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



$700,000 for believers to convert skeptics – but nothing for skeptical science

From the 2011 Australian Research Council report: as much as $45,700,000 was spent on An Environmentally Sustainable Australia in 2011.

The cash cow that is “Climate Change” is so loaded that over a six year period, $718,000 dollars of ARC funds has flowed to “believers” (their terminology) to study and convert dissenters.

The death threat that wasn’t (by the kangaroo culler — John Coochey) was made at an event that deserves more attention.  The “Deliberative Democracy” turns out to be part of a project funded by the Australian Research Council to the tune of $378,500. It’s title: Social Adaptation to Climate Change in the Australian Public Sphere: A comparison of individual and group deliberative responses to scenarios of future climate change. This year, a new version of the same project has been awarded another $340,000.

Quite properly, the deliberative forum claims it was not going to take sides:

“The project sought to engage with the full range of positions from people who are sceptical about climate change through to those who are very concerned. We do not endorse any particular point of view – it is the aim of the project to find out what these views might be.”

But the team included known alarmist Will Steffen.  Andrew Bolt discussed the Forum and eye witnesses of the project report tell how skeptics were treated:

Mondo:
Messrs Steffen and his team delivered presentations on various aspects of climate change. We were not allowed to ask questions, or to challenge the multifarious false statements made. Instead, we broke out into groups, with the idea that a group could ask a question. Of course, each group was dominated by “warmists”, and the lone sceptic in each group was a) abused, b) derided, c) not listened to.

The result was that Steffen and co were presented with soft questions that were based largely on ill-informed views, convenient to the organisers.

John Coochey:
… they hired a comedian [Rod Quantock] previously trading as Mr Snooze (to be fair he was not bad modern style of humor) to ridicule anyone who was not a believer. That is not even an attempt at deliberation.”

In the name of research they had to listen to Rod Quantock tell jokes about skeptics at dinner? Was his speaking fee paid by the ARC grant?

The proposals always look so noble. The leading researcher, Dr Simon Niemeyer, describes his philosophy:

The solution is not to dazzle unbelievers with science, but to engage everybody in a mature debate

How mature is it to hire comedians to mock the unbelievers?  How unbiased are the researchers who refer to one half of the public as “unbelievers” — implying not that they hold a different opinion, but that that some scientists know “the truth”, the one and only permitted view, and anyone who disagrees gets “dazzled” by the light.

But he doesn’t want to browbeat skeptics:

So the task now is to see if a more considered approach to debate is possible in the wider public sphere and to engage with people with different views rather than try to harangue them

Source: SMH

Browbeating, and haranguing are right out, but it is alright to dismiss, denigrate and categorize those who disagree?

After all that work they found that beating skeptics over the head with transparent propaganda while suppressing their views only make them more determined skeptics. Surprise me. Did we need $378k to find that out? I could have told them for free. And this is always the way with these projects to understand “skeptics” — they rarely come to ask the leading skeptics what it is that drives them. Obviously they don’t want to know what makes the most informed and active skeptics tick, they just want to know how to convert the punters to the state religion. If they want to convert the skeptics, all they need is some evidence.

The Orwellian use of the phrase “climate change” is so complete, that the report authors are oblivious to the meaning of the things they write:…

” it should be noted that the nature of the project outcomes also has implications for the governance of climate change at all levels of government.”      

   The report on the deliberative democracy forum (CCPS).

It’s as if they think they can govern the weather.

These three projects were awarded to teams that included Dr Simon Niemeyer– the lead author of the first “deliberative democracy forum”.

————————————————————-
Approved Project Title

Social Adaptation to Climate Change in the Australian Public Sphere: A comparison of
individual and group deliberative responses to scenarios of future climate change

DP0879092 Dr SJ Niemeyer; Dr P’ Hart; Dr KP Hobson; Prof W Steffen; Prof BG Mackey; Dr JA Lindesay

2008 : $ 182,500
2009 : $ 176,000
2010 : $ 20,000
Total: $378,500

Primary RFCD 3601 POLITICAL SCIENCE, The Australian National University
This research addresses the ARC National Research Priorities Goal of ‘An Environmentally Sustainable Australia, specifically ‘Reducing and capturing emissions in transport and energy generation’. Avoiding, managing, and/or adapting to the climate change impacts is now the most pressing global environmental problem. This project will produce tangible and original insights into policy options for institutional adjustment to future climate change in Australia; will provide insight into the scope for positive community behavioural change; and possible transformations in Australian social debate to maximise adaptive capacity. It will also strengthen and produce original conceptual approaches and research methods.

————————————————————–
DP120103976
Approved Project Title

Deliberative democracy in the public sphere: achieving deliberative outcomes in mass publics

Niemeyer, Dr Simon J; Dryzek, Prof John S; Schlosberg, Prof David; Hobson, Dr Kersty P;
Goodin, Prof Robert E; Bachtiger, Prof Andre; Setala, Dr Maija T
2012 $110,000.00
2013 $110,000.00
2014 $120,357.00
Total $340,357.00

Primary For 1606 POLITICAL SCIENCE, The Australian National University
Project Summary
This project will systematically explore ways in which citizens can engage more deeply with complex policy issues
without the need to resort to massive expenditure on running multiple deliberative forums, such as citizens’ assemblies. It will identify the language is needed to deliberatively inform and the vehicles for providing that information.

Climate Change & the Public Sphere Project

———————————————–

DP120104797
Approved Project Title

Rethinking climate justice in an age of adaptation: capabilities, local variation, and public
deliberation

Schlosberg, Prof David; Niemeyer, Dr Simon J
2012 $30,000.00
2013 $70,000.00
2014 $150,000.00
Total $250,000.00
Primary FoR 1606 POLITICAL SCIENCE, Administering Organisation The University of Sydney
Project Summary
This project aims to produce recommendations, designed by citizens and stakeholders, for climate adaptation policies in three regions of Australia. These recommendations will be based on a definition of climate justice that incorporates basic needs and resources to be protected, as identified by potentially impacted communities.
[source]

——————————————
References:  Page to find all ARC grants
2010 grants
2011 grants

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.9/10 (43 votes cast)
$700,000 for believers to convert skeptics - but nothing for skeptical science, 8.9 out of 10 based on 43 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/7hy6bmm

87 comments to $700,000 for believers to convert skeptics – but nothing for skeptical science

  • #
    Jaymez

    It is heart breaking that:

    1. Our leaders in academia, those people who are teaching and moulding our young adults, can come up with such hair-brained projects. What well founded research in social sciences was the ‘Deliberative Democracy’ model developed from? What made anyone think that the proposed project would have any beneficial outcomes for our society? Surely there has to be some sound justification and anticipated outcome from such projects?

    2. Or bureaucrats who make decisions on grants, fully aware that many sections of Government spending is being cut back or delayed, would believe projects like these listed had any value whatsoever to the Australian Taxpayer.

    3. Our Government who have already legislated the carbon tax and have spent tens of millions promoting the legislation, and now the cash compensation to some, think they can get a bunch of people to sit down and talk about something we cannot change without a change in government, in order to make us feel good about it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jaymez

    I would also make the point that the government invited members of the public to make submissions about the carbon tax to the Climate Change Commission. We did so in our thousands detailing the very many issues we had with it. First the Climate Commission decided to bring the close date for acceptance of submissions forward. Then they decided to not bother reading or posting on their website any submission which didn’t endorse a carbon tax.

