “to get through one of his newspaper columns without being made to feel physically ill at the level of name-dropping he manages.” …
    Mr. Brule aspired to be a network anchorman like his idol, Peter Jennings, and in his early 20s, he was a reporter in London for the BBC and other networks…
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/fashion/tyler-brule-mr-zeitgeist.html?pagewanted=all


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brett_McS

    As the old saying goes “When the bell hops get into the stock market it is time to get out”.

    Seeing your typical conservative, ‘always-behind-the-trends’ companies labeling everything they do or make “Eco” or “Green” is the same phenomenon. This bubble is bursting.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    I wouldn’t get to excited just yet.It seems the new strategy is to hype up every weather event anywhere in the world on the premise that the weather is becoming more unstable.This from the people who tell us endlessly that weather is not climate.
    Also the new buzz word seems to be SUSTAINABILITY.Now with sustainability you can do almost anything.Declare that fossil fuel use is not sustainable and hey presto no more fossil fuel.It won’t be as blatant as that but keep your eye on the word SUSTAINABILITY and who is using.
    So we can close down the department of climate change and start up the department of SUSTAINABILITY.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      Yes.

      While people are partying here about some alleged victory regarding “climate change”, the other side have already quietly moved on to the need for “sustainable development”.

      A big conference with some 3,000 delegates has just finished in London – the “Planet Under Pressure” Conference. The whole idea of this conference was to set the tone and agenda for the forthcoming Rio+20 conference in a couple of months.

      The end result was a “State of the Planet Declaration”, which, of course, states quite emphatically that we all going to hell unless we mend our ways, and develop a “sustainable future”, naturally enough, under the auspices of a new all-powerful UN global governance body, the “Sustainable Development Council”.

      The Declaration uses the word SUSTAINABLE or a derivative of it, no less than 36 times.

      In case you think all this has little bearing on us, the Declaration was co-authored by Dr Mark Stafford of our very own CSIRO, and one of the Patrons is none other than our Climate Commissioner, Professor Flim-Flammery.

      Article:
      http://www.wakeup2thelies.com/2012/04/04/tim-flannery-and-the-csiros-manifesto-for-a-green-new-world-order/

      Declaration:
      http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/pdf/state_of_planet_declaration.pdf

      Now, at the risk of interrupting the festivities, who’d like to be the first to suggest how one rationally argues against the desirability of a “sustainable future”?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        crakar24

        MV,

        It aint all doom and gloom, why do you think they regularily need to reinvent themselves? They need to do it because whatever it is they are doing aint working. Everytime they change the name its because they are failling, they are losing people in droves.

        They will reinvent themselves again but no matter what they call themselves the message remains the same and it is the message the people dont like.

        Sustainable means nothing more than wind chimes and solar panels just like the last time, sustainable means carbon taxes, sustainable means one world goverment, sustainable means scam. So you see we have nothing to worry about.

        We are just witnessing the slow, agonising, stinking death of a scam. Relax, sit back and enjoy the movie.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        … how one rationally argues against the desirability of a “sustainable future”?

        By referring to it as a “static” future. Anything that is truly sustainable in the long term must be unchanging and therefore static.

        For a family of four to be truly sustainable means that they can’t build that house that they have always dreamed about, and they can’t upgrade their car to a newer model, etc, etc. Because everything must remain static, and unchanging.

        Sustainable futures are great in the big idea, but if you take them down to the level of personal cost, not so much. As Crakar points out, that is the message that people dislike. Especially when it doesn’t apply to the people demanding it of others.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          MattB

          This simply is not true Rereke. Sustainability is simply doing things now that don’t compromise the ability of people in the future from doing things. Not changing from today would, in the eyes of sustainability bods, be unsustainabile. I can honestly say that I’ve never heard anyone describe sustainability in the terms you have used.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Dave

            .
            MattyB,

            Why then do you advocate for the halting of fully sustainable industries such as forestry, farming, etc in favour of Carbon Sequestration projects. You advocate payments to not log plantation forests, not to grow crops – everything points toward your view advocating an unsustainable economy.

            Don’t forget – sustainability involves economy, social and environmental factors!


            Report this

            00

          • #
            MattB

            Um I thought forestry WAS a carbon sequestration project? Who exactly is advocating an end to forestry? What is this “my view” of which you speak?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Dave

            .
            MattyB

            Um I thought forestry WAS a carbon sequestration project?

            Your forestry is not for timber! (That’s called National Parks) – Commercial timber plantations are sustainable – but to gain Carbon Credits – it CANNOT be harvested! You advocate for CO2 sequestration – ie NO LOGGING. Please refer to the Department of Climate Changing Website for more info!


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            I rest my case.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Dave

            .
            Hi MattyB,

            Here’s another example of your idea of sustainability!
            Sunshine Coast based EPA has applied to build a $40 million solar farm in Valdora.
            •It will have up to 50,000 panels spread across 20ha of the 50ha site.

            MattyB – on an old cane farm – 50 hectares gone to green dreams! They say it will power 2,500 homes (but only between 10am and 2pm) if the sun shines!

            Green Dreams MattyB – and totally unsustainable economically, socially and environmentally.
            1. Ruins use of arable land.
            2. Total eyesore on the main motorway of the Sunshine Coast.
            3. Will increase electricity price and cost taxpayers for its subsidy.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    crakar24

    This is completely off topic but a little while ago we discussed WMD and Iraq etc and i made a few statements for which i was ridiculed over and now we have this

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/man-whose-wmd-lies-led-to-100000-deaths-confesses-all-7606236.html?

    Please read it all and no this is not an “i told you so” moment i just want everyone to know that governments lie and not just about AGW.

    For those that dont want to read the true:

    “Curveball”, the Iraqi defector who fabricated claims about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, smiles as he confirms how he made the whole thing up. It was a confidence trick that changed the course of history, with Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi’s lies used to justify the Iraq war.

