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 UN defines “climate change” as being man-made: Orwell could not have done it better

George Orwell, Photo: Wikipedia

Sloppy language works for cheats and charlatans. In the search for the truth only accurate language will do. Orwell understood the power of language to change the way we think, indeed to fence off some possible options completely.

Roger Pielke Snr put out a call today asking for precise definitions and protesting about the misuse of the term “climate change”.  But when did this nonsensical term start? Where else, but with the UN.

All the way back on May 9th 1992, UN defined “climate change” as man-made. See The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, (paragraph 6):

“Climate change is defined by the Convention as “change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods” (article 1 (2)).”

In other words, there is no “climate change” without humans because there cannot be, and by extension, the climate did not change, could not have, for the 4.5 billion years before 1880 when the first coal powered electricity station was fired up.

Such nonsense is what international treaties are made of. Only millions of taxpayer dollars could have propagated an inanity so profoundly inane, and so abjectly silly. No mere student report could have swept around the world destroying sensible conversation for two decades (and taking the entire field of paleoclimate as collateral damage too).

By misusing “climate change” so audaciously (and getting away with it), the UN ensured that an army of distracted or not-too-sharp supporters would adopt it, and it would reduce conversations about the role of man-made emissions down to a caricature. “Do you believe in climate change” — ask the thought police, it’s a loaded question that invites any sane person to say “Yes” — because who believes in climate-sameness?

The term “climate denier” springs from this sick well — as if, somewhere on the planet, in asylums or day care centers,  there might be someone who denies we have a climate.  Bystanders watching a debate at this nonsensical level don’t accidentally step into the dissenter camp — by default, they are “with the UN”.

The answer to stopping this is to turn the nonsense against those who issue it, and not fall for the tactic and join the perversion.

So when the journalists / pollsters inanely repeat the litany — there are lots of options.

“Do you believe in Climate Change”:

1. What are the alternatives?  (I mean, does anyone believe in climate unchange?)

2. Do you mean “climate change” as used in the English language or climate change as the UN defines it. (I need to I know what you are really asking?)

3. Have you heard of an ice age?

 So yes, I agree wholeheartedly with Roger Pielke, but we need to do more than just expect science journals to be scientific, we must demand that journalists and pollsters use English.

More suggestions of responses welcome…

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (145 votes cast)
The UN defines "climate change" as being man-made: Orwell could not have done it better, 9.3 out of 10 based on 145 ratings

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

235 comments to The UN defines “climate change” as being man-made: Orwell could not have done it better

  • #
    DougS

    Question: Do you believe in ‘Climate Change’?

    Answer 1: It’s a trick question, right? Have another try, ask me a sensible question!

    Answer 2: Define ‘Climate Change’.

    Answer 3: Do you believe in fairies?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Question: Do you believe in ‘Climate Change’?

      Answer:

      “Well obviously. If the world had only acted upon James Hansen’s predictions of twenty years ago, Manhattan wouldn’t be under thirty feet of water today, would it?”

      (This is not original, and it annoys me that I can’t remember who said it first).


      Report this

      00

    • #

      It took Orwell only three years to detect and describe the ways that the United Nations would ultimately destroy the dignity of mankind

      Synopsis: The Demise of Science and Society

      1. In 1543 Copernicus discovered a powerful fountain of energy at the “core” of the solar system – Sol (Sun):

      http://tinyurl.com/7qx7zxs

      2. In 1905 Einstein reported that energy (E) is stored as mass (m): (E = mc^2). Thus the energy (E) that sustains life and controls the Solar System comes from the conversion of mass (m) into energy (E) in “core” of the Sun.

      http://tinyurl.com/8hays

      3. In 1915 Niels Bohr discovered that atoms consist of light-weight, negatively charged (-) electrons orbiting a central, massive, positively charged (+) nucleus, in the same way that lightweight planets like Earth orbit and are controlled by the massive Sun.

      http://tinyurl.com/6mhbgas

      4. In 1945 mankind used the energy (E) stored as mass (m) in the “cores” of elements # 92 and #94 (uranium and plutonium) to annihilate Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

      http://tinyurl.com/7xq3aam

      5. In 1945 deeply troubled world leaders acted promptly to Unite Nations, reduce racism, eliminate nationalism (noble causes).

      http://tinyurl.com/7vcx4rt

      http://tinyurl.com/7ckvjun

      http://tinyurl.com/8yke9o2

      6. In 1946 deception (an ignoble means) was used to obscure information on energy in “cores” of the Sun and other stars. This started modern mankind’s descent into servitude and the elevation of world leaders into totalitarian rulers, a process that was to continue without public detection for sixty-three years.

      7. In 1948 George Orwell wrote the novel forecasting life under totalitarian rulers who totally control information.

      http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

      8. In 2009 Climategate emails and documents exposed widespread government deception in science over the previous thirty years.

      http://tinyurl.com/yhyhn77

      9. In 2012 social and economic order are crumbling. World leaders and leaders of the scientific community are trapped in the web of deceit that they and their predecessors helped develop, perhaps unable to identify the factual information needed to make rational policy decisions to save themselves and society.

      Documentation is here:
      http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-105, . . .
      http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-132


      Report this

      00

  • #

    The underlying problem that caused the disintegration of the language was the line of thought that started with Plato, passed through Kant, and finally came to full flowering in Postmodern Philosophy.

    Postmodern Philosophy holds that while a real reality may exist we cannot know it “as such”. All we can know are our thoughts and ideas. From that, it asserts, our words do not refer to anything in reality but only to our thoughts and ideas. Hence, words no longer mean things that you can point to “out there” as a bases of common experience, but only to your feelings, intentions, fantasies, and the like. That being the case, words take on a Humpty Dumpty character and can mean any thing you want them to mean. “There’s glory for you!”

    Now if you buy into that, it is a small leap to conclude that you can create reality. Your truth is true for you but not necessarily true for anyone else. You get to play it not only deuces wild but every card you hold is a wild card. Words now become weapons rather than tools of thought and communication.

    It is at that point the “fun” begins and leads us directly to our current situation. A situation in which producing the things necessary for human life is evil, the wealth produced by that evil effort can be taken at will and redistributed to do good, that a single cockroach or paramecium has more intrinsic value than all of mankind, and that a carbon life form, especially man, cannot be permitted to use carbon in order to live.

    When the mind of man is divorced from reality, man will be divorced from life.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Llew Jones

      What you have described is Realism versus Instrumentalism which of course is what got Galileo into strife with the Church of Rome. Galileo, the scientific realist, was not in trouble with the Scientific Instrumentalist Church of his day because of his heliocentrism so much as his conviction that he was describing a scientific reality that was not merely a product of his mind.

      The Church, which got its Instrumentalism from the Greek philosophers/scientists, thought that was very naughty.