    I have written numerous letters to Climate Change Commissioners, bureaucrats and Ministers in the Rudd/Gillard Governments about climate change and carbon pricing. If the Government were serious about finding out what sceptics think and what we would need to be convinced of, all they would need to have done is read and respond to those letters. Instead, at best I received a form letter talking about scientific consensus, and ‘the right thing to do’, but nothing addressing the actual questions I raised. At worst the letters were simply ignored.

    So now the Government is essentially providing grants to wide ranging groups who will also ignore what the CAGW sceptics have to say. Brilliant!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    Resorting to comedy & ridicule is mere argument by distraction and it seems to be one of the main techniques being resorted to by warmists now, even by their so called scientists, as a good laugh, albeit at others expense, is always a welcome relief and it appeals to the intellectually shallow and those of limited attention span.

    In his recent lamenting on the state of climate science the distinguished Scott Denning, PhD , Proffesor of Atmospherics at Oregon State Uni, makes repeated references to Monty Python sketches .

    This isn’t in any attempt to reduce skeptics arguments to absurdity, but merely to ridicule the characters and institutions themselves, that dare to question the IPCCs yet more absurd conclusions and projections from the climate science.

    When Lord Monckton weighs in to correct at length the youthful Denning’s fallacial discourse, the Yale institute hosting the exchange wont publish it, yet that doesn’t stop them from giving space to more pseudo-analytical claptrap from that come lately Professor of fluids that has lately joined the ranks of a number of non-entities at the Guardian, by making a name for himself for nothing other than attempting to knock Monckton.

    If these were but journalists and comedians themselves that might be understandable, but these claim to be the very climate scientists , whose exhortations to action we are supposed to be taking seriously.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jim Toohey

    “…. dazzle unbelievers with science ….”
    Three classic indicators of the dogmatist – overlaid with the surreal lack of self awareness we”ve come to know so well.
    1. Dazzle – they promise not to dazzle?? What a relief! I”m absolutely over being “dazzled” by alarmists.
    2. “unbelievers”?? Is this for real? I thought one of the core differences between stupid ,uneducated , gullible sceptics like me and cool, progressive , rational statists was our tendency to oversimplify, to ignore context , to shun views which challenged the status quo, to seek the uncomplicated certainty of ” for me or against me” labels, to spurn those who “speak truth to power”???? Yet now we have believers and unbelievers?? Can I start buying indulgences? When is the next proclamation from the high priests?
    3. And this one really is the icing on the cake. Science?? All sceptics want to do is argue science.
    I haven”t met a sceptic who doesn’t obsess about the science. Is it the unbelievers who don’t want to discuss the hot spot? What about sea temperature? Or polar ice measurement. Or decadal SST trends?
    Monty Python’s dead parrot sketch had nothing on this level of cognitive dissonance.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Chuck L

    I thought it was bad here in the USA, but every day on this and other blogs, I read about something going on Australia that is worse that what I read the day before. When are Australians going to rise up and take back your vast and beautiful country from the seemingly endless rising tide of green fascism? I confess ignorance about your governmental and legislative processes; are there mechanisms that will allow you to cast off the yoke of green tyranny?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    Climate Change is Propaganda!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    From the Report’s footnotes:-

    It should be noted that two of the participants who identified themselves as sceptics began participation in the forum but did not return for the second day. The first of these expressed a high level of stress after clashing verbally with another member of the forum. The second departed after feeling frustrated that he could not get his views across to the group (and was very unfortunately subjected to special attention by the comedy act that was intended to provide the opportunity to decompress at the conference dinner after a demanding first day). One individual who self-identified as a climate change sceptic did remain for the duration of the process, despite also clashing with another member of the group at the outset. Two of these individuals expressed disappointment that the forum did not adequately cater for their views.

    There would seem to be little point in sceptics trying to engage in these stacked forums, only to be insulted & ridiculed, and Steve the organisers purpose of being able to claim everyone from both sides was consulted.

    Sceptics need to address the public directly and not on terms engineered by a partisan government.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Hahaha,

    Our very own ALP/Thomson Ministry of Truth!

    Paid for with your bread.

    What complete unbridled bludging parasitic Bastards


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Coochey

    I should point out that although questions could not be asked directly from the floor there was one exception when there was not time for the groups to “conference”. That occurred on just before lunch on the first day. I asked Steffen and his co speaker for that session could they comment on a recent letter to the Canberra Times claiming temperatures had not increased in the Canberra region in decades. (The Canberra region was supposed to be the subject of the deliberation) Steffen could not confirm or deny, he had not even looked up the temperature record but his companion stated there was evidence everywhere or example parrots on the Eastern Seaboard had got lighter! I am not making this up and all conversations during the day were tape recorded. We had to sign waivers to allow this. I went to the deliberation not to stir up trouble but to not “do a John Quiggin” and claim to have all the answers but not dare interact with those who disagree.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    handjive

    Maybe we should consider ourselves lucky, at the moment.

    The environmental movement has already begun it’s pogrom on ‘unbelievers’ in the name of ‘climate change’.

    Tens of millions of pounds of UK aid money have been spent on a programme that has forcibly sterilised Indian women and men, the Observer has learned.
    Many have died as a result of botched operations, while others have been left bleeding and in agony.

    (A) working paper published by the UK’s Department for International Development in 2010 cited the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programmes.

    The document argued that reducing population numbers would cut greenhouse gases, although it warned that there were “complex human rights and ethical issues” involved in forced population control.

    As informed folks know, India has refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, nor any agreements since, and is actively defying the totalitarian EU carbon & oxygen tax directives:

    The EU in mid-May gave India and China a month to comply with the airline carbon emissions fee system across the 27-nation bloc, or face penalties for flights into and out of Europe.

    India in April barred its airlines from complying with the EU carbon fee, joining China in resistance.

    “We will take retaliatory actions to counter steps taken by the EU.
    If Europe bans our carriers we will ban theirs as well,” the senior government official, who did not want to be named, told reporters late Friday.

    Sooner or later, like the ‘ever seeing eye of Sauron’ in the Lord of the Rings, the EU will turn their gaze to Australia for their obscene eugenics program left over from WW2, rebadged as ‘tackling global warming, climate change, or climate disruption’.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    AndyG55

    Notice how they have changed the name YET AGAIN..

    its now “sustainable development” or something similar.

    Methinks the next step would have to be sometjhing like “Rational Capitalism”

    ALL to do with controlling and degrading western economics.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    But it looks like the Steffen “disease” is spreading. There was a reprint of an article by Jonathan Pearlman(Telegragh Group)about Gina Rinehart in our local paper recently.
    It quotes a Dr Micheal Rafferty from the University of Sydney Business School who describes the new moguls as feudal-style”rentiers” who unlike the media and property tycoons of previous eras have never “developed anything in their lives”.
    “These billinaires like Gina Rinhart , Clive Palmer and Twiggy Forrest have accumulated vast wealth without having done anything”
    ” They just sit back and the cash starts coming in. Their quirkiness or wackiness is largely a product of the fact that their business is simply owning the property , not building the work force”

    This is all coming from the Business School — what sort of rubbish are the students being taught if this is the business understanding of a teacher
    (presumably) of the school at the university ???
    If I was a parent of a business studies student at the Sydney Uni. I’d be asking serious questions of the value for money they are getting from their studies.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jim Stewart

    Jo’s report resonates with Garth Paltridge’s book “The Climate Caper” and his choice of cover painting – Pieter Bruegel the Elder’s “The Blind Leading the Blind”.
    Sure all these “believers” will have their eyesight cured quickly when they have to find useful employment once the current destructive mob in Canberra are assigned to history.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] $700,000 for believers to convert skeptics – but nothing for skeptical science [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Coochey

    THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE LINKS IN THIS ARTICLE THERE APEARS TO BE SOME CYBER SQUATTING


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boadicea

    So the academics from the ANU and the UNI NSW want to engage in a mature debate, with those who may be sceptical of the science, by using immature methods, and not include many of their kind ..whilst using funds being incompetetly distributed.