    US officials “sexed up” Mr Janabi’s drawings of mobile biological weapons labs to make them more presentable, admits Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, General Powell’s former chief of staff. “I brought the White House team in to do the graphics,” he says, adding how “intelligence was being worked to fit around the policy”.

    intelligence was being worked to fit around the policy sound familiar?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      pattoh

      the MPCCC perhaps?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Kevin Moore

      I wonder who gave the thumbs down and why?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Kevin Moore

      Crakar,

      This news is a bit of a worry!

      Obama Gives Green Light for Punishing Sanctions on Iran

      http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30971.htm
      April 03, 2012 “WSWS” — President Barack Obama has issued the green light for punishing new US economic sanctions directed at forcing the Iranian government to submit to Western pressure over its nuclear program by starving the country of oil revenues.

      These new sanctions, which go into effect on June 28, aim to impose a warlike blockade of the Iranian economy by penalizing any government or private entity that carries out financial transactions with the country’s central bank…..


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Kevin Moore

        Israel, USA, Greece joint naval drill
        Apr 2 USA, Israel, Greece conduct joint naval drill amid ongoing tension with Turkey.
        The exercise is called Noble Dina. The meaning of the name Dina is God Has Judged.
        U.S. Sixth Fleet also participating in the exercise, which includes simulation of attack on offshore natural gas platforms.
        Israel, the United States and Greece in a naval exercise in the Mediterranean Sea, in a message to Turkey.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Kevin Moore

          http://stratrisks.com/

          Development, Flashpoints, Military Buildup, Resources, Strategic Interests April 3, 2012 Israeli-US Air, Naval Forces Train for Energy War

          Israeli, Greek and U.S. forces are in the midst of a drill in preparation for a possible war over Israel’s huge off-shore gas discoveries, which also may contain commercializable oil. Lebanon and Hizbullah have claimed the fields are in Lebanese territory and that they will “defend” the area against drilling by Israel.

          The week-long drill is simulating air-to-air combat and anti-submarine warfare and is taking place off the coast of Turkey, possibly signaling it not to interfere with Israeli energy operations in the Mediterranean Sea. The “enemy” forces will be similar to those of the Turkish air force, according to the Defencenet.gr website.


          Report this

          00

          • #

            The “enemy” forces will be similar to those of the Turkish air force, according to the Defencenet.gr website.

            How credible might that be I wonder considering Turkey is a key NATO ally.
            The Turkish Air Force is full of American Planes. The Turkish defence forces are full of American hardware.

            My old man worked for Nato. I clearly remember riding in American Jeeps in the late 60′s in a convoy from Ankara (capitol) to Amasra, a town on the coast of the Black Sea with radar facilities aimed at Russia. My old man was a Radar Specialist Engineer.
            I can’t see how a couple of NATO allies (Greece and US) would be posturing against another NATO ally.

            If the report is true, it’s a stupid stupid move as all it will do is push the still largely secular Turkey towards Islamic fundamentalism.

            Then again, the US Commander In Chief is an idiot, so anything is possible.


            Report this

            00

          • #
          • #
      • #
        crakar24

        Yes this is interesting Kevin, i see China is still going to buy Iranian oil and the west are not happy, China feels they do not have a right to dictate to them who or whom they can buy oil from.

        Hopefully saner heads will prevail in the coming months.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      intelligence was being worked to fit around the policy sound familiar?

      Not on my watch, it doesn’t.

      The Curveball story has been around for a while – these games are played all the time at the diplomatic level – the thing about this story was that the Politicians really wanted to hear the story that Curveball was offering, and did not want to hear a different story from their own advisors, whose duty it was to keep them safe.

      If you want to read about the White House shenanigans at the time, I suggest you read “Vice” by Lou Dubose and Jake Bernstein. It is subtitled, “Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency”.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      wes george

      BZZZZZZT,

      O/T!

      Shoe bomber-style incompetent hijacking.

      Al Crakar and Al Kevin, you sods should to get a private room at Al Jazeeeera.com and Enjoy!

      :-)

      Happy Easter!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        crakar24

        Yes Wes maybe we should……………or you could shut the [snip] up. I realise its not in your character to admit when you get things wrong so i will just accept 36.5 as a half arsed “i was wrong” comment.

        By the way i am an athiest, please take your pitiful and pathetic religious ceremonies elsewhere.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Roger Colclough

          Great one crakar24,

          Wonder how our scientific skeptics justify religion? The burden of scientific proof would be awesome for a concept based on blind faith.


          Report this

          00

    • #

      Crackar,

      You are absolutely correct. The whole story was made up. But what you fail to mention that the true source of the lie was Saddam Hussein himself. Here is a link from a Pakistani source: http://forum.pakistanidefence.com/index.php?showtopic=83561

      Saddam Hussein was bluffing. Unfortunately, the West called his bluff. Not a very bright move considering Saddam had tried to kill the president’s father.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        crakar24

        Of course Saddam was “bluffing” wouldn’t you if you had a shit storm floating off the coast?

        Not that it matters, the intent of the comment was to whack Wes with a big stick and it worked a treat. The old “Al” slander came out again and the poor bastard did not know what to say. So in the end he had to resort to telling Kevin and myself to get a room………….really is that the best he could do?

        Poor old Wes.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Mark D.

          Saddam was bluffing his own people as well. The only way to keep insane people from eating their own is to bluff wildly and shoot a few in front of an audience. Such is the Middle East.

          When you have a known “shit storm” knocking at your door, it would be wise to fold your hand rather than continue bluffing.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            crakar24

            You seem to think he was of sane mind, i suspect he was as mad as a two bob watch.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            No I think you didn’t read me right. I think most all the Middle East is ruled by the insane. On average, populated by the insane and principally guided by a religious document written by the insane.

            I have a view that powerful leaders have to be smart, cunning is a variation of smart. Insane people may be smart but I think most insane people would never survive positions of power unless the people below them are also insane or worse.

            You claim to be atheist, have you considered your life expectancy in a world dominated by Islam?

            This being wholly and grossly off topic, I expect it will (should) get pruned.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            crakar24

            Mark D,

            All the events that you have seen unfold and in fact that are unfolding in the middle east has absolutely nothing to do with religion, it has nothing to do with insanity although one may argue the people leading must be insane.