      My conviction is that the warmist scientists and their political fellow travelers are imbued with that same intolerance the Church of Rome had for Scientific Realism. That combined with Green religiosity is a dangerous brew militating against a prosperous future for modern civilisation.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Lionell Griffith

        Instrumentalism was the bastard child of the ideas of Plato crossbred with religious dogma and baptized by the authority of the church. Meaning it had no connection with reality and was doomed to fail. Unfortunately it has not yet failed to the point of extinction. It lives on in the politics of global warming and sustainability as well as in the expectations of global governance by the UN.

        It is irrelevant that it won’t work. They don’t want it to work. When it fails, they can claim we didn’t do enough and demand more of the same without end. Rather like “faith can move mountains. Oh? You can’t move mountains with your faith? Well, you simply don’t have enough faith.”


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Kevin Moore

      Humpty Dumpty must have been a lawyer or a politician.

      “Through the Looking Glass” by Lewis Carroll.

      ‘I don’t know what you mean by “glory”,’ Alice said.

      Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘

      ‘But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument”,’ Alice objected.

      ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

      ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

      ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Global warming was a specific threat that failed to materialise, so they moved the threat to something much more vague. Don’t let them get away with it. Every time they try to frame the debate around those words, shift it right back to global warming.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/so-which-is-it-global-warming-climate-disruption-or-climate-change/

    Instead of Nuspeak, it’s Climatespeak.

    Pointman


    Report this

    00

  • #
    FijiDave

    Jo, great post! The ‘Climate Change’ thing has had me gritting my teeth for quite some – ever since (someone who should know better) said, “Oh, Dave, you’re not one of these people on the lunatic fringe that doesn’t believe in climate change, are you?”

    My response was a bit weak, but the best I could do under the circumstances was, “Mate, you’re not of those on the lunatic fringe who has his knickers in a twist about it, are you?”

    The use ‘climate change’ should be ridiculed at every opportunity by all.

    OT, but germane, and I am sure something for TonyFromOz to get his teeth into; having been out-of-country for nearly 20 years, I was horrified at the cost of electricity on my return, and a quick Google this morning found this

    New Zealand power consumers have dealt with some of the sharpest price rises in the world over the past 20 years.

    Kiwi electricity tariffs are now average on a global scale but in 1990 they were the eighth-lowest.

    Over the past 20 years, New Zealand’s average annual power prices have increased more than 15c per kilowatt hour (kwh), from 9.2c per kwh in 1990 to 25.5 at the end of 2010. That’s compared with an increase of less than 2c per kwh in Australia and about 3c per kwh in the United States.

    New Zealanders pay substantially more for power than our neighbours. In 2010, Australians were paying 14.83c, while in New Zealand power was retailing for between 22.7c and 24.97c per kwh. The US price was at 16.04c but Britain’s prices were similar to New Zealand’s, at 27.58c.

    Since that comparison was made, New Zealand prices have risen as high as 29.25c per kwh.

    I was wondering if one of the reasons was this

    Tony, it would be great if you could have a squizz at it and give us your thoughts.

    Cheers


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Mike Jowsey

      At the bottom of the article to which you link is this interesting explanation of power rises:

      What caused a sharp rise in prices in 2002-2003 were Labour government policies including a drive for renewable electricity generation, Maui gas ran out and had to be replaced, and the introduction of the Electricity Commission that imposed high costs on consumers.

      Other factors didn’t help. A run of “dry years” pushed up generation costs as New Zealand relies on water for around 70 per cent of its generation capacity.

      With two-thirds of the electricity industry being owned by the government, the pressure of competition was at best weak, and at worst non-existent.

      In 2009, the National government put in place a series of changes that saw the inexorable rise in prices stopped. The marketing campaign by the Electricity Authority last year saw consumers change suppliers in record numbers to get lower power prices, as they did immediately after the 1999 market was launched.

      So the market does work. The partial float of power companies will see competition develop further.

      - Max Bradford, Minister of Energy, 1996-1999

      As for me, I’m changing to off-grid asap, using solar and wind. Pay-back about 3 years.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Dave, (and everyone else as well) and sorry for being off topic.

      These price increases have now become something that is getting out of hand.

      Notice just this morning how South Australia has announced huge increases in the cost of electricity, the unit price, (KWH – KiloWattHour). Those increases they say are for infrastructure. Of note here is that South Australia has the largest makeup of power coming from Wind sources for any State.

      Have you got the hint?

      Notice how NSW has just announced large increases in the unit cost for electricity, and the same applies in most other States as they also will be increasing the cost of electricity. Due in the main to the huge feed in tariffs afforded to rooftop solar power, and here, some States were offering three times (and in one case, more than that) the unit cost for electricity consumed from the grid as payment to those feeding their power back to the grid. Those feed in tariffs had to be paid from somewhere, and it was paid by non rooftop solar owners in the increasing price they had to pay for their power from the grid. Most States are winding back those feed in tariffs, but existing owners will still be getting them, just that any new installations will not, hence the increase in cold calls to your home phone from distributors who tell you to beat the deadline and get them installed before the cut off date.

      Have you got the hint?

      Now, having said that, I want you to compare what you pay here in Australia with what they pay in another Western World Country for their unit price per KWH.

      Residential Average Monthly Power Costs Breakdown By State And Consumer (This is a pdf document, so you’ll need a reader, and when the image opens up, at the top menu bar, enlarge the image by changing it from the indicated percentage to 100%)

      This is from the U.S. and is current as for November 2011.

      Here in Australia, electricity costs per unit (KWH) are all up over 20 cents per KWH, and mine here in Queensland is over 21 cents per KWH.

      Keep in mind that our dollar is close to parity as well, so there is no ‘fudge factor’ for the exchange rate.

      Scroll down that list, second column from the right and see if you can find any contiguous State (Mainland Continental U.S.) where the unit cost is the same or more expensive than anywhere in Australia. The closest are for some States in the North East, and some of these States have very few plants of their own, and have to import their power from other States. Of note in the North East is Pennsylvania, who have a number of Coal fired plants, and also some Nukes as well, and their price is around the lowest for those NE States.

      Note how many States have their unit cost in single figures, with the lowest price, Idaho at just under 8 cents per KWH.

      Now, some may say that the U.S. has Nukes that will keep the price down (true, and umm, is there a message in there somewhere) but those Nukes only supply 20% of the total power consumed from barely 8% of the total Capacity in the U.S.. (and, umm, is there a message in there, also)

      Note along the bottom is shown the average price per unit KWH, and that is 11.54 cents per KWH, just half of what we pay here in Australia.

      The average consumption (middle column) is around the same as for Australia, and here in Australia, that is around 1000KWH per month.