    Why dont the academics clean up their own messes, by first of all.

    1. Cleaning up that sham called Peer Review

    2. Instituting a regime of ethical and professional standards ..a Code Conduct?…. that has sanctions

    3. By speaking up against the excesses of the IPCC and the lies of its Chairman Pachauri.

    4. By declaring conflicts of interest like being involved as scientific advisers to the WWF etc wilst being paid out of the public oruse

    I would love to be involved in one of these farcical mature conversations involving a comedian who uses a chook on stick … as long as I can bring my pet goat and goose.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Irony that the ABC news yesterday reported that snow has fallen on the Alps and the ski season is likely to start early. They had a famous ski guy who said normally you don’t see such substantial falls until late June or July.

    Not a single mention of climate change in the spot.

    This is why Prof Steffen’s little reeducation camps cannot work. The voters are not idiots, they can see that CAGW is not happening, and the ones with some science background can easily find that the alternative explanations work very well to explain what their eyes are seeing.

    In 19thC America after a while the snake oil merchants no longer could sell snake oil at any price and were run out of town. So they changed to patent medicine. That failed even quicker as the people wised up. The business model collapsed. But we remember snake oil. We remember patent medicine. Oh yes, we remember Prof Steffen. Soon you too will not be able to sell your wares at any price in this country.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Streetcred

    The program has stark parallels with Scientology brainwashing … apologies to the Scientologists, you really don’t deserve to be lumped in with the “Believers”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Massey

    The underlying truth will be heard! It’s frustrating at the moment but it will come out!

    I suspect the next election in Australia will do a lot towards routing the Labor Socialist bullies from our political system and the Gillard years will be gone. I really hope the Liberals rout out all these inconsequential Government Departments much like the Libs have done in Queensland and send them into oblivion.

    But, the people of Australia then need to look very carefully at who their electing and make sure they have some real life experience instead of the glorified academic spin doctors with no common sense or real qualifications that we currently have. We also need to be able to redress Parliamentarians if they are doing something contrary to their electorates wishes then they need admonishing for it. How we do this? I have no idea but it needs to be done!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robert of Ottawa

    Can you spell “gravy train”?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    .
    Jim Stewart @ #13

    Sure all these “believers” will have their eyesight cured quickly when they have to find useful employment once the current destructive mob in Canberra are assigned to history.

    Yeah! All we have to do is vote in the Liberals, and everything will be all better in the twinkling of an eye.

    sarc/off

    Will some of you doey-eyed Abbott fans at least go and have a look at the LIBS “environmental policy” page.

    http://www.liberal.org.au/Issues/Environment.aspx

    It FEATURES a pic of bird-shredding wind turbines FFS. – Complete with birds !!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robert of Ottawa

    The political establishment owns climate science, literally, as it funds it. These people use the results of the “science” to promote their own, socialist, programs. Remember, all members of government bureaucracies and its establishment are socialist by definition; they see their job to control and regulate society.

    The key point in time when the socialists rushed to enviromentalism (sic) was the “Brundtland Report” which provided socialists, who were losing the USSR and the political battle, with another excuse, another cause to exploit.

    The political battle has not changed, neither the techniques. Remember Lysenko in the USSR. He provided convenient excuses for the commissariat to control agriculture and the rural regions. They didn’t really care about the truth of it, AFAIK.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    “The cash cow that is “Climate Change” is so loaded that over a six year period, $718,000 dollars of ARC funds has flowed to “believers” (their terminology) to study and convert dissenters.”JN

    Climate Change Commissioner [commissioner of a crime] Tim Flannery would try to convince you that hot air falls down from the clouds. What a dumbed down society we have and what lunatics we have in politics to represent us.

    Australia’s chief climate commissioner Tim Flannery calls for the removal of toxic teeth from dead people

    Mercury in teeth is bad but mercury in CFL light bulbs is OK??

    CLIMATE change campaigner Tim Flannery says mercury tooth fillings should be removed from corpses before they are cremated.

    The practice should be made law, Australia’s chief climate commissioner said.

    “You don’t want to poison people when you are cremated,” Prof Flannery said. “No one would want that.”

    Addressing the Australian Medical Association’s national conference in Melbourne yesterday, he said an awareness campaign was needed.

    “I think people would be comfortable with removing the fillings, it is just a matter of awareness,” he said.

    Prof Flannery said undertakers should be required to remove the fillings and families also could request it.

    “You just need a pair of pliers,” he said. “It is a $2 solution.”

    He said the mercury in teeth fillings was not a problem in people alive because it was not in a methylated form.

    “For mercury to become dangerous, it has to get into the atmosphere, which happens when we are cremated, then blow over the oceans (and) go into the ocean depths, where there is very low oxygen, and then transform by bacteria into a methylated form of mercury,” Prof Flannery said.

    “This is then ingested by fish and the fish get put on the dinner plate.”

    He said he had not raised the issue with the Federal Government, but he felt it was significant and could be dealt with easily.

    While talking about health and environment at the AMA conference, he also raised concerns about a lack of readiness for extreme weather events.

    Prof Flannery said deaths from heat were increasing and the community needed to be better educated about the health risks.

    “Deaths from heat is a silent killer that is increasing around the world,” he said. “The most vulnerable in our community are most at risk.”

    Prof Flannery said the loss of respect for science in the climate debate had been “one of the most damaging aspects”.

    http://australian-politics.blogspot.com.au/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Why waste money on Rod Quantock as a comedian, when they had a choice of clowns in Prof. Tim Flannery or Prof. Stephan Lewandowsky?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Alex

    Jo or mods, your site keeps emailing me hundreds of comments
    which I don’t need. Is it possible to fix this problem.
    Kindest regards…..Alex
    [go to "edit my profile" and un-check the email options as needed] ED


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    best to post this link as there are many links within it:

    27 May: Activist Post: Susanne Posel: UN Creates New, More Powerful Global Environmental Agency
    In June of this year, at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the United Nations (UN) will push for the expansion of their new and improved global environmental agency.
    The UN Environmental Program (UNEP) will be promoted to “specialized agency” with a new title, UN Environment Organization (UNEO).
    The UNEO will prop up the Sustainable Development division of the UN. The same agency that disseminates Agenda 21 policies to governments will be centralized into a global agency with powerful international backing…
    http://www.activistpost.com/2012/05/un-creates-new-more-powerful-global.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    the CAGW money is peanuts compared to the following Wall Street Journal story, which seems not to have attracted too much attention last week:

    25 May: Washingtonsblog: As An Encore to Bailing Out the Big Banks, Government to Backstop Derivatives Clearinghouses … In the U.S. and Abroad
    The government has allowed the amount of derivatives to reach 1.2 quadrillion dollars.
    That is feeding the parasite of casino gambling … which is preventing the real economy from recovering and is killing the host of actual productivity.
    What is the government doing for an encore? Bailing out the derivatives clearinghouses.
    As the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday:
    “Little noticed is that on Tuesday Team Obama took its first formal steps toward putting taxpayers behind Wall Street derivatives trading — not behind banks that might make mistakes in derivatives markets, but behind the trading itself. Yes, the same crew that rails against the dangers of derivatives is quietly positioning these financial instruments directly above the taxpayer safety net.”…
    “The authority for this regulatory achievement was inserted into Congress’s pending financial reform bill by then-Senator Chris Dodd”…
    “Specifically, the law authorizes the Federal Reserve to provide “discount and borrowing privileges” to clearinghouses in emergencies.” etc etc
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/05/as-an-encore-to-bailing-out-the-big-banks-government-to-backstop-derivativees-clearinghouses-in-the-u-s-and-abroad.html

    i can’t even pretend to understand the derivatives weapons of mass financial destruction, but it seems pretty frightening.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Darren