            I do not claim to be an athiest i am stating a fact one could only claim that there is a God a slight difference. What would be my life expectancy be in say Saudi Arabia or some other country where Islam is the dominant religion? Good question, if it was not war torn then i suggest not much different to now. Of course war torn countries would skew the data a little i suspect.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Kevin Moore

            While on the subject of sanity,the Easter special of the programme below would be a good one to find time to watch -

            Planet America (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)http://www.abc.net.au/news/programs/planet-america/Cached

            In the lead-up to the 2012 US Presidential Election, The Chaser’s Chas Licciardello teams up with ABC News Radio’s John Barron to follow and analyse the …


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Kevin Moore

            I forgot to ask – does AIPAC have any association at all with religion?


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Mark, blurring the line between Islam and Arab can lead one to tar all Muslims with the Arabic brush.

            There are many, millions in fact, of muslims who are not the quintessential “Allahu ekbar” screaming zealots.

            Long before the current crop of ideological, power hungry zealots, Islam gave the world art, architecture, mathematics, modern science and more.


            Report this

            00

  • #

     

    The scare is there because …

    The IPCC implies with their energy diagrams that the electromagnetic energy in radiation from a cooler atmosphere is all converted to thermal energy in a warmer surface, which is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because it would be an independent process. There is certainly no contrary statement by the IPCC, or any footnote for the energy diagrams.

    The IPCC does not specifically state that only the solar radiation transfers thermal energy to the surface, whilst the backradiation does not do so, but only slows the radiative component of cooling for that component of the radiation from the surface which does not get through the atmospheric window. Yet this in fact is all that can happen.

    The above is the kind of explanation that should have been what was in their most comprehensive explanation of their GH conjecture, for the benefit of scientists.

    Even then, they should further have discussed what compensating effects there might be in the rates of evaporation and sensible heat transfer, both of which would obviously increase if radiation did less for its share of the cooling. It is well known that these processes accelerate if the temperature gap widens, as it would if radiative cooling slowed. None of this is in any IPCC explanation, now is it?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Meanwhile that US govt public servant Hansen tells the people of Slovenia they shouldn’t build a new power station. How does this idiot hold down his job?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/03/nasas-hansen-tries-to-tell-slovenia-not-to-build-a-power-plant/#more-60660

    But don’t worry about China opening 52+ stations every year until at least 2020 and Vietnam another 90 stations by 2020, that doesn’t matter.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Ah, the Orange County Register! When I was a boy I delivered the paper for what was then called the Santa Ana Register. Santa Ana is the county seat for Orange County.

    I remember the headline stories. They said apartheid would never end but it did. We were told that the iron curtain was permanent but it collapsed. Now, some are saying global warming is a juggernaut that can’t be stopped. I believe it has gone off the rails and over a cliff. It is in a free fall and approaching terminal velocity.

    I don’t comment as much as I used to because every argument ever made on behalf of CAGW has been debunked and destroyed right here on this site. Every time I stepped into the fray I was unconcerned and not the least bit worried because I knew that some of the best and brightest minds ever to comment on an Internet site had my back.

    Although debates have been held, documentaries have been produced and articles have been published it was here on this very site that the battle for the hearts and minds of the great masses has been waged.

    There has been no other site quite like it.

    Pro CAGW sites have never offered a free and fair debate on the subject. Although other skeptic sited have contributed to the skeptic’s cause none can compare to Jo’s site.

    It has been on this site that the gauntlet was thrown down by Jo and the battles were fought between the opposing sides. No one who maintained a sense of civility was moderated. All have been allowed to make their case.

    When the dust settled after each battle the skeptics not only held the high ground but commanded the field. I am unaware of any instance where some CAGW true believer ever won an argument..

    Jo and every commentor that has fought this war against the greatest scientific fraud ever perpetrated on the human race are deserving of the highest honors and the most esteemed recognition for what they have accomplished.

    The war isn’t over but the tide has turned. Victory is within our reach.

    As Shakespeare once said, “The truth will out”.

    So, be of good cheer and don’t let the bastards get you down. Remember, the best revenge is living well! ;-)


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Eddie,

      I have a specific question for you, that in fact, you may not even be able to answer.

      I know that some sites which are huge here in Australia get limited following inside the U.S. and in fact, the opposite may also be correct, (big in the U.S. and limited here in Oz)

      I suspect that Joanne’s site is big all over, because it draws comments from everywhere across the Planet, and on a regular basis.

      Is there anywhere that you can find that would tell us the following this site does have inside the U.S.

      Tony.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      crakar24

      The best comment i have read in a very long time, thanks Ed.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Eddy, while I agree with you about the overall tone and quality of this site, you should also realise that when it comes to the blogsphere for climate related matters the elephant in the room is Watts Up With That?.

      At over 110,000,000 views the general level of traffic it gets puts it an order of magnitude ahead of the rest. It is from WUWT that many of the other good sites like Jo Nova, Tallblokes Talkshop and Climate Audit get at least some of their traffic.

      The format of this site is better for debates than the others and you do get a generally higher quality of comment.

      Everyone keep up the good work!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Yeah, well, WUWT is ok for the science folks, but they use long words and make my brain hurt.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          MattB

          So Jo Nova is a science free zone? you said it not I:)


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            No, I did not say that this site was science free at all.

            I implied that the language of this site made it more accessible to people who did not have a science background.

            But thank you for reading my comment and giving me a thumbs up.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            MattB,

            Apparently, you missed the subtle, nuanced humor in Rereke’s comment. Why am I not surprised?

            Actually, this is a “pseudoscience free zone”!


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Truthseeker

          Rereke, actually Tallbloke’s Talkshop is better for science content. It does not do censorship by omission which WUWT does when the sacred cow of GHG theory is challenged.


          Report this

          00

          • #

            Truthseeker,

            I agree with you. The difference is there has never been the magnitude of spirited debate on any other site as their has been on this one. Many of the people who are in the” undecided column” have been influenced by this site and have had an epiphany. I would imagine many of the converts to the skeptics side made their decision based upon what the saw here.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Eddy,

      I do hope that was not a subtle “goodbye”.