      I know that this is just a comparison, and as seems to be the case in recent times for Australia, our Government is attempting to lead the World in, well, almost everything, so it seems they are ahead of the game also in raising the cost of electricity for consumers, with this CO2 Tax, and the ever increasing number of renewable power plants, all driving up the unit cost of electricity.

      The more renewable power plants that are constructed, the higher the cost of electricity will be. The more rooftop solar installations that go in, the higher the cost of electricity will be.

      Do not allow anyone to tell you that the price will come down as more of them are constructed.

      They will never EVER lead to cheaper electricity.

      As is patently evident from any comparison, there are only two forms of power generation that are cheap.

      Coal fired power, and Nuclear power sources of generation.

      Why?

      Because they are the only ones that can supply HUGE amounts of electricity on a constant regular basis, and then spread their costs over the 50 year (and more) life span of these types of plant, a life span renewables can only dream about.

      Tony.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        John Trigge

        I find it interesting that you state our (and the US) average consumption as 1,000KWh/month whereas our power regulators use 5MWH/annum (~416KWh/month).

        So, when they are looking at the ‘average’ power bill and making their ‘considered judgements’ as to what we can afford to pay, they are using much lower figures than reality would indicate.

        The 5MWh/annum equates to 13.7KWh/day which is what my sister-in-law’s use is but she is single, no children and works, so is not home throughout the working week. How the regulators consider the average family has the same power use as her is hard to fathom.

        I think our lords and masters have little idea of reality.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          MattB

          13.7kWh is massive for a single person who works all day. Does she run a hydroponic set up?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            MattB

            although it is small for a family house. In your mind I think you are equating “average family” to two parents two kids and a dog, wheras that is much larger than the “average household” which is what the numbers you quote are based on.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            MattB

            hmmm… maybe 13.7 isn’t “massive” for a single… note to self “I should remember that not all live like my family of 4 with low consumption.”


            Report this

            00

        • #

          John,

          that average consumption of 13.7KWH would be on the low side, as the average I mentioned of 1000KWH per month would be closer to the mark, and as you can see from the chart I linked to the U.S. average IS that figure close to our average.

          WRT your single sister in law, what needs to realised here is the daily consumption split, which is one third during daylight and two thirds after hours, naturally, as that’s when all the family is at home, daily household chores, washing etc, cooking the evening meal, lighting, entertainment, heating in Winter, and cooling in Summer.

          So if your sister in law is not at home during the day, the only consumption would be the fridge, and most of her consumption would be at night, when she is home, and with her total being that 13.7KWH, then if she was at home all the time, and with a family,her total would be around that daily average total.

          The AVERAGE daily consumption is between 25 and 30KWH per day. It’s higher in Summer (cooling) and also higher in Winter (heating) and lower in those benign Seasons when neither heating nor cooling is required.

          Tony.


          Report this

          00

      • #

        So then, does this (current) data from the U.S. tell you anything about power delivery?

        The first is the source.

        The second shows the total capacity for that source as a percentage of the total of every source Capacity.

        The third shows actual power delivered for consumption from that source as a percentage of total power consumption.

        (Data for rolling 12 Month period as at end of March 2012.)

        Coal fired. 30% 42%

        Nuclear 9% 20%

        Wind 4.5% 2.9%

        Solar (all) 0.08% 0.04%

        Tony.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        FijiDave

        Crikey, Tony, you’ve got a young book started here!

        Thanks very much for your (as usual) succinct explanation of the matter at hand. Pity I didn’t have you as a teacher back in my formative years – I may then have made it out of the 4th Form. :)

        Looking at your data, I note the Californians are paying 6.71 cents per KWH more than the Washingtonians – now I wonder why that would be? /s

        It is starting to look like a stealth tax here. One of the excuses for the elevated price of power is that ‘the shareholders want a dividend.’ One then discovers that the ‘shareholders’ are the government – in other words us! Me – I’d just prefer cheaper power to keep toes warm in my dotage.

        Thanks again Tony, and apologies to Jo and the rest of you for the OT.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          FijiDave
          coal fired power costs around $40 per MWh.
          Gas is around $65 from closed cycle Gas turbines (much cheaper with coal seam gas at current US prices).
          From wind turbines the cost is between $110 – $140 (depending on source)
          Concentrated solar heat (with storage) around $250 per MWh.

          That explains part of the cost rise.

          The other part of the cost is that the expense of coping with variable “renewable” sources is put back onto conventional sources. That is coal and gas have to cover for (mainly) wind change using spinning reserve. Running a coal fired station at a low level of output is much less efficient than near capacity. This means that the amount of CO2 emitted per MWh produced goes up, so while the electricity supplier gets, say $40 per MWh and a bill for $23 from carbon tax at near capacity, on spinning reserve he gets $40 for the same amount but a carbon tax bill closer to $30. Obviously it takes more hours to generate the last amounts.

          It has been stated that these extras have pushed the cost of coal fired in the UK up by about $14 per MWh.

          You will also see that the incentive for a coal fired station to keep running spinning reserve is much less, and as more wind turbines are installed their costs will rise. The temptation will be to cut down on the level of spinning reserve and let more blackouts occur.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            FijiDave

            Thanks, G#3. Having benefited from Tony’s past tutorials, I can quite readily understand what you are saying. And therein lies a mystery. Why would anyone with a few synapses still firing think that wind and solar are the bee’s knees and that all or most of our energy be produced in this way? I ask the question, forgetting for the moment that the arch-catastrophist would see us all Avatar-like living in a tree with Gaia providing gratis the energy we need in the form of Pixie dust proportional to your level of ‘Greenness’.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Richard The Great

        Good one (as usual), Tony. I wonder if anyone has done a study determining what fraction of the price of electricity is the result of statist induced economic distortions. My neighbor operates a giant solar array on his rooftop whence he receives 70c per kwH from the taxpayer. The going rate in Perth is currently about 20c. Instinctively one would think that one should operate the pool pump, washer, spa, dishwasher and other power hungry appliances during the day when the sun is shining and one is producing from the sun. Of course not. Such is the economic distortion that these are now done at night using cheap ‘coal’ power and, in the day, the expensive power is sold back into the grid, his electricity account is permanently in credit and the taxpayer picks up the tab for the solar panels, the installation and the operation thereof. The warped bureaucrats that conjured up this scheme should all be hung, drawn and decimated as any other punishment would be unbefitting of such a heinous offense.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Nick Shaw

      I rather liked this at the top of the link, Dave, “The wind farm’s 62 wind turbines can generate up to 142.6 megawatts of electricity.”
      Yes, “can”.
      Anyone with more than two neurons knows it won’t.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Jaymez

    Everything about ‘Climate Change’ seems to be a moving feast. Australia is just two weeks away from introducing the world’s highest tax on Carbon Dioxide emissions. From the 1st July 2012 a tax of $23 per tonne of CO2 emissions (or other greenhouse gas equivalent – excepting water vapour) will be applied to industry.