    True Story – I once went to a comedy club where Rod Quantock was MC for the night. I heckled him from the word go and had him totally flustered. He is REALLY sensitive to being called Captain Snooze. My best heckle line of the night was when he said “Yes, I did that for a while”, I replied “You’ll be back” – I got more laughs that night than he did.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    old44

    Certainly it is alright to dismiss, denigrate and categorize those who disagree, it is all they have left.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Somewhat on topic, as people talked of climate science funding, I made teh mistake of posting to the ABC environment thread here:

    http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2012/05/21/3506179.htm

    The usual ferals jumped up and down with the usual rants. Just copying my response to them, in case it gets the ABC mod squad treatment:

    No worries Brenainn, the ABC blogs seem to bring out the inner feral in people. So to my lively detractors in turn:

    Bernie:
    People react to incentives, especially monetary ones. I trust this isn’t news to you. I have known shady characters in the professions you mention, but that doesn’t prove anything about climate scientists does it? Probably more a statement on human nature in general …

    As for scientists getting paid regardless of what they write, base salary perhaps, but good luck getting funding from Government towing an argument that flies in the face of Government policy, or “Big Pharma” if you state contrary findings regarding their drugs etc.

    You want to see how a typical big climate scientist raises money, check out Prof Andy Pitman’s funding site at UNSW, just for example. A lot of Government money on that page alone…

    RG:
    Conspiracy theory? Common self-interest does not require a “conspiracy theory.” When scientists, financial companies, government, renewable manufacturers etc are all happily aligned, you don’t need a conspiracy to arrive at the current situation. See my point above to see where climate scientists get their funding. It’s simple game theory (mathematical/economics concept – see Nash et al).

    Patrick:
    Oh dear … where to start? Read above for starters. The number you are looking for is 97% of climate scientists believe… it was a study that carefully restricted the set to 77 climate scientists, of which the researcher decided 75 were in the “believe in AGW” camp. 98% of all statistics are made up, dontchya know?

    Why is it always the ones that provide no evidence and rhetorical arguments that insist skeptics show evidence disproving their hypothesis of CAGW? Last time I checked there had been no conclusive _empirical_ data that demonstrated CAGW was real. Given that there is nothing to disprove, it seems a touch arrogant on your part to demand skeptics disprove what you (the universal “you” for AGW believers) have not yet proven. Pointing at a glacier and saying “O-o look it’s in retreat… it is evidence for AGW!” is not empirical proof, any more than another glacier increasing in size is proof for the contrary argument. L2Science.

    One thing I can tell you unequivocally is that there are a lot more vested interests seeking to push the CAGW argument than the skeptic status quo position. See above for example.

    BTW using the term “denier” and its derivatives is unbecoming and we all know why. First you would have to stipulate what it is I am denying for you to have any basis for such a descriptor.

    BLZBOB:
    “Big Fossil Fuel” gives huge amounts of funding to universities and other research institutions. They are in the energy game regardless of what form the energy generation takes … if renewables is the next “it” thing then they are going to be in the front seat driving it, not sitting by the side of the road wondering what happened to their profits. When your profits are in the tens of billions a year, a few million here and there for non-fossil fuel research is small change to get in on the action … if it ever eventuates. An each-way bet in racing parlance.

    Your homework assignment is to study “strawman argument.”

    BTW this comment is posted elsewhere because I know what ABC mods are like :)

    PS> Regarding peer review, I seem to recall an email from the original ClimateGate (Yes, I am that Bulldust) saying words to the effect of “We’ll keep that (skeptic study) out of the journal even if we have to redefine the peer review process.” Yeah … peer review working as intended it seems…

    Personally I think I was too polite, but they caught me on a good day I guess…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    This seems to be the right place to ask this question and if someone could explain it that would be great

    What is climate change

    What is the scientific definition of climate change.

    If the temperature goes up is that climate change.
    If the temperature goes down is that climate change
    If the temperature was going up or down and it stops is that climate change.

    What the hell is climate change.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    doom gloom doom gloom doom gloom doom gloom doom gloom doom gloom doom gloom doom gloom doom gloom doom gloom et al…
    Hmm how about thorium powered reactors? CO2 free
    http://thoriumenergyalliance.com/ThoriumSite/portal.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ally E.

    A question for Memoryvault. Please, I don’t want to get into a heated debate, I just want to know who you think is the best to vote for.

    Remember, no one wanted either of the main parties last time and the votes were scattered across the whole range of candidates. That’s what got us into this mess, giving us a hung parliament and landed us with Gillard. We don’t want that to happen again.

    The thing that sold me on Abbott is that he has Ian Plimer as an advisor. Ian Plimer is of course a skeptic (something Abbott has also been charged with since at least 2010 and probably earlier). Ian Plimer wrote “How to Get Expelled from School”, an excellent skeptical book on CAGW. The fact that he is advisor to Abbott tells me Abbott isn’t just making noises to counter Gillard, he’s plugged into the real science of the matter.

    Yes, Abbott claims he will get rid of the Carbon Tax. That’s got to be better than what we have now. I seriously can’t see him pulling a Gillard, especially in the face of her annihilation both for lying and for not listening to what the people want. There’d be rioting in the street if he went back on his word.

    Gillard has so wrecked it for the Labor Party, this is Abbott’s opportunity to stay in power awhile, I don’t think he’ll want to chuck that down the toilet.

    http://www.news.com.au/national/tony-abbott-promises-to-get-rid-of-carbon-pricing-scheme-within-six-months-of-being-elected-to-power/story-e6frfkw9-1226334281970

    “The Opposition Leader said that if blocked in the Senate he would immediately call another election, a double dissolution, and invite the ALP to commit “suicide twice”.

    “I won’t reduce the tax, change the tax, or redesign the tax. I will repeal the tax,” Mr Abbott said.

    So, unless you can give me a better candidate in a powerful party that states the same intention to get rid of the Carbon Tax (and, please, not an Independent or a small party that just isn’t going to win the numbers – I tried that last time) Abbott’s got my vote.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Manfred

    Thanks to Kevin on blog #23 for: ‘Prof Flannery said the loss of respect for science in the climate debate had been “one of the most damaging aspects”.’

    http://australian-politics.blogspot.com.au/

    Over the Tasman today, the Green/UN centered MSM media have been overwhelmed by self-righteous zealous joy being able to proclaim that we are all very very naughty boys and girls because we have not met a single Kyoto objective. Our report card gets a black capital ‘F’. In the same breath, the MSM announce that some of the dreadful emissions responsible for CAGW, in particular the component emitted by cows (methane) is now no longer considered responsible for the heinous rise in temperature. The culprit we are told is the 20% rise in NZ population in the last decade. Switch to academic at Waikato University who agrees that there are many more people using iPods and iPhones and other electrical appliances, which clearly results in greater emissions because of an increased demand in power. (PS: some 70% of NZ generation is derived from hydroelectricity).