      You were missed when you didn’t comment for a while, and I for one would miss you if you totally stopped sharing your wisdom.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      MattB

      It’s funny Ed ’cause I honestly can’t remember an argument I’ve lost here… although I’m aware my deluded opponents think they won.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        MattB, sorry to hear that you must have lost your job.

        … I honestly can’t remember an argument I’ve lost here

        I see you’re attempting to move into a new one …… stand up comedy!

        Tony.


        Report this

        00

      • #

        I honestly can’t remember an argument I’ve lost here…

        Well then you better stop sucking on those bongs. It’s no good for your short term memory Matt.

        I’ll remind you of one. You had a bet with Richard S Courtney a couple of years back. You lost and ungraciously refused to pay up.
        I even remember Eddy reminding you of it for months afterwards.


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Baa, MattB welching on a bet reminds me of a childhood incident. I made a $20 bet with another kid. Back then, $20 was a lot of money. I kept chasing down and beat the crap out of him at least 2 or 3 times a week. One day, my father was returning from work and saw me kicking his ass. After he pulled me off of the kid he asked me what happened. I told him I was going to beat the crap out of that kid until he paid off. My father laughed and told me to let it go. He said I should consider myself lucky. After all, it only cost me $20 to find out what kind of a kid he really was.

          It is a lesson I have never forgotten.

          I adore Matt. That’s why I think of him as “a doormat”. Every regular skeptic commenter that has ever tangled with Matt has used him as an intellectual doormat to wipe his feet on. Everybody, and I do mean everybody, has wiped their feet off with Matt.

          I commend Matt for his resiliency. Never before on any website has anyone ever had their intellectual ass handed to them so constantly and consistently and yet get up off the debate floor and come back for more.

          Kudos to you Matt!


          Report this

          00

          • #

            LOL your backhanders are awesome Ed


            Report this

            00

          • #
            MattB

            Look Ed I see it as more a study of people and behaviour. I’m genuinely intrigued that most of the discussions I’m a part of here result in my opponents thinking they’ve “won” or “wiped their feet on me”. It is some sort of strange group phenomenon. Normally it will be a discussion, then someone like yourself will jump in with some sort of smokescreen ye-olde-worlde anecdote that has nothing to do with anything, then a lot of backslapping and a proclaimed vitory. Or MV will ask for a plan b as though it is a reference to some previous intellectual flogging.

            Not that I think I’m a deity… but it is an apt time of year to remember that the baying masses all thought they were correct nailing Jesus to the cross. I bet there were a lot of anecdotes and backslapping then too…

            Centurion Eddy: “This reminds me of that time I was chasing a kid up for a $20 bet…”

            Eddy – if the situation is similar to today that kid probably never made the bet, and your dad should have told you to stop being a smart ass and given you a good hiding.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Matt,

            Please feel free to show us one thread anywhere on any post where you won. Your usual modis operandi consists of you getting backed in a corner and then, being unable to deliver on the goods, you simply vanish for a while.

            If you want to live in your own little world that is your business. Everybody that has ever read a thread where you have debated can see for themselves that you never, ever won.

            The story I told about my childhood experience is true. So is the retelling of your welching on your bet with Richard S Courtney!


            Report this

            00

          • #
            BobC

            Eddy Aruda
            April 5, 2012 at 10:44 pm
            Matt,

            Your usual modis operandi consists of you getting backed in a corner and then, being unable to deliver on the goods, you simply vanish for a while.

            …and after a while, all he remembers is the few points he made and forgets the thrashings he took.

            ******************************

            Heck Eddy, that’s a perfectly good coping strategy. I used to do exactly the same thing re mountain climbing: The actual experience of climbing a high-altitude mountain is so unpleasant that for a while afterwards you don’t even think about it. In time, the unpleasantness fades and the memory of the glorious moment you stood on top becomes enshrined in your mind as representing the climb.

            Then, you are suckered into doing it again.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            BobC

            MattB
            April 5, 2012 at 12:00 pm
            Look Ed I see it as more a study of people and behaviour. I’m genuinely intrigued that most of the discussions I’m a part of here result in my opponents thinking they’ve “won” or “wiped their feet on me”. It is some sort of strange group phenomenon. Normally it will be a discussion, then someone like yourself will jump in with some sort of smokescreen ye-olde-worlde anecdote that has nothing to do with anything, then a lot of backslapping and a proclaimed vitory. Or MV will ask for a plan b as though it is a reference to some previous intellectual flogging.

            This comment perfectly mirrors your relative inability to follow logical arguments — hence you remember them as sociological interactions, and ‘forget’ the logic, which you didn’t follow anyway.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Otter

        Projection, thy name is mattie.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        wes george

        I honestly can’t remember an argument I’ve lost here

        Neither can the people who voted you into office since you never informed them that you were a Greenie or revealed your online political activity to them.

        We sincerely hope you plan to update your electorate on your true political colour.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        memoryvault

        .
        You can’t “lose” an argument you refuse to have, Matt.
        For instance, we’ve been waiting over a year for your Plan B.

        That is, apart from your suggestion that people freezing to death should wear a jumper.


        Report this

        00

      • #

        Yep, everybody is deluded… except you, of course! You truly are a legend in your own mind!


        Report this

        00

        • #
          MattB

          “Yep, everybody is deluded… except you, of course!”

          I’m a bit like Dellers… right about everything.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Robert

            Sadly you are only “right” in your own mind. Yet from our perspective your mind certainly isn’t right.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Truthseeker

            I’m a bit like Dellers… right about everything.

            Actually MattB, this just shows how you miss the point and do not have the intellectual equipment to win an argument here. When Dellingpole says he is right about everything, he is using a clever language trick on the two meanings of the word “right”. Dellingpole is “right” (as in political right-wing) about everything but the simpletons like yourself take the right = correct meaning and take umbrage, which of course is Dellingpole’s intent.

            Mattb, there was a big “trap here” sign and you still fell straight into it.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            MattB

            oh yeah duh. Would it ever cross your mind for just one second that I know exactly the way Dellingpole uses the word “right”. Maybe for jsut one second I was applying the other meaning to myself. I mean sheesh do I really come across as that thick?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Dave

            .
            MattyB

            I mean sheesh do I really come across as that thick?