    When our present Government first announced the policy it was to apply to “Australia’s worst 1,000 polluters”. Industry started doing the numbers to figure out which enterprises would be slugged and even the trade unions realised how disastrous the policy would be. So the Government toned it down and announced the list would be trimmed to “around the top 500 worst polluters”. Remarkably with the same emission reduction targets!

    And Treasury did much of their projections for Government based on this number achieving a 5% reduction on 2000 emission levels by 2020, and a target of 80% reductions by 2050. Treasury predicted a high carbon price assumption of $275 (in 2010 dollars) by 2050 to achieve that goal.

    But today we are now told the tax will apply to just 294 enterprises in Australia. However our Climate Change Minister Greg Combet says this list may change as some enterprises reduce emissions (go broke or move off shore more likely!), and other enterprises will be added to the list if their emissions increase.

    Treasury also calculated that the increase in cost of living due to the carbon tax would be approximately $9.90 per week per household in 2012-13 and our Government says that most households will receive on average $10.10 per week by way of compensation through taxation and social security adjustments. Yet there are no planned increases in compensation as the carbon price increases over 1000% as per Treasury projections to $275 in 2010 dollars by 2050.

    Treasury also predicts that by 2050 none of Australia’s energy needs will be met by oil or black or brown coal fired power stations. Yet when asked if Australian coal mines have a future, the Government says yes! They even applauded plans for a new coal mine in Queensland recently.

    Treasury projections to 2050 also assume 50% of power generation will come from gas power stations while our population is projected to double over the same time period. So having 50% of our much increased power needs produced from gas makes achieving an 80% CO2 emission reduction on year 2000 levels impossible without purchasing carbon credits from overseas. Treasury also predicts some 20% of energy needs will come from wind generation and nearly the same amount from as yet unproven geothermal plants. But there is no indication of where the capital to build the thousands of wind turbines and hundreds of geothermal plants and associated infrastructure will come from.

    And no indication what increases in costs of living, company or personal tax rates would be required to do all this.

    So it is not only the definitions of Climate Change which is very fluid and hard to pin down. In Australia, what constitutes our “worst polluters’ is pretty much guess work as is what impact the emission reduction targets will have on the cost of living, the economy and employment. And that’s before trying to guess what if any measurable impact will be achieved on global temperatures by these emission reduction measures.

    You can look at Treasury’s ‘carbon price modelling’ here: http://archive.treasury.gov.au/carbonpricemodelling/content/report/downloads/Modelling_Report_Consolidated_update.pdf


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Barry Woods

    UK government do it as well………….

    a UK Government’s definition of ‘Climate Change’ – EXCLUDES any natural causes, from the Glossary:

    “Climate Change

    The process of changing weather patterns caused by the increased number of greenhouse gases in the global atmosphere as a result of human activity since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.”

    ’A guide to carbon offsetting for the public sector’ – Department of Energy and Climate Change
    http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/what%20we%20do/a%20low%20carbon%20uk/co2_off_setting/1_20100115105713_e_@@_aguidecarbonoffsettingen.pdf


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    This is a very important post – thanks.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mindert Eiting

    Jo, we should not exaggerate the role of language in science, as Karl Popper once said. Science is about concepts, figures, and graphs. When asked for a response in an opinion poll about the climate you may decide to remain silent since your answer to silly questions will be used in a silly publication about opinions we do not have.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Jo,
    Roger Pielke Jr has dealt with this in his book “The Climate Fix”.

    The problem is that 194 countries and one regional economic integration organization, EU, that has committed themselves to the convention.

    For those that has ratificed the document it is the LAW!

    If you thought politicians could not supersede laws of nature, it is time to wake up, they already has.

    And here is the problem:
    - How do we get 194 countries and EU to reconsider the agreement and their legal framework to support them?

    - Will I be able to reclaim the AUD 20,000 payed in CO2 taxes since 1991?

    I think this will be a very slow process of just forgetting what was said and done but keeping the taxation under a new name.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “Do you mean “climate change” as used in the English language” is a strawman, as quite clearly ‘climate change’ is often used in the english language to mean anthropogenic climate change.

    if one takes climate as a system with natural variability then indeed “climate change” is changing a system that has natural variability. What’s the problem. It is a strawman to suggest that those who came up with the term “climate change” pretend that the system does/has not varied naturally over time.

    To clarify things further because of pedants the term ‘anthropogenic climate change’ is also used. Storm in a teacup.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Bite Back

      MattB,

      Do you always stumble and fall over everything? Do you side with Humpty Dumpty or with the clear usage of English for the last several centuries? “Climate change never had a specific connection established with human activity until the UN decided to take control of the world and you know it.

      You can side with them or you can fight them. But you’ll not be able to stay with a foot on each side of the fence much longer.

      BB


      Report this

      00

      • #
        MattB

        So can you cite any uses of the term ‘climate change’ that predates AGW science? I mean you must have such evidence when you state that it was used in a different manner for several centuries?

        http://algorelied.com/?p=3760


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Are you saying then MattB that people did not observe changes on climate before “AGW science”. (Which of the letters in “AGW” stands for “climate”?)

          MattB; you’re building a Tower of Babel by defining words to your personal whim. An Orwellian practice that pre-dates Blair.

          Changes in climate have been observed by people for thousands of years. “Climate” was long recognized as the prevailing pattern of weather in a region. (Only the UN decided that there should be a “global climate”.)

          “AGW science” is not a science.
          “AGW science” is politics.

          Real science doesn’t work towards pre-determined conclusions. It works best by being less-wrong than previously-held beliefs; by observations of physical phenomena.

          Keep in mind e.g. that (just) 80 years ago, the newly-discovered neutron was thought most-likely to be a proton with a tightly-bound electron. It only took about a year for real scientists to correct that; or rather; to make it less-wrong.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            MattB

            Bernd goal post shifter Felsche. Lets just look at your last sentence…. they were also ‘real scientists’ who discovered the neutron and thought it was most likely to be a proton with an electron. It is not like there was the band of truth seeking real scientists who were busting myths… they were all real scientists.

            Anyway, the wuote I started was about accusations of ‘climate change’ as used in the english language… then claimed by ite Back to have been used one way for centuries then abused since AGW came on the scene. Thankyou for confirming my opinion that it is a new term that has always meant what it meant.

            AGW science is science. POlitics is politics. Just as any science politicians can attempt to do with it as they see fit.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Sonny

          MattB in a way you are correct. The term “climate change” only really became a household phrase in the past 10-15 years.

          Based on the UN definition There is no evidence of climate change at any time in history including our era.