    It goes without saying the the any thoughts regarding the quantification of these statements lead one to a resultant ∆T that is so infinitesimal as to be impossible to measure, orders of magnitude within the range of error and impossible to associate with the putative causes. All but the most impaired would heed the MSM seriously. They are in fact doing us all a favour by becoming not only more strident, but more nonsensical. It is a brave if not foolish academic that stands-up at this juncture to claim their fabled Warhole moment and it is evident that the Green/UN centered NZ MSM are doing their utmost to fulfill the observation made so eruditely by Prof. Flannelbag.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Patrick

    Hey folks, how about Gillard’s “generous compensation” for the increased costs of living? $250 one off payment for a single pensioner! Wow! That averages one cup of coffee per week! My latest quarterly utility bills amount to more than $1400.
    Message to Gillard: Your much publicised bribe will not protect you from the wrath of the Australian electorate. Dream on and consider your post-political career options.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave

    .
    Jo – just spent 12 minutes & 57 seconds watching!

    JOANNE NOVA: The Other Side! on You Tube :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

    Brillant – you have to do more and more of these – just TERRIFIC!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Wayne, s. Job

    A rather interesting development in the cold fusion saga. It would appear that the US navy researchers have proven it beyond a doubt and have done some serious science as to why it works.

    The Cheifio E.M.Smith is worth a read he is all over it like a rash.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    What really ‘narks’ me with all this spending is the opportunity cost. There are people out there trying hard to come up with the next big thing and move things forwards – it would take a really small amount of this money to help turn the tide for them and possibly make the difference between failure and success.

    Wasting money like this is sinful and a complete insult to those who are working to make the future a better place.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Did all the old comments disappear because we did not buy enough Comment Emissions Credits? Has all our excess been put into a Comment Sequestration facility? Where comments were once abundant we now have artificial scarcity. Comments are going to cost a lot more if Clean Comment Technology is forced upon us. I feel bad about this because I just haven’t been managing my Comment Footprint…

    But seriously, Jo, has any progress been made on recovering all the old comments?
    They were a goldmine of counter-warmism talking points.

    ———

    REPLY: Andrew, all 100,000 comments prior to the recent maintenance are well backed up, and I have cached copies of the ones since then, alas the number system started from 0, so meshing the two sets together will be some work. Yes, David T is working on it. If that big-oil cheque arrived I could pay him, instead of asking him to fit it in between other jobs. :-( Jo


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    On radio 2GB this morning – well worth a listen.

    The Greatest Hoax of Our Time – Alan Jones speaks with Marc Marano of Climatedepot.com about climate change.

    http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_podcasting&task=view&id=2&Itemid=41


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Michael

    Just look at the rediculous cateogories that the ARC supports- literary, legal, media, nonmedical psychology- nothing to do with development of areas that are essential to Australia even if its manipulated to climate change alarmism. Time to close them down totally.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    I don’t know whether this is true in Australia (I suspect it is), but it is certainly the case in the UK that a ministry will find any ridiculous way of spending its entire budget before the end of the financial year, because not doing so may result in a reduced budget. The notion that an inability to spend all the money actually implies that the money doesn’t need to be spent is wholly alien to the civil servants’ mentality. The former British PM, Gordon Brown, currently the absentee Member of Parliament for Kirkcaldy, used to erupt in fury, if Whitehall departments seemed likely to fail to spend all the taxpayers’ cash he shunted their way. In that Universe, government expenditure is, by definition, virtuous. What it gets spent on doesn’t matter: idiotic “academic” studies, or a new limo for Robert Mugabe. It all counts – in the plus column for the civil servants and in the minus column for everyone else.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    elsie

    Yes, this happens here all right. In the education department frantic spending was made on all sorts of things to ensure all monies for a fiscal year were spent in order to at least gain the same amount next year. As happens, no real thought was given to what the money was used on and the result was sheer wastage or more dreary seminars.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Numberwang

    Definitely the case in Canada as well. There is a mad rush in every department at the end of the government’s fiscal year to spend all of the remaining budget so that you can justify receiving at least as much next year. No incentives to save or cut spending whatsoever.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    grumpy

    Defence is the same. When I worked in an area responsible for some supplies I was told by the logistics arm in May that we had to spend $10,000 on tools and stuff by June so we would get the same allocation next year. The theory was if you didn’t spend all your money then obviously you didn’t need so much.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Grant (NZ)

    What complete unbridled bludging parasitic Bastards

    Ad hominem but accurate.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    gnome

    They wouldn’t even need to pay me $700,000 to convert- I would cheerfully become a believer if the only paid me what they pay Flannery.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    3. And this one really is the icing on the cake. Science?? All sceptics want to do is argue science.
    I haven”t met a sceptic who doesn’t obsess about the science. Is it the unbelievers who don’t want to discuss the hot spot?

    This stuff is now part of popular culture, like it or not. So perhaps skeptics should get off the science and fight the political battles that really need to be fought. Use the science but take the battle to the streets, take it to the politicians. The tea party movement here has done wonders to publicize our spending excesses. Do the same with the damned carbon tax and climate whatever-ism it currently calls itself.

    If what I read here is any indicator the Australian people should be ripe for having their minds changed before too long.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tim

    “Is it the unbelievers who don’t want to discuss the hot spot?

    I don’t think most would know enough about the science to understand. We’re talking Joe Sixpack here and they’ve fallen for the proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is a logical fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.

    The technique is described in a saying, often attributed to Lenin without evidence as “A lie told often enough becomes the truth”. Although the people at the top are well aware, the followers may not be intentionally promoting a lie and may just believe an illogical or faulty proposition.

    This is where the war is won. I think it’s time for a union of ‘sceptical realists’ to combine forces and encompass the global PR game, rather than the hundreds of bloggers and websites currently discussing science amongst the converted and educated minority.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Numberwang

    “…. dazzle unbelievers with science ….”… more like “baffle us with B.S.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Winston

    Resorting to comedy & ridicule is mere argument by distraction and it seems to be one of the main techniques being resorted to by warmists now

    Two can play at that game- I have finished my Shakespearean play in honour of the soon to be fallen Prime Minister- the Ides of March were a little late this year, obviously. You’ll notice if you care to read the play that I make reference in one of Artemidorus’ speeches about the tactics used to marginalise dissenters and propogate a false dogma.the play can be found here- http://1984redux.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/the-tragedy-of-julia-caesar/

    Please feel free to leave a comment at the bottom of the post and any further suggestions would be welcome


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Kevin Moore

    “Prof Flannery said the loss of respect for science in the climate debate had been “one of the most damaging aspects”.

    Warmism is prophecy, not science. Science cannot foretell the future. Science can make very accurate predictions based on known regularities in nature (e.g. predicting the orbits of the inner planets) but Warmism is the exact opposite of that. It predicts a DEPARTURE from the known regularities of nature. If we go by the regularities of nature, we are on the brink of an ice age.

    And from a philosophy of science viewpoint, far from being “the science”, Warmism is not even an attempt at a factual statement, let alone being science. It is not a meaningful statement about the world. Why? Because it is unfalsifiable — making it a religious, not a scientific statement. To be a scientific statement, there would have to be some conceivable event that disproved it — but there appears to be none. ANY event is hailed by Warmists as proving their contentions. Only if Warmists were able to specify some fact or event that would disprove their theory would it have any claim to being a scientific statement. So the explanation for Warmist beliefs has to be primarily a psychological and political one — which makes it my field

    And, after all, Al Gore’s academic qualifications are in social science also — albeit very pissant qualifications.