            No!
            You are in that group of 12% of the voters in CAN I CHANGE YOUR MIND about Climate Change that are classified as ALARMISTS.

            How you view your mental capacity is a choice only you can make! Don’t ask me – as I’m not in that 12% of Mental Pygmies alarmists!


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Cookster

        Matt B, just because you run away when asked questions you can’t answer does not mean you won any arguments here. My recollection of your contributions to Jo’s site is that you suddenly appear, throw a (light weight) hand grenade then when confronted disappear or refuse to answer.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    janama

    I’m not so sure we are making any progress.

    Here’s what the Byron Shire Echo’s Michael McDonald printed this week.

    The flavour of the week in climate change news has been the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest report on how society will need to adapt to the increase in extreme weather events. It made headlines in most of the major media, even ranking up there with poor Ben Cousins’s latest drug episode. Probably because it’s costing lots of money: the IPCC estimates extreme weather racks up about $76.75 billion a year worldwide in damage.
    Why, that’s almost a seventh of the cost of the war in Afghanistan to the Americans (http://costofwar.com/en).
    Professor Matthew England, chair of Australia’s Climate Commission’s Science Advisory Panel (http://climatecommission.gov.au), says extreme weather events are likely to become more frequent, more damaging and more costly to society.
    ‘[Th e IPCC report] finds that it’s virtually certain that heat extremes will increase in frequency and magnitude during this century,’ he said. ‘There is great concern that droughts, bush fires and heat waves will become more severe as temperatures continue to rise, and that cyclones and damaging rain events will intensify.’
    The Commission summarises all the preparations we will have to make on this hot, dry, wet, cold, totally confusing continent:
    Bushfires: Hotter days and longer dry spells are likely to lead to more ‘extreme fire danger’ days during the bushfire season. The opportunities for fuel reduction will be limited to winter months and communities will need to proactively manage their readiness for rapidly moving fire storms.
    Heatwaves: Heatwaves are the invisible killer claiming more Australian lives than
    Any other natural disaster. More than a thousand people die from heatwaves every year. As we see an increase in days over 35°C and 40°C, the death toll is expected to double by 2020, and reach 4,300–6,300 by 2050. ‘The expert advice is unanimous on this topic: the risks of climate change… are serious and this is the critical decade for action,’ concludes Prof England. The full IPCC Report can be found at http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/ SREX.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      wes george

      Oh, come on, Janama,

      The intellectual black hole of Byron is the last place on Earth that Gaia will inform she’s not in need of their recycled poo-poo.

      They don’t call it “The Echo” for nothing!

      The good people of Byron are wilfully blind, deaf but hardly dumb. Tim Costello needs to direct more Ausaid in their direction. It’s like the night of the living dead in the Northern Rvers. Nice place to visit as long as you stagger around in batik pretending to be one of the zombies. If they smell fresh blood you’re dead meat.

      The irony is that most Byronians claim to be vegan.

      Must be the lack of iron in the diet.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Actually the last place would be Nimbin, not far from Byron (about an hour and a half).
        There lives the last remnants of a 70s music festival hippies who decided to make their homes there.
        Their kids are a sad lot, selling dope to tourists to fund their heroin addictions. The place is a good study of the results of “environmentalist hippie lifestyle”.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    And another from today shows why its falling so flat:

    The ACT government banned lightweight plastic shopping bags late last year but green bureaucrats in the territory’s Labor government should put celebrations on hold. Their citizens are heading 10-15 minutes down the road and over the state line to continue to pack an average 345 plastic bags each a year – and all the economic benefit is going to NSW.

    So Canberrans will drive out to Queanbeyan just because they like shops which will let them have plastic bags. Hmmm. That’s going to explode a few heads.

    Convenience it seems will destroy CAGW faster than sceptics can.

    And I becha none of the shoppers know they’re doing the right thing environmentally either, as the UK found when they did a life cycle assessment on those wretched cloth ones.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      crakar24

      Hey Bruce we banned the handing out of free plastic bags in SA some time ago……….whats that you ask “what happens if i forget my greenie sanctioned bags?” For a small fee they have some plastic bags you can have.

      This scam knows no depth.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      bring back paper bags!! yes think of all those trees they need to make ‘em and CO2 needed to grow ‘em :D


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I always ask for a box to put the groceries in – you know, those useful brown cardboard boxes that the tins of beans and fruit come in. The shelf stackers usually cut the top off, which makes them convenient to put your groceries in, and it means that the Supermarket does not need to send them away for incineration and conversion to nasty CO2.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    The ‘globalist’ moron bankers and their ‘green alarmist’ sockpuppets (Greenpeace, green parties, WWF etc.) arent going to give up easily. They will start another scam as the new Little Ice Age approacheth..


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Otter

      That might be difficult. Didn’t they cover every possible scare with warming? I mean:

      ‘Cooling will bleach the corals!’ (wait, what?)

      ‘Cooling will wipe out crops!’ (so there’s NO good growing weather at all?)

      ‘The oceans will get more alkaline!’

      ‘All the fresh water will be locked up in glaciers!’ (but didn’t you guys say melting glaciers were a Bad thing?)

      ~About a 1000 more examples~

      … I dunno. I just don’t see it. But I’m not yet awake, either.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Joe's World

    Jo,

    Maybe scientists will look into REAL science rather than manufacturing mathematical calculations on statistical data and throwing in their two cent conclusions.

    We’ll there’s hoping…
    But what about all the billions already spent on salaries and grants to shoddy science?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    I hate to rain on anyone’s parade but IMHO handjive @ 32 and memory vault @ 35.1 are right on track. The Global Warming Scam was only ever a means to the real end and that is implementation of UN Agenda 21. The Club of Rome, now the UN’s main think tank, started laying the foundations for “sustainable development” in the early 70′s.