          Q: Do you believe in climate change?
          A: Ofcourse not! Don’t be a dupe.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          CLIMACTIC CHANGE:
          Evidence, Causes, and Effects
          Ed. Harlow Shapley

          Harvard University Press 1965

          You will be pleased that 1 of the 23 chapters does mention CO2 as a possible cause, but only gives it 2/3 of a page (out of 30). The rest concentrate on other ideas e.g. solar variation, ocean circulation, volcanoes etc.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Bite Back

          I don’t need any evidence of anything. You need to have evidence that the words, climate and change, when juxtaposed, “climate change” had some meaning beyond someone saying, “There is evidence of climate change over the past centuries.” No connotation of connection with human activity existed until it became a tool of the UN, environmental interests and other subversive elements.

          BB


          Report this

          00

        • #

          Mattb you are too funny. Do you think that if someone said “climate change” in 1812 (or 1604), they wouldn’t have known that it means a… change in the … climate? Do you suppose they would assume it also meant that mankind caused it? “Climate” derives from ancient Greek, and “Change” probably comes from the Celtic.

          Climate: 1. The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region. [Middle English climat, from Old French, from Late Latin clima, climat-, from Greek klima, surface of the earth, region; see klei- in Indo-European roots.]

          and Change 1.a. To cause to be different. [Middle English changen, from Norman French chaunger, from Latin cambire, cambre, to exchange, probably of Celtic origin.]

          Dear Matt, What Are You On?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Bungalow Bill

            Hi Jo,

            Do you think that if someone said “television” in 1812 (or 1604), they wouldn’t have known what it means?

            Tele : form meaning “far, far off,” from Gk. tele-, combining form of tele “far off, afar, at or to a distance,” related to teleos (gen. telos) “end, goal, result, consummation, perfection,” lit. “completion of a cycle,” from PIE *kwel-es- (cf. Skt. caramah “the last,” Bret. pell “far off,” Welsh pellaf “uttermost”), from root *kwel- (see cycle).

            Vision : late 13c., “something seen in the imagination or in the supernatural,” from Anglo-Fr. visioun, O.Fr. vision, from L. visionem (nom. visio) “act of seeing, sight, thing seen,” from pp. stem of videre “to see,” from PIE root *weid- “to know, to see” (cf. Skt. veda “I know;” Avestan vaeda “I know;” Gk. oida, Doric woida “I know,” idein “to see;” O.Ir. fis “vision,” find “white,” i.e. “clearly seen,” fiuss “knowledge;” Welsh gwyn, Gaulish vindos, Breton gwenn “white;” Goth., O.Swed., O.E. witan “to know;” Goth. weitan “to see;” Eng. wise, Ger. wissen “to know;” Lith. vysti “to see;” Bulg. vidya “I see;” Pol. widzieć “to see,” wiedzieć “to know;” Rus. videt’ “to see,” vest’ “news,” O.Russ. vedat’ “to know”). The meaning “sense of sight” is first recorded late 15c. Meaning “statesman-like foresight, political sagacity” is attested from 1926.

            Language and its meaning changes over time, we all know that.

            BTW, that’s quite a nice photo of you, I think you look rather gay.

            You do know what I mean don’t you?????

            In the modern context, the term “Climate Change” has anthropogenic connotations. If you were referring to the other type you would use the term “Natural Climate Change”.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      John Brookes

      MattB is right. Its yet another trivial issue. Call it whatever you like, but we are talking about the influence human activities have on the climate.

      “Skeptics” always like to pretend that climate scientists don’t know that the climate has a long history of change. As if they didn’t know, or as if those terrible climate scientists are hiding this fact to increase the “scare factor”.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        You’re wrong JB to put all “Skeptics” into the same pigeon-hole as much as some “skeptics” are wrong to demonize/put all “climate scientists” into the same pigeon hole. That sort of thing is called prejudice.

        The Climategate emails clearly illustrate that “climate scientists” aren’t all of the same mind; that they have serious doubts about “The Science”. Kevin Trenberth’s comments in emails reveled by Climategate show that they are well aware of the substantial uncertainties; but choose no remain silent about them. They instead support the suppression of better explanations of physical phenomena and the falsification of their own “work”.

        Donna Laframboise’s The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert shows that the UN-IPCC is nothing more than a bunch of non-scientists trying to politically manage the output of science to “support” the need for disruptive societal change to fit their neo-feudal ideas of how the world should be run.

        They don’t give a damn about the environment. They don’t give a damn about science. The only thing that they care about is how they are going to run the lives of other people for their own benefit.

        “Climate science” has become a political tool. Nothing more.

        Scientists studying weather over long periods and trying to figure out how the world works know about and don’t ignore climate change. Political and ideological bias is unfortunately applied by some to selectively apply significance and insignificance in order to fit an ideology; and some argue, to maintain research funding. Feathering one’s own nest is not science.

        All science is compromised even if only some choose to play the tune of those who pay the piper.


        Report this

        00

      • #

        “Skeptics” always like to pretend that climate scientists don’t know that the climate has a long history of change. As if they didn’t know, or as if those terrible climate scientists are hiding this fact to increase the “scare factor”.

        In fact when one thinks about it, the various climates of this planet do not change within timespans meaningful to mankind and other species.

        Before environmental activists took control of Earth Sciences, this planets climates were classified thus

        As one can clearly see, these climates HAVE NOT CHANGED FOR HUNDREDS AND EVEN THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
        Tropical climes are still tropical, polar climes are still polar and temperate climes are still temperate.

        At best, human activity (primarily land use) has altered local and fringe climates. TEMPERATURE HAS DONE BUGGER-ALL to change climates.

        So when I’m asked if I accept climate change, I say no I don’t. There is no evidence, NOT A SKERRICK OF EVIDENCE that any of the worlds climates have changed or are about to change.

        So John yes, those terrible climate scientists are trying to scare people by insisting that humans are changing climate and they are hiding the fact that the various climates of this planet have not changed, nor is there any evidence that they will change within a time span meaningful to human lifetimes.

        I DO NOT ACCEPT THE CLAIM THAT CLIMATES ARE CHANGING. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          cohenite

          Good post Baa; the basic climate zones have not changed; however the AGW believers claim that there is tropical creep towards the poles due to AGW; see Lu for instance.

          This concept has been repudiated here and here.


          Report this

          00

          • #

            however the AGW believers claim that there is tropical creep towards the poles due to AGW

            Do you mean the regions with the most numerous and diverse forms of life are expanding and encroaching on the cold, barren, lifeless regions?

            Can’t have that. We must stop it.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Lars P.

        then talk about “human climate change” not “climate change”.