    Here’s how that “97% consensus” figure was arrived at

    Climate is the sum of weather. So if you cannot forecast the weather a month in advance, you will not be able to forecast the climate 50 years in advance. And official meteorologists such as Britain’s Met Office and Australia’s BOM, are very poor forecasters of weather. The Met office has in fact given up on making seasonal forecasts because they have so often got such forecasts embarrassingly wrong. Their global-warming-powered “models” just did not deliver.

    http://antigreen.blogspot.com.au/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Streetcred

    Memory … there is a time and place for everything, and now is not the time to open up a competing political debate from the one we have. The economy cannot afford the stupidity of our current political eco-fascists and will neither afford them under a new government either. Premier Newman knew exactly what Queenslanders wanted without the need to expose his campaign to an unnecessary eco-fascist attack. Same, same … patience Grasshopper.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    handjive

    I am with MV all the way on this.

    There will be no relief from the ‘carbon dioxide is pollution’ lie with Abbott, unless he does ‘a Gillard’ and backflips on what he obviously believes in or pledges he makes:

    The Coalition welcomes the review and update of the climate science contained in the Climate Commission’s report issued today, “The Critical Decade”.

    The Coalition recognises that the world is warming, and that humans are having an impact on that warming.

    There is bipartisan support in Australia in support of the science of climate change, as presented in this report.

    There is also bipartisan support for the target of cutting emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 on an unconditional basis.

    But, deception and half-truths abound from Abbott:

    Australia will have to increase its greenhouse gas reduction target from the current 5 per cent by 2020, to at least 15 per cent within two years under the policies of both the ALP and the Coalition.

    The Opposition has signed up to both the 5 per cent and 15 per cent targets, although it hasn’t mentioned the second one for a while.

    ~~~~~~~~~

    Will Steffen says that approach has been key to building successful climate change policies.

    “Both sides of politics have gotten together and agreed on an approach so if the government changes, the policy and approach to climate change doesn’t change.”

    ‘Rescinding the whole lot’ is a lie:

    THE Coalition has announced it will support a key plank of the government’s carbon package, the creation of an Australian Renewable Energy Agency.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jim Stewart

    Agree with your general point MV – BUT, at least some of the Libs can listen to, and understand business needs to be able to generate some wealth for the Nation. As well, they are much more open to ideas and options for returning us to more real Liberal conditions, i.e., belief in the individuals responsibility and right to look after themselves. As John F Kennedy said at in his inaugural speach ‘Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country”. We need to return somewhat to that proposition.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Truthseeker

    MV you seem to be judging a policy by the picture …


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    .
    Streetcred @ #21.1

    Over 60% of current sitting, and proposed candidates for the Liberal Party are “Wets” – Malcolm Turnbull look-alikes who would be happier in the left wing of the Labor Party. As a Party they have pretty-much the same eco-fascist environmental policies as the current crop of loonies presently running the asylum.

    If between now and the election Australian conservatives cannot extract some kind of commitment to sanity from the LIBS – DEMONSTRATED in their written and published policies, then we are just going to replace one lot of destructive crazies who can’t claim a mandate for their actions with another bunch of destructive crazies who WILL be able to claim a “mandate” for pretty much the same lunatic actions.

    Just stop for a moment and consider where we’d be right now if JuLIAR actually had an overwhelming majority and had never made her “there will be no carbon tax” speech.

    THAT my friend is a vision of the future if the LIBS get elected with their stated environmental policies as they stand.

    I’m not suggesting “opening up a competing political debate”. At the moment there IS no “political debate”.
    We get nation-destroying “climate change” lunacy no matter who we vote for.

    Please don’t come back with “Abbott said this” or “Abbott promised that”. Tony Abbott is NOT the Liberal Party and the only thing the Liberal Party can be morally held to is their written, published policies.

    And for those of you who missed it the first time, the Liberal Party’s web page covering their “environmental policies” currently features WIND TURBINES.

    Sheesh – what does it take?

    And for the record, well prior to his election Campbell Newman spelled out in finite detail EXACTLY what the LNP were going to do re “climate change” if elected, as stated policy, published at their website. Right down to which departments would be closed and which would re-organised and how. They even included a timeframe. I believe it was one of the major contributing factors in the scope of his win.

    Exactly why is it so much to expect the same sort of honesty and commitment from the federal LIBS?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boadicea

    Where does one begin go explain to the poor dears why no one trusts or respects them anymore.

    We could say its their silence in the face of known lies from theIPCC and their Chairman ,or the sham that is Peer Review, or it may be just that carbon di-oxide isnt a pollutant, no matter how many times the witless lawyers in Canberra say it is.

    I wonder who put them up to saying that

    But then again it may be that:

    1. There are only 4 carbon dioxide molecules in 10000 of air

    2. All of mankind only produces one molecule for every 90000 of air

    3 We in Australia ony produce one molecule 9,000,000 molecules of air

    4. The Ash Wednesday bush fires put out more carbon dioxide than 20 years of coal power stations.

    5. If you give mouth to mouth resusitation you are breathing in to the victims lungs air that has about 40,000 ppm and it doesnt kill them..it thank fully… revives them.

    For all this, these clowns have destroyed the one competetive advantage we had, namely cheap power and already the lay offs are occurring

    …..and they have the gall to ask why dont we love them?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Alex, Did you tick the box when you posted a comment that asked if you want to be notified of further comments? If you register at the site, you can edit your profile, and ask not to be emailed — though there are two kinds of emails, one from me to notify people of a blog post (which I do randomly and infrequently, but I’m trying to get better at) and the comments — which I know from experience — can render your intray swamped with the sheer volume. Email supportAT joannenova.com.au of you can’t stop the emails..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Its what ‘normal’ science and some people call weather!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Truthseeker

    rukidding,

    “Climate change” is whatever the bureaucrats need it to be to justify their jobs and taxpayer funding. /sarc off

    Climate change is a constant. Climate is always changing because it is the interaction between energy and fluids. Fluid systems do that because they are … fluid. Go figure.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    “What is climate change”.
    Cllimate Change is a rather nebulous concept, constructed from various natural variations and multidecadal cyclic behaviours of the planet, to create trending anxieties in huge numbers of population, in order to extort vast sums of money to fund a burgeoning, bureaucratic political class and all who feed off of them.

    For purposes of objectivity it is generally presented in terms of time series of globally averaged temperature readings, most of them interpolated from a much smaller number of actual readings, then averaged over at least decadal time periods, after much adjustment to compensate for various factors, to find the nearest apparent linear trend.

    There’s always room for improvement though, particularly when the term doesn’t seem to fit the trend.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    .
    Thank you for that handjive.

    The thought of handing the LIBS government with an overwhelming majority the way their “climate” policies are at the moment scares the bejesus out of me.

    The ONLY thing that to date has to some extent thwarted the crazies from completely taking over, has been the lack of a political mandate for their insanity.

    Given a demonstrable “overwhelming mandate for climate change action” (which a landslide Liberal win would provide), the Steffens, Karoly’s, Chubbs, Lewendensky’s Flannery’s and other fascists in the CSIRO, BoM and especially in our universities, will have all us “deniers” tattooed and in reeducation camps inside of six months.

    And there will be NO avenue to complain: our proposed Star Chamber Media Council is being set up specifically to silence climate change dissenters.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    Hell and I thought it had something to do with the weather. :-)

    Thanks Joe


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Harpo

    The technical term in Defence (many years ago I must admit) was “Financial Guidance”. Let’s say I asked for a budget of $100,000 in Year 1 and it is granted. Let’s say I only spend $80,000. In Year 2 if I ask for $100,000 the policy is that I am asking for 25% increase in guidance, because it is based on a $20,000 increase from $80,000 ie. 25% not on the $100,000. You don’t have to be a a genius to work out that this policy creates bad behaviour.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Patrick

    For the record my household includes 5 adults so the utilities costs amount to approximately $1000 per person per year. A cup of coffee per week? How generous?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mareeS

    memoryvault @ 117pm,

    At present the libs/nats are the only alternative we have to labor/greens. If you are so hotly upset about the coalition’s environmental policy, do what I did recently, and JOIN the Liberal Party. It costs $95. You don’t have to be nominated by a present member unless you want to join a branch and vote for preselection, but being a general member gives you a say in policy.