    According to the Club of Rome, “democracy has failed and new forms of governance are required” and “a common enemy must be found, one either real or invented, to unite humanity.” They then state that “in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”

    “Sustainable Development”, or Agenda 21, was the main outcome of the United Nation’s Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Agenda 21 outlines, in detail, the UN’s vision for a centrally managed global society. This contract binds governments around the world to the United Nation’s plan for controlling the way we live, eat, learn, move and communicate – all under the noble banner of saving the earth. If fully implemented, Agenda 21 would have the government involved in every aspect of life of every human on earth.”

    Rio-20 in June is to check progress and further the Agenda.

    The vast majority of people, including wide-eyed but well-meaning innocent believers like MattB, apparently don’t have a clue about what’s really going on, yet those who have planned and implemented it so far have made no secret of the fact!

    http://green-agenda.com/agenda21.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    In 14 hundred and 92
    Columbus sailed the Ocean blue.
    In 19 hundred and 92
    Greenies sailed to Rio too….

    Once wrote a whole poem and then lost it. Plus the poem.
    There were lots of Rio street kids before the 1992 arrival of the wise.
    Many newspaper reports of kids disappearing a few weeks before, to keep Rio looking neat & tidy.
    Too many reports to write it off as urban myth. It said to me, again, that power corrupts fatally.

    Don’t pop any corks yet. You have not seen senior jurists expressing much of their attitudes to treaties. I’ve seen enough to make me very worried.

    It’s judicious to predict that when push comes to shove after Agenda 21, when Courts become involved, the notion of new global law will submerge notions of existing State laws. Imagine the kudos of the panel of Judges who will be in history as the noble few who instituted the supreme legal body. Even more powerful than Darth Vader.

    Overall, these Judges know science at kindy level, politics at morning newspaper & marmalade level, economics when their kids want Judge Dad to buy a home for them, and worldy experience as seen from freebies at the nice resorts of the globe. Yet it will be these socially-isolated Judges who will eventually decide when this undeclared War has ended, using reasons seldom seen on blogs, no matter how well they buoy our spirits.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    el gordo

    Ultimately its unusual weather which will defeat the warmists.

    ‘Last week the village recorded a balmy 23.6C – the hottest March temperature in Scottish history. But this morning residents woke up to seven inches of snow that had fallen for much of yesterday and overnight. Other parts of Aberdeenshire experienced up to 10 inches of snow.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2124386/UK-snow-warning-Out-mild-March-Arctic-April.html#ixzz1r4M3eedJ


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    Jo really?

    The global warming climate change disturbance is far from dead.
    So long as people outsource thinking to their political, scientific and media authorities the masses will stay in the dark.

    These are the same people that can be convinced by a news reporter that obscenely cold winters are a product of global warming an will willingly pay money to “offset their carbon emissions” when they fly.

    People are by and large retarded and as long as we have retarded people we will have fraudsters and scamsters to prey on them.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Truthseeker,
    True WUWT site may have more viewers but I do not recall ever seeing a debate that has hundreds of comments! At the site.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Matt L

    The OC Register is a great paper (I lived in OC for many years), but getting a sane opinion piece there is not the same as in the LAT, NYT or WaPo. Put it this way: Mark Steyn’s column is a regular feature there.

    The German / Polish developments speak a lot louder than any newspaper could, however.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David

    ‘German solar giant goes belly up’ was reported on the BBC…???
    Stone me – things really are coming to something..! I thought the BBC’s climate reporting policies were all dictated by Richard Black…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tim

    If the original PR tactic of ‘Global Warming’ worked, why change it? If ‘Climate Change’ worked, why change it? If ‘Climate Disruption’worked, why change it? Now we have the dreaded ‘Anthropocene’ era about to descend upon us.

    Give us a break Chicken-Littlers. The population is becoming increasingly aware of the fraud and the desperate spin it is generating. Everything has a beginning, a middle and an end. The end is hopefully approaching for you.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Shevva

    There are still people pushing the CAGW scare :-

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/04/1981_climate_paper/

    Although their source is RC.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Interesting posts. There is no other blog like this.

    What will bury AGW, I think, is people concerned about the their local environment. The realization that AGW has illegitimately stolen their funding for cleaner waterways, parks and gardens, soot reduction programs, recycling programs, sewerage treatment, etc and on top of that the power grid has been screwed.
    The next step is enviros vs greens. (A bit like Alien vs Predator).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rupert's boy

    Climate change denial is mostly a pile of right wing poo

    Where’s that Nature paper?

    Nothing less will do.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      KeithH

      “Natural Climate change denial is mostly a pile of left wing poo.

      Where’s that UN Agenda 21 paper?

      Nothing less will do.”

      There Rupert’s boy. Fixed it for you


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Sonny

    The other problem I see is the extent of climate change propoganda that has been assimilated into every aspect of our lived and every product we buy.

    Examples I have found:

    Notices on coke machines at Monash university.
    Advertising In automotive industry.
    The blurb on the back of a wine bottle.
    Advertising on a portable AC unit.
    Food health information on placards in my canteen at work.
    The news reporting on hot days/ hot spells but never cold days cold spells.
    Scientists coming out recently to explain the “science behind cold wet winters” and how these actually prove global warming.
    Using rising energy prices to sell solar panels.
    Bumper stickers promoting a “zero carbon Moreland”

    The list goes on and on.

    My point is this. Global warming and climate change has been so thoroughly entrenched in our lives that it will take probably 5 – 10 more years until people can be reprogrammed. For many, they will rather cling to their false reality than acknowledge they were wrong and face the humiliation of realizing they were fooled.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Seeing that a microwave oven produces low frequency radiation far more intense than carbon dioxide could ever do, and yet its radiation is not absorbed* and converted to thermal energy in ice, what makes anyone think that radiation from carbon dioxide could warm all the snow and ice covered areas of the planet?

    The mechanism by which microwave ovens heat water molecules is totally different from the excitation of atoms which happens when high frequency solar radiation warms water. The oven emits radiation at a very specific frequency which happens to resonate with natural frequencies of the water molecules which then “snap” or “flip” through 180 degrees and back again in synchronisation with the passing waves of electromagnetic radiation. The molecules in water do have the space to do this, and when they flip there is frictional heat generated by collisions of the molecules. In ice there is not sufficient room to move and flip like this.