        If you would spent a litle time to read about climate change in the Holocene you will learn about a lot of tremendous changes, starting with the Younger Dryas and all Bond events, the Homer cold time, the end of Harappa civilisation, the dark ages with the pest of Julian, the anastasi drought, the MWP and LIA and many other.
        The greenhouse-gas-science tries to explain such with farting megafauna, killed by humans, with europeans colonising the Americas or with Genghis Khan the “green” warrior. In my view all these explanation worth only a mention to what ridicule lows science can be brought.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Reed Coray

        John, since man first made his appearance on the Earth, there have been A$$$oles. You argue that because everyone (climate scientists included) knows that natural changes in climate occur; the term “Climate Change” obviously doesn’t refer to natural change, but rather is limited to climate change induced by mankind. I apply your reasoning to the word A$$$oles. When I ask someone: Do you believe in A$$$oles?; because everyone knows that A$$$oles exist, what I’m really asking is: “Has mankind’s study of ‘Climate Change’ changed (most likely increased unless you take the Tiljander perspective) the number of A$$$oles in the world?“–the answer to which is obviously “Yes”. If that reasoning makes sense to you, you just might be an example that can be used to argue the interpretation.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        John,

        Call it whatever you like, but we are talking about the influence human activities have on the climate.

        I choose to call it extreme arrogance for mankind to try to claim credit for, and therefore control over, anything that occurs in the natural world.

        It is not that sceptics pretend that climate scientists don’t know that the climate has a long history of change. It is that sceptics do not believe that the scientists understand all of the causative factors involved in that history of change. And you need to understand all of the natural causative factors, before you can predict any minor variations that may be caused by mankind. As I say, anything less is pure arrogance,


        Report this

        00

  • #

    The Man-Made Global Warming scam/lie/hoax becomes evident when one looks at the language that spews from the alarmists: Only evil and suffering can come from a warmer Earth.
    Fossil fueled, Western style prosperity must stop. This is the real agenda. Saving the Earth has little to do with it. If it were even about the climate then it could be said:

    Congratulations children, The Energy sources that fuel our economies and our prosperity, give us long life and comfort, these fossil fuels will also cause our planet to warm gently, about 2C degrees over the next century. What luck!
    With the warmth and extra CO2 for plant life, millions of acres of tundra will become forests. Millions of acres of frozen steppe will become arable. Starvation will end. Prosperity will reach even the poorest people. We must keep searching for and burning oil and coal so we can improve our climate and prosper. Humanity will become wealthy. With this wealth we can preserve habitat for animals, protect the rain forest. We will clean the oceans and the land. Our future is bright. We are entering the age of abundance. “


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David, UK

    The best way, in my opinion, to answer the question “Do you believe in Climate Change” is simply to state: “Certainly as far as the last 5 billion years are concerned: yes. And I see no signs of it stopping any time soon.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    I wonder what Orwell would make of this -

    Sea levels from my understanding of the Australian parliaments ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT have already risen and cover the whole of the Australian territorial land mass.

    Australian law passed by Parliament is not Common Law,it is Statute Law. Statute Law is Admiralty/Merchant Law or “The Law of the Sea”.

    “ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 – SECT 15B
    Application of Acts in coastal sea
    Coastal sea of Australia

    (1) An Act is taken to have effect in, and in relation to, the coastal sea of Australia as if that coastal sea were part of Australia.

    (2) A reference in an Act to Australia, or to the Commonwealth, is taken to include a reference to the coastal sea of Australia.

    Coastal sea of external Territory

    (3) An Act that is in force in an external Territory is taken to have effect in, and in relation to, the coastal sea of the Territory as if that coastal sea were part of the Territory.

    (3A) A reference in an Act to all or any of the external Territories (whether or not one or more particular Territories are referred to) is taken to include a reference to the coastal sea of any Territory to which the reference relates.

    Definition

    (4) In this section, coastal sea :

    (a) in relation to Australia, means:

    (i) the territorial sea of Australia; and

    (ii) the sea on the landward side of the territorial sea of Australia and not within the limits of a State or internal Territory;

    and includes the airspace over, and the sea-bed and subsoil beneath, any such sea; and

    (b) in relation to an external Territory, means:

    (i) the territorial sea adjacent to the Territory; and

    (ii) the sea on the landward side of the territorial sea adjacent to the Territory and not within the limits of the Territory;

    and includes the airspace over, and the sea-bed and subsoil beneath, any such sea.

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aia1901230/s15b.html

    As can be seen by the ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT the whole of the Australian territorial land mass is deemed to be covered by sea, so therefore it can be seen that the whole of the Australian land and coastal territories come under the provise of the “Law of the Sea Treaty” to which Australia became a signatory in 1994. See -

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/

    http://noisyroom.net/blog/2012/06/10/national-security-expert-law-of-the-sea-treaty-a-question-of-sovereignty/

    No wonder then that a celebration is being held in Rio -

    “Sat 16 June – THEME: Oceans Day
    10:00-11:00 Renewing our political commitments: Perspectives on Rio+20
    11:00-12:15 Scaling up integrated governance of the oceans
    12:15-13:30 Lunch: Celebrating 10 Years of the Global Ocean Forum, and the 30th Anniversary of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
    http://unfccc.int/meetings/rio_conventions_calendar/items/6940.php

    Our politicians have it seems to me, surrendered Australian territorial sovereignty holus-bolus to the United Nations.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter Whale

    Question do you believe in climate change?

    Answer No I do not believe in climate change for I categorically Know it to be a fact, so belief does not enter my mind. The Medieval warm period and the little ice age prove that climate change exists as a known fact

    Next question please.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      MattB

      Given we have such a lengthy record of climate available to us it says something of your biases that you choose to base your opinion on the MWP. I mean why choose such a statistically insignificant blip when you have the ravaging swings in and out of ice ages in your favour?


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Can you identify any writings from the previous ice age, MattB?
        Instrumental records?

        MWP (and others) described in writing, reporting human activity which would only have been possible with sustained, warmer weather. (i.e. climate)

        CET covers (part of) the LIA.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          MattB

          Bernd it is not my opinion that the presence or otherwise of the LIA or MWP strengthens or weakens the case for AGW. I am not of the opinion that there is a conspiracy to erase these from the temperature record as I don’t think that there is any reason to try and erase them, if they exist.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Hi Matt,

        That would be Glacials and Interglacials – we are in an ice age now, and haven’t left.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Peter Whale

        Hi MattB it is not my biases in question it is my understanding of history which comes to the fore. After reading about those two events which were unchallenged until they did not fit into the warmist agenda and were then decried and demoted otherwise the warming scam was dead in the water.
        The question regarding climate change is like asking whether I believe in rain or clouds or any other recognized fact. It is a nonsensical question asked by political and money motivated people to keep the scam going. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global warming is a dead concept and easily denied, which is why the term climate change was substituted for it. Spring, summer, autumn winter all manifestations of climate change So who can deny those it is a fact of life.
        Next question.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          MattB

          “After reading about those two events which were unchallenged until they did not fit into the warmist agenda and were then decried and demoted otherwise the warming scam was dead in the water.”