    I have never belonged to a political party until now, even though my family through my father’s side have been militant trade unionists in the printing/mining/transport sectors.

    It’s up to you to change things from within if you don’t like Coalition policies.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mareeS

    Oh, one other thing, mv, do you recall what happened in November 2009 when the Lib/Nat coalition got mailbombed by hundreds of thousands of voters? Turnbull and Rudd were playing huggies in support of an ETS because they mistakenly believed that was what every voter wanted.

    Turnbull got rolled, then so did Rudd. Abbott won leadership because he listened to his inner sceptic, as any intelligent person does. He’s still listening, so don’t think the coalition policy is set and fixed at present.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Manfred

    An addition to #34, I neglected to indicate another point to be made. This may be the first time (that I am aware of) in NZ, a country noted for its sparse population, that the MSM have surreptitiously introduced the idea that a population increase is to blame for increasing CO2 and thereby CAGW, indirectly voicing the principle of reducing human populations, one key focus of the Green agenda. This is indeed the stuff that nightmares are made of.

    Finally, just to thank and offer congratulations to Jo – for your outstanding You Tube presentation. I will point as many as possible in this direction.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    .
    An interesting claim, Jim.

    Could you back it up with some real-life examples of LIBS suggesting workable ideas that:

    A) – demonstrate an actual understanding of business needs, or
    B) – show an ability to actually generate wealth, or
    C) – confirm an openness to ideas and options, or
    D) – support the notion of individual responsibility?

    I don’t mean a Liberal (or any other party) politician CLAIMING to “support” these ideals, for they ALL will spout these principles any time a microphone is put in front of them.

    I mean a real, implementable example where the “unintended consequences” aren’t likely to produce a return a whole lot worse than the “solution” was supposed to fix in the first place.

    Just remember, you are attempting to defend a party that not only supports the insanity of “climate change” policies, but also wants to saddle business with a totally unrealistic and unaffordable maternity/paternity leave scheme as well.

    And those are just the tip of a very large iceberg.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    warcroft

    Thanks for the link.
    Now spamming it on Facebook and Twitter.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    .
    Alley E @ #33

    Apologies for a rather shorthand response but I am old and I am tired.

    Remember, no one wanted either of the main parties last time and the votes were scattered across the whole range of candidates. That’s what got us into this mess, giving us a hung parliament and landed us with Gillard. We don’t want that to happen again.

    Your first sentence hits the nail on the head when it comes to politics in OZ today. People are totally fed up with ALL the major parties and don’t want to vote for any of them. On that basis, the result we got was the best we could hope for. Our hung parliament carried a message to the parties (which unfortunately they all ignored), that the average OZ citizen is fed up with “party politics”.

    If you think the hung parliament we’ve had has been bad, imagine the outcome today if ANY of the major parties had secured a clear majority – a “mandate” for their “climate change” insanities.

    The BEST possible result for the next election would be more of the same – a tight parliament with no clear winner. That would reinforce the message that we, the people, have had enough of not being represented regardless of who we vote for. Perhaps if we sent the message often enough, they might start to get it.

    Unfortunately, that is not going to happen. The coalition are going to win in a landslide. The only thing thinking Australians can do now is to do whatever they can to get the LIBS version of climate craziness (policies) dropped before they are handed an overwhelming mandate to implement them. Because implement they will.

    Yes, Abbott claims he will get rid of the Carbon Tax. That’s got to be better than what we have now.

    Tony Abbott has said a lot of things. Tony Abbott is not the Liberal Party. The stated, written plicies of the Liberal Party are the Liberal Party

    At the time of the split in 2009 the Wets and the Dries were pretty evenly balanced. The Wets backed Turnbull, the Dries wanted Minchin. The party was on the point of being extinguished politically and still could not agree. It was a stalemate. In desperation a third candidate was thrown into the ring to split up the vote. To everybody’s surprise that third candidate won. By ONE vote.

    Tony Abbott has been on borrowed time ever since. The Wets have held the numbers ever since the last election (60% plus) and Tony Abbott only survives as Leader because the party is looking good in the polls. He is expendable and will be expended when the time is right. For those of you who doubt it, google “Bill Hayden a drover’s dog”.

    The thing that sold me on Abbott is that he has Ian Plimer as an advisor.

    Who Tony Abbott chooses as his “advisors” is irrelevant in light of the above about his precarious hold on the leadership. Nonetheless, let’s analyse it detail.

    First, can you point to a single line of WRITTEN Liberal Party policy “climate” policy that could even passingly be said to be influenced by Plimer?

    I thought not.

    Good. Moving right along, what does it “prove” anyway?

    If JuLIAR appointed Lord Christopher Monckton as her “advisor” tomorrow, would that sway your vote? It is not as far-fetched as it might seem. Do a little internet searching on just who invented the CAGW meme in the first place, who created the political climate and finance to establish the CRU at the University of East Anglia, and who “advised” her to do it.

    In answer to your question, the BEST result for Australia is for 148 Independents (non-party politicians) to be elected to the next parliament. However since you already reject that conclusion the next best result is something close to what we have now, only with the LIBS slenderly holding the balance of power.

    But we all know that isn’t going to happen. So the only option available now (and I floated a much better one a year ago but time has run out) is for thinking Australians to somehow force the LIBS to drop some of the more contentious issues from their “climate change” policy.

    And since I can’t see that happening, I foresee a grim future for Australia for the foreseeable future.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Ally E:

    I’d have to state that as a 60 plusser (sexagenarian?) neither of the major parties gets my first preference these days and hasn’t for a long time. I can also understand why you’d regard Abbott as a better bet than Gillard but MV is right; he is only one member of the party and there are those in the Libs who wouldn’t think twice about ditching him like a used nappy once they perceived that his usefulness had past, ie having won the election.

    Never forget that Joe Hockey’s missus has the key to the executive ladies’ facilities at Deutscher Bank in Sydney. Turnbull and his old mates are mightily pissed-off that Abbott took away their carbon credit feeding trough. Boy Greg (Hunt) gives every impression that he really believes the CAGW crap, but thinks there’s another way of dealing with it. He’s about as useful as a handbrake on a canoe!

    All-in-all, the bad times are far from over as far as climate reality is concerned but there should certainly be some improvement in matters like the wasteful (and uncosted) NBN, border control and general financial responsibility.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    .
    I was writing about the shortcomings of the Liberal Party published policies on this site over a year ago, long before the windmills logo appeared.

    I could do that because I had read the actual policies. ALL of them.

    .
    Tell me, have you?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    .
    MareeS

    I am over sixty years old. In the last forty years I have paid membership to EVERY political party that has existed in that time. NOT as a “believer” but just to see if I could have any influence – no matter how small – at any level whatsoever. Hell, I’ve even been responsible for the formation of a couple of influential political movements.

    When you can actually say you had a “say” in policy, get back to me.

    The reality is, despite your $95.00 joining fee, you have as much “say” in Liberal Party policy as my dog Ned.

    Sorry to be the one to break this to you, but if your aim was to “change policy” then you have been conned out of $95.00.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Jo, if I had not just started a new job 3 weeks ago I would offer to help you myself.
    After a year of unemployment suddenly I have no free time to research and post my voluminous comments – and for that I’m sure your other readers are grateful!