    There is no violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics simply because electrical energy was added to the system.

    But the fact that the ice was not melted demonstrates the phenomenon of “resonant scattering” in which radiation is not reflected, not transmitted and not absorbed with conversion to thermal energy. See Section 5 of my publication here.

    * Try this home experiment:

    Obtain two identical small microwave bowls which do not get warm in the microwave oven. Ensure that they both fit in the oven together. Obtain a small ice cube tray and fill it with filtered or distilled water. Pour that water into one of the bowls. Then refill the tray with similar water and place the ice cube tray in your freezer and both the bowls in your frig overnight. Next day, empty the ice cubes into the bowl without water, then place both bowls in the microwave oven and operate for about 60 to 80 seconds depending on the volume of water – try to bring the water nearly to the boil. Observe that the ice has not been affected – you might even try comparing its temperature with other ice in the freezer. To do this, pack the ice samples in a tall insulated mug and insert a meat thermometer with a metal spike.

    Why wasn’t the energy in the radiation shared equally between the water and the ice? If you pour the hot water into the bowl with the ice it will easily melt the ice within a couple of minutes, so this demonstrates that sufficient energy did enter the water.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      BobC

      Doug Cotton
      April 5, 2012 at 8:47 am · Reply
      Seeing that a microwave oven produces low frequency radiation far more intense than carbon dioxide could ever do, and yet its radiation is not absorbed* and converted to thermal energy in ice, what makes anyone think that radiation from carbon dioxide could warm all the snow and ice covered areas of the planet?

      Perhaps because, rather than relying on highly flawed analogies between radiation bands separated by a factor of 10,000 in frequency, they rely on actual measurements that show that ice is an efficient absorber in the band radiated by CO2 (~11 microns).


      Report this

      00

  • #

    The warmists have never made had a substantial case. Neither have they ever allowed any debate. If someone had been convicted of a felony on the same “evidence” and methods used to promote CAGW, then the prosecutors would end up on trial for tampering with the evidence, denial of representation to the accused, and jury nobbling.
    However, no amount of evidence will convince a dogmatic believer, whereas any bit of tittle-tattle unsupported by the evidence will give them sustenance for months. There are tens of thousands of people who rely for their livelihoods on maintaining climatology and many people who will lose their status. More importantly, many politicians will never recover from admitting to being so gullible or so weak to have been brow-beaten into supporting this nonsense. It is part of the human condition that the people who are least secure in their beliefs are the ones quickest to lash out when confronted. It is as true of intelligent adults as insecure over-sized seven year-olds.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    More evidence of “sustainablity” NWO style.

    http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/mar/30/nv-energy-windmill-program-generates-rebates-littl/

    In a startling example, the city of Reno’s wind turbines — for which the city received more than $150,000 in rate-payer funded rebates — produced dramatically less electricity than the manufacturers of its turbines promised.

    http://www.rgj.com/article/20120314/NEWS/303130076/Reno-windmills-not-living-up-manufacturers-claims

    one turbine that cost the city $21,000 to install saved the city $4 on its energy bill. Overall, $416,000 worth of turbines have netted the city $2,800 in energy savings.

    By the way the globe warmed slightly in March and is now at +0.11C wow look at all that global warming.

    Must be from all that heat Max talks about in the Arctic

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

    On second thought……….maybe we should have asked James Cameron to keep an eye out for it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    hmmm

    Um, the global warming theory needs a proper counterexample to devastate it.

    Noone has found one.

    What you are describing, Jo, are social reactions. Just because people don’t seem to care about addressing global warming doesn’t mean that the theory is therefore invalid.

    Poor attempt at an article.

    —————-

    Commenters, do try to be nice to “hmmm”, he obviously hasn’t visited this site before, and with parents giving him a name like that, well… do be gentle. — Jo


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Robert

      The problem that you and so many others continue to make is to call it a theory, it is not nor has it ever been a theory, it has never advanced beyond the hypothesis stage.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      rukidding

      Hey hmmm keep reading Mann,Briffa and Jones and you will go blind.
      you could try
      Lindzen,Spencer or Michaels but then you run the danger of actually finding something out.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Please can someone send me a link to a key scientific paper which argues against man made climate change and provides empirical evidence. The paper should be in a high impact, peer reviewed scientific journal, and the research should be corroborated elsewhere.

    Thanks.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rupert's boy

    [Snip. Learn the blog rules before posting. I don't take kindly to arrogant little pricks. mod oggi]


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Mark D.

      Hey Boy, A. Nobel is spinning in his grave over the non-science prizes given to the likes of Gore and Obama. If that is how you judge scientific merit, you can go away. You aren’t needed here or in any rational discussion.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      MattB

      hmm it is strange to see a mod be quite so rude. I mean sure we are all human but umpires are kinda meant to be above using outright abuse.

      [No we are not umpires. You're not partaking in a game/match/contest nor are we being paid to baby sit obnoxious idiots. The blog has rules, as light and few as they may be, rules they are. That obnoxious prick was being purposly offensive and tried to bait other commentors.
      p.s. If you think I was rude and didn't like it, you know what to do. there are thousands of other blogs you can frequent. No one is twisting your arm to be here.
      The next time you comment about a mods action, out you go. GOT IT? Mod oggi]


      Report this

      00

    • #
      BobC

      Rupert’s boy
      April 5, 2012 at 10:47 pm · Reply
      Debunked with ease here
      http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/05/on-the-miseducation-of-the-uninformed-by-gerlich-and-scheuschner-2009/

      Why can’t deniers present their science wher it matters and claim their Nobel prize? I will never accept mainstream science is corrupt or obstructing you. It is simply that the science is not there to support you.

      Well, Rupert’s boy, if you bothered to read the science (if you can, that is) instead of just depending on which journal it was published in (the “appeal to authority” fallacy, BTY — not that you would know anything about logic, which you appear to be as innocent of as science) you would find out that the AGW hypothesis — that Human activity is causing a significant increase in the Earth’s temperature — has never been shown to be true, or even a likely conclusion from the data.