          Maybe just maybe they were unchallenged until we acquired a more global understanding of the weather of the day that indicated that they may not have been to global events as previously assumed based upon a painting and a poem about the thames freezing over.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          MattB

          “Spring, summer, autumn winter all manifestations of climate change”

          Um no spring, summer, autum and winder are manefestations of the earth’s tilt on its axis as we revolve around the sun on an annual cycle. At least you didn’t say “night and day”.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      John Brookes

      The MWP is interesting. If you look at the historical record of the Thames freezing, there was a big gap from 1250 to 1450 (ie. it didn’t freeze in that time). Is that when the MWP is supposed to have been? A quick check reveals that the MWP was actually supposed to be from 900 to 1250, a time when the Thames froze reasonably often.

      If I was a “skeptic”, I’d be having a field day with stuff like that, wouldn’t I?


      Report this

      00

      • #

        A quick check reveals that the MWP was actually supposed to be from 900 to 1250, a time when the Thames froze reasonably often.

        A check? Where? Cite!


        Report this

        00

      • #

        The Thames in the Middle Ages was not embanked, thus slower. Old London Bridge, built in 1209, had a marked, but not simple, effect on water movement above and below. Rainfall, cloud cover, tides, up-river conditions etc make it impossible to draw simple equivalencies between icing in the period known as the MWP and subsequent cooler times. There are so many factors, many unknown, governing whether or not a river froze in the remote past. Lastly, the MWP is like the present WP: full of inconsistencies, because climate is (duh) fantastically complex. (Thus anyone claiming to “model” climate is…well, I think you know the rest.)

        It’s on record that in 1410 the ice lasted 14 weeks, the longest mentioned freeze. That’s right – it did freeze in that time! And how it froze!

        Milder weather after the Napoleonic period, building of New London Bridge, which is arched, and the embankments make freezing far less likely now. The last true Frost Fair was in 1814.

        Should there be a freezing of the Thames in the near future it will prove exactly what the recent absence of freezing proves.

        Nothing.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I believe there are two kinds of climate change:

    1. Natural: happens all the time over long and short periods

    2. Imaginary: happens in the heads of those who…

    a. want power or money

    b. Are ignorant of basic science and natural history

    One is impossible to do anything about and the other is a fraud.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Aynsley Kellow

    It is perhaps worth noting that Roger Pielke Jr has published on the fact that the IPCC uses a different definition to the FCCC – climate change for them is change regardless of cause – and analysing the importance and consequences of this. Google might produce the paper, but I might try to find the reference later when I have more time. (I’m just on my way out the door).


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Dagfinn

      Here is a relevant passage from The Climate Fix:

      Believe it or not, the main scientific and policy institutions responsible for climate change in the international arena do not even agree on what the phrase “climate change” actually means. For example, if you take a look at the “Summary for Policy Makers” of the 2007 IPCC science working group, you’ll find this, in its first footnote: “Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”

      In other words, the fact that they don’t agree on the definition of climate change is actually stated explicitly by the IPCC, but is easy to miss because of all the verbiage.

      http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-introduction.html


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Jim Stewart

    Jo
    Another great contribution, thank you.
    I love the words flourished around in several of the comments on this post. Good to see Art, Literature and Enlightment still alive and well. We doers must still be generating enough wealth to keep them fed /(sarc).
    For mine, measurement and repeatability beat words, hands down. So my response would be;
    1 – measurement of the global average temperature has shown a decrease over the last 15 years proving that the temperature has changed, to colder conditions.Other climate conditions are also changing.
    2 – A few years ago we in Australia had just gone through a harsh drought, which historical record shows repeats every 40 to 60 years. So we do have a change in the climate all of the time.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Jimmy Haigh

    As Pointman stated above, don’t let the warm-mongers wriggle out of it by using the term “climate change”. This is all supposed to be about man made CO2 increasing in the atmospher and directly causing an increase in temperature. Pure and simple.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    • #
      Llew Jones

      Here is a telling excerpt or two from a repenting scientist who got sucked into the climate alarmism game.

      “On the Eve of UN Earth Summit, Green Guru Lovelock Slams UN IPCC & Greens: ‘Whenever UN puts its finger in it seems to become a mess’ — ‘The green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion’ — James Lovelock: ”IPCC is too politicized & too internalized’ — On Green religion: ‘I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use. The greens use guilt. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting CO2 in the air’

      Green Guru James Lovelock: ‘So-called sustainable development is meaningless drivel’

      Unlike the not so bright religionists who try to convert us on this blog old Jim’s Gaia brain apparently still works OK ……despite a few freezeups.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    the damage done to science when the UN adopted this definition will take generations to undo.

    that governments of all stripes have come and gone in the 30 years since the definition was adopted, and none have challenged this basic distortion of the language/science, proves the CAGW scam is above partisan politics.

    that the MSM has used and continues to use “climate change” to mean “anthropogenic global warming” is the main reason i get all my news online.

    until the UN,scientific bodies, MSM and govts everywhere are forced to abandon this absurd definition, we will get nowhere.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JMD

    Only millions of taxpayer dollars could have propagated an inanity so profoundly inane, and so abjectly silly. No mere student report could have swept around the world destroying sensible conversation for two decades (and taking the entire field of paleoclimate as collateral damage too).

    So where do these ‘taxpayer dollars’ that have propagated this inanity come from. Just look here;

    http://greshams-law.com/2012/02/13/charting-the-federal-reserves-assets-from-1915-to-2012/

    and here;

    http://greshams-law.com/2012/06/12/charts-of-the-federal-reserves-liabilities-1915-to-2012/

    The situation works no different here in Australia. Voting Liberal hasn’t helped since 1992 & won’t help you now. Until you ask the right questions, you will never find the right answer.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    oops…meant 20 years, not 30, since the UN definition.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Frankly Skeptic

    I always respond as follows:

    Question: Do you believe in Climate Change?
    Answer: Of course, climate change has been going on for at least 600 million years.

    No need to qualify, the answer negates any miniscule effect due to humans over the just the last Century.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Slob language has been a cornerstone of CAGW from the start. Falsely, I once thought that clarification of terms would be important to all sides in the discussion of these issues. In fact, clarity of terms is the last thing our Green Betters want.

    Precise definitions do not matter to climate “alarmists” because there is nothing at stake for them, beyond the success or triumph of faction. They are not trying to arrive at any truths or conclusions. You see, nobody believes that increasing levels of CO2 are a danger. Examine all the measures taken and proposed, examine the lifestyles and habits of all proponents of CAGW, and it becomes obvious that there is no actual belief, just adherence to faction. By the late middle ages, the influential, the learned and the powerful were piously committed to the idea of Crusade – but nobody believed, and nobody would go. Everything one did and said was a fudge and a dodge to avoid another bloody Crusade – in which one nonetheless had a firmly stated belief!