    Sounds like “Mr T.” would have to renumber existing database keys, insert the old ones into the new comment tables, and force the comment sequence number generator to a safe value.
    I have taken the four hours I estimate as being barely sufficient to do this, multiplied by a modest industry rate for programming, and used the resulting amount to procure some emergency “Choc Tech Support” which you should find in your tip jar shortly (#238365). The government spin doctors have probably recorded this transaction with mild interest.

    We are going to have to stand together on this or we will hang separately.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ally E.

    Thank you, both Memoryvault and Mark, for answering so well.

    We don’t have the best world, that’s clear enough. I can’t help but feel that as the number of people who turn away from believing in CAGW increases, policies will change. Not so long ago, popular in the polls USA candidates lost because they publicly questioned global warming policy. It’s been a tricky time for many people to state aloud what they really think, for politicians doubly so.

    The world is turning away from the nonsense and the writing is on the wall for CAGW and trying to control the weather through regulating our CO2 emissions. If the coalition doesn’t keep up with that, they will be ditched as readily and as thoroughly as this Labor government will be.

    Right now, too, election promises MUST be kept. The people are very touchy on that right now. ANY party that goes against its word and against what the people want, will be ripped apart in very short order.

    BTW, I’m no spring chicken either, and I too have gone the Independent route for many years. Never did me any good, but didn’t do much harm either – until Gillard and the Greens came along. They came as a very nasty shock. Even then I thought they were incompetent rather than dangerous – until I found Ian Plimer’s book and then came here and to WUWT and learned just what the bigger picture was.

    The idiots still backing CAGW will be unified behind Gillard and de-industrialization. Their votes will be concentrated. I can’t see how scattering our votes like we all did last time is going to help us any.

    Let’s be firm, let’s pull together and make sure Gillard and the Greens are kicked clear over the horizon first, and then continue to make sure our new politicians keep their attention on what we the people want. The Australian people aren’t tolerating bad decisions any longer, we are standing up and being heard, and any party that does not take our welfare and our wishes into account, will pay for that.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ally E.

    Oh, and an important point regarding Abbott having Plimer as advisor. While Gillard knows full well CAGW is a scam that she and the Greens are using against us, she can claim later with pretend innocence that she was only doing what she thought was best based on IPCC reports.

    With Plimer on board as advisor, Abbott cannot make such a claim. Like I said, he is plugged into the real science on this issue. His eyes are open and he cannot pretend otherwise (nor does he want to, or he wouldn’t have Plimer in the first place). That is very important in my book. Abbott is not faking it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    .
    Sorry Ally, but that just doesn’t cut it.

    First, for reasons stated earlier, it’s not a matter of what Tony Abbott believes, nor who he appoints as his advisor(s). Tony Abbott is NOT the Liberal Party.

    THE Liberal Party, on the other hand, continue with their insane but official “climate change” policies despite having one amongst their own number one who is not only a PhD (in Material Science and Physics), but is also an outspoken critic of the entire CAGW madness, including his own party’s policies.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Jensen

    So the defence of ignorance was never available to Tony Abbott, nor to the Liberal Party regardless of who happens to be leading it or advising it. And as far as “advice” goes, far from listening to Dr Jensen the Liberal Party have done everything in their power to gag him on the subject. So, it’s not out of ignorance that the party clings to its climate change policies.

    Polls and, more recently, the election results in QLD show conclusively that there no votes left on the conservative side of politics for “climate change”. Anybody who still believes in it is going to vote Greens or labor. So it can safely be assumed that the Liberal Party aren’t holding on to their “climate change” policies because of some perceived electoral advantage.

    So what are we left with?

    Occam’s Razor dictates that the simplest solution is probably the correct one. The simplest solution to the question of why do the Liberals still have an insane “climate change” policy when it can’t be out of ignorance and it certainly isn’t to gain votes, is because they fully intend implementing that policy if/when elected and be damned with what the voters want.

    .
    And Australians are going to give them an “overwhelming mandate” to do just that.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    There is a great visual representation of the global deriviatives casino and who are the biggest players at http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/derivatives/bank_exposure.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ally E.

    Sorry, MV, I shall have to respect your views and leave you with them.

    I never said Abbott was going to use the defence of ignorance, I said he’s got his eyes open. I’m going to deal with the problem we have and not panic over a problem we might have. Should that evolve, that’s the time to deal with it. Right now is not a good time for us to scatter our vote hoping to keep balance when the alarmists will be concentrating theirs on Gillard.

    The annihilation of the Labor Party is telling all parties what we want and don’t want. They will be listening and adjusting their stance accordingly to keep in favor. ANY deviation from election promises will be doom for the party, so they cannot ignore Abbott or what he promises.

    Look for the policies changing, or write to your MP and demand it. If the coalition don’t give us what we want, they will be out. They will still be better than Labor is now, and that’s a first step. The whole world is changing its stance on this issue. I expect parties to as well.

    I know you’re not happy with my view and I’m sorry about that. I hope we can agree to differ and leave it at that? I respect your intelligence and have always valued your contribution to these pages. I just want the Carbon Tax out first and foremost, and the Gillard/Green government along with it.

    Thank you for discussing this with me. And yes, I would very much prefer someone with a definite stance and clearcut policies. You are right. We have some time yet before the election, so I hope those guys and gals are sharpening their pencils and working on a redraft.

    All the best.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    .
    Hi Ally,

    I think there’s a bit of misunderstanding.

    I am no way suggesting anything to “split” votes – it is far too late for any alternative other than voting for the coalition, either directly, or as second preference when it’s not going to matter anyway.

    What I am hoping for, and urging people to do, is to get on to their coalition members or candidates and tell them pretty-much what you have said above:

    That we are watching them and any attempt to pull a swiftie will see them get the same short shrift at the following election as Labor is going to get this time. A vote for them this time is NOT an endorsement of their “climate change” policies and anything short of a concerted effort to dismantle the whole CAGW/carbon tax scam will be viewed as a betrayal of our vote. There is no such thing anymore as “voter loyalty”.

    Maybe, just maybe, we can ingrain enough fear of a voter backlash into the hearts of some of backbenchers to somewhat temper the hubris that is going to accompany their landslide victory.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gee Aye

    Ally

    what makes you think that Plimer is an advisor to Tony Abbott?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ally E.

    Ah! I’m with you now, Memoryvault, my apologies. That was my misunderstanding. :) :) :)

    *

    Hi Gee Aye. I saw several references in the news recently to Ian Plimer being an advisor to Abbott. I’m trying to find a link to an Australian source. They’re there, I’ve been following the news in parliament surrounding Gillard, Abbott, Thomson, Slipper, Oakeshott, etc. I saw it first somewhere in that lot and it was news to me. I’ve since seen the reference several times – but not when I want the blinking thing! (Grrr – Unfortunately my computer is in slow-mode and that doesn’t help!)

    Here’s one from a UK paper, the Sunday Telegraph on May 13 2012:

    http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/5708-christopher-booker-keeping-britain-short-of-water-is-now-government–and-eu–policy.html

    Scroll down about halfway down the page to the section titled “At least Australians can sack their climate-mad PM” and look at the second paragraph.

    I have found a reference to Plimer being on the Scientific Advisory Panel of Australian Climate Science Coalition:

    http://www.auscsc.org.au/about_us.html

    Whether the news references I saw have made that the link between Plimer and Abbot, I cannot be sure.

    Sorry, I expected to be able to give you a whole string of links, now I’m wondering if the relationship is misquoted. I hope not! I liked that bit of news! :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gee Aye

    Tony Abbott may well seek advice from Ian but he is not about to let on and I certainly hope he doesn’t. Plimer is not an advisor under the employ of any member of parliament.


    Report this

    00