      To summarize the arguments for AGW:

      1) The Earth is warming up;
      2) Mankind’s activities are emitting large amounts of CO2, calculated to be a mild greenhouse gas;
      3) Therefore, Humans are causing the majority of the measured atmospheric CO2 increase;
      4) The warming effect of CO2 is assumed to be amplified multiple times by hypothesized positive feedback effects;
      5) Computer models written to include these assumptions agree; and
      6) Lots of creative papers have been written hypothesising catastrophic effects from large amounts of warming.

      Unfortunately for the Alarmists (and apparently, invisibly for the logic-challenged), these claims do not add up to a proof, or even a logical argument:

      Re 1): Inconveniently, the warming started well before Human activity produced any significant amount of CO2 — about 1820, the end of the Little Ice Age. Additionally, the warming is nothing special in the Earth’s climatic history, and has yet to reach the levels of the Medieval Warm Period of 1000 years ago.

      Re 2 & 3): The logic connecting these is dicey, based on models, and ignores well-established empirical data — in other words, typical AGW “science”. For simplicity, however, we’ll just assume the alarmists are right about this.

      Re 4): The strong positive feedback effects are simply hypothesised — actual measurements, however, show that they don’t exist. (Any half-way competent scientist or engineer would realize that stable systems can’t be dominated by strong positive feedback — but we’re talking ‘Climate Science’ here where politics is more important than facts.)

      Re 5): Anyone familiar with computer programming realizes that computers do what you tell them to. If the models are programmed to assume strong positive feedbacks, then, by golly, that’s what they do. “Garbage in – Garbage out”.

      Re 6): Given the fact that the current epoch is nothing special in Earth’s climatic history, and that the AGW hypothesis has been falsified, these are simply exercises in science fiction.

      I have better things to do. I will leave you to your lay, right wing echo chamber.

      Given your demonstrated lack of logical and reasoning ability, and the fact that many commenters here are scientists and engineers (as are many skeptics), this is probably a wise decision on your part.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Rupert's boy

    PS: to think, Miranda Devine refers to this blog as some kind of beacon of scientific excellence and truth. Pathetic! It’s for those who don’t know and don’t want to know.

    (This comment above is from a person who has not tried to advance a rational argument on anything.The same person who has been slapped hard by a moderator because you are evidently a nasty person wanting to crash the thread.The obvious question would be is why are you being stupid the entire time?) CTS


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Um, the global warming theory needs a proper counterexample to devastate it.

    No, all the global warming hypothesis needs to do is to be falsified. It has been

    Noone has found one.

    Have you been freeze dried or doing time in solitary confinement?

    What you are describing, Jo, are social reactions.

    No, Jo talks about science. The warmist talk about religion as their beliefs are rooted in faith in a dogma, not science. Perhaps you can astound us all and provide the empirical proof that will substantiate the CAGW Hypothesis?

    Just because people don’t seem to care about addressing global warming doesn’t mean that the theory is therefore invalid.

    Your statement is illogical, as it is based on the false and unproven contention that by contributing a dozen CO2 molecules per million molecules in the atmosphere we are going to effect temperature change that will destroy the planet! You do realize that of the approximately 390 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere only three percent of that 390 ppm is created by humans?

    Poor attempt at an article

    Piss poor critique and a cheap shot, to boot. If you cannot make a valid argument based on science I guess that is the best you can do, right?

    Maybe we should do an Internet group hug, think happy thoughts and sing Kumbaya for you?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Catamon

    The end of the Global Warming Scare would look a lot like this

    Or, it could look like this.

    :)


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Robert

      Or if they stopped relying on models and looked at the real world it wouldn’t look like that. Anything for the team eh?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Dave

        .
        Catamongst:

        From your link:

        Also two weeks ago, scientists from Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) published updated temperature data

        Updated = tampered, played with, adjusted, To suit their model
        What a joke!


        Report this

        00

    • #
      BobC

      Ah yes; there’s been another paper (or two) supporting CAGW — obviously the science is now settled, it’s time to stop being skeptical (or else!) and we should all work together for world dictatorship peace.

      This doesn’t look like the end of AGW Catamon — it looks just like the beginning, middle, etc.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Ted O'Brien

      Gerald Wynn, the author of that waffle, should check Sara Phillips’s chart on 14th March at http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2012/03/14/3452994.htm

      This chart, while purporting to debunk scepticism, shows that the rate of the rise in world sea levels has not changed in the last 20 years. It also shows that Australian sea levels, supposedly measured the same way, are behaving like a drunken sailor.

      There’s a problem. I checked that web page to make sure it is still there. THAT CHART NOW HAS A BANNER ACROSS IT SAYING “SEA LEVELS ARE RISING”.

      Now the funny part. Clicking on that obscured chart brings up an enlarged copy of the chart without the banner!

      Please, please, everybody! Have a look at that chart before it too gets obscured or removed.

      The “world” rise in sea levels shown there to 2010 appears to be about 60mm. The level fell 6 mm in 2011, so 54 mm would be not a long way off what I had been led to believe to be fact. Note that that “world” figure shows no indication whatever that CO2 emissions are making any difference. This is why, apparently after somebody had pointed this out to her, Sara Phillips found it necessary to hide it behind the banner.

      And this was an “alarmist’s” chart.

      Sara, what are you doing? Naughty girl!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    And this kills the carbon tax stone cold dead as a doornail:

    China will accelerate the use of new-energy sources such as nuclear energy and put an end to blind expansion in industries such as solar energy and wind power in 2012, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao says in a government report published on March 5.

    China is dumping solar cells and windmills. Oh mama Julia what are you going to say to this one when your guy Greg was spinning how much China is doing only a week ago?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ted O'Brien

    Robert @ # 1.

    Is there a large woman in the wings somewhere going through her scales right now? Yes, there is, and her hair when last seen was red.

    She is fighting the AGW cause to the death, because she can see that, even at this late hour with the world turning against her, she is within a whisker of achieving her lifelong objective of destroying our economic system.

    She staked her career on the carbon tax, and won it. She is still staking her career on the AGW scam. Hopefully that personal career will be brought to a halt within days, but those who will replace her have spent their whole lives singing from the same sheet.


    Report this

    00