    That’s why we should stop tearing our hair out over the refusal of our Green Betters to speak with clarity and definition. They are no more interested in precision of language than they are in reducing CO2 levels.

    Two simple questions:

    1. If increasing levels of CO2 really were a danger to human survival, what would you actually do about it, right away?

    2. Who are the absolute last people you would involve in making decisions and taking action?

    Well?

    Exactly!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    scott

    I have been away from this blog for 6 months or so…and I come back and see Matt B, is still here trying to flame… makes me happy to know that some things havent changed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    I don’t believe in climate change.

    I know the climate changes though – does that count?

    I don’t believe in science either

    Science is to be understood and challenged, not believed in.

    Everytime some comes up with the corker “I believe in climate change” – my response is that it’s a shame they don’t understand the science enough to know anything about the climate and that they feel they now need to believe in what another person tells them to believe in.

    And whenever I hear them complain that they can’t communicate their message, I think to myself. Well what the hell do they expect? They have bastardised the language surrounding it to such an extent they have shown themselves to be carpetbagging ideologists lacking basic ethics or professionalism.

    It is nigh on impossible to communicate with these guys because their beliefs eclipse their ability to listen and learn.

    Personally – even if the catastrafarians were right (which they so obviously are not), they deserve to be set into the fringe. They can continue doublespeaking to themselves and whip themselves up into a lather. I for one simply cannot trust any messages coming from people who resort to this sort of thing “for the cause”.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      MattB

      At the end of the day we all just believe in our interpretation of the “facts” that science presents us with.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        ianl8888

        At the end of the day we all just believe in our interpretation of the “facts” that science presents us with

        At the end of the day we all just believe in our “interpretation” of the facts that science presents us with

        There, fixed for you


        Report this

        00

      • #
        MadJak

        MattB,

        So which of these two statements have more credibility:

        “The Consensus is in, 97% of climate scientists agree that Mankind is responsible for runaway climate change”

        or

        “Until the positive feedback of water vapour in the mentioned in the IPCC AR4 can be proven and established the models predicting positive feedback of water vapour leading to runaway global warming…”

        I would argue that for anyone to objectively investigate AGW starting from a laymans perspective, they have no choice but to start of as being a sceptic of AGW. Is it really any surprise that the sceptical viewpoint has gained much traction over the years?

        Of course it has – people aren’t the morons many on the catastrafarian bandwagon make out them to be.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Angry

        Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs BUT
        NOBODY IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN SET OF FACTS !

        By relying on simplistic computer models fed with fudged data instead of real world observations you and your ilk are doing just that.

        GLOBAL WARMING is built on a tissue of lies and is simply being used as a Trojan Horse to introduce a world taxation system ie carbon DIOXIDE trading, in order to finance a Totalitarian One World COMMUNIST Government.

        Devotees of the global warming CULT are either gullible morons, communists called their kind USEFUL IDIOTS, or are being deliberately deceitful.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Mike Jowsey

    “Do you believe in Climate Change”

    1. Do you believe in climate stasis?
    2. Sure it changes, but nobody yet knows why.
    3. Yes, climate does change. Next question?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jon

    This is social climate science.
    A science that is based on ideology/politics(UNFCCC) (Socialism).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    Question: Do you believe in climate change?

    Answer: Climate change is a fact of life and requires no “belief” as it has been happening since Earth’s Time began and will continue to do so until the end of that Time.

    IMHO, NZ’s Dr.Vincent Gray still has the best explanation of how and why the UN deliberately morphed the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming into the words “Climate Change” in his prophetic article “The Triumph of Doublespeak” – “How the UNIPCC fools most of the the people all of the time”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    .
    “Do you believe in climate change”?

    .
    The truly depressing thing is that there are people out there so lacking in common sense – never mind basic science knowledge – that the question even gets asked.

    I mean, when was the last time one of these people asked somebody -
    “Do you believe in gravity”?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Faye of Fingal Head

    The pompous UN technocrats and one-world government Lefties have twisted thousands of meanings of ordinary words and phrases under the pretence of a better world for our children and grandchildren (sick!).

    To separate their jargon from everyday language, label theirs by putting “UN” in front, eg UN Climate Change; UN Sustainable Development (funny how the “un” in front immediately cancels out their b.ll…t.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Orwell would not approve the way he is used by Jo! Just as well he is dead, eh?

    To serious matters:

    Unprecedented May Heat In Greenland, Temperature Hits Stunning 76.6°F
    By Climate Guest Blogger on Jun 4, 2012 at 3:23 pm

    Figure 1. Difference between the number of melt days in 2011 and the average number of melt days during the period 1979 – 2010. Large sections of the island experienced twenty more days with melting conditions than average. Image: Arctic Report Card.
    by Jeff Masters, via the WunderBlog
    The record books for Greenland’s climate were re-written [last] Tuesday, when the mercury hit 24.8°C (76.6°F) at Narsarsuaq, Greenland, on the southern coast.

    According to weather records researcher Maximiliano Herrera, this is the hottest temperature on record in Greenland for May, and is just 0.7°C (1.3°F) below the hottest temperature ever measured in Greenland. The previous May record was 22.4°C (72.3°F) at Kangerlussuaq (called Sondre Stormfjord in Danish) on May 31, 1991. The 25.2°C at Narsarsuaq on June 22, 1957 is the only June temperature measured in Greenland warmer than yesterday’s 24.8°C reading. Wunderground’s extremes page shows that the all-time warmest temperature record for Greenland is 25.5°C (77.9°F) set on July 26, 1990.

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/06/04/494641/unprecedented-may-heat-in-greenland-temperature-hits-stunning-766f/?mobile=nc

    Serious stuff. An El Nino is building up, wonder how high summer temps are going to get this summer in Adelaide?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      Meanwhile, Antarctica continues to get colder, and the total ice sheet continues to grow.
      .
      So your point is . . . .


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Let’s hope there’s no repeat of that killer January heatwave in SA. Of course, I’m talking about Jan 1960, although they tell me Jan 1979 was more sustained: it killed the flaming ‘roos. 2009 was no walk in the park, either. Of course, the last thing we’d want – with greater population in SA – is a drought like the mid ’60s Big Dry. I’m talking 1860s here. We don’t want that again.

      So, on behalf of rural Australians, thanks for the concern, Maxine. My sympathies that you weren’t rewarded with your Arctic Death Spiral after 2007. Keep following those satellite pics and graph wiggles and you’ll get something – maybe a big melt like the early 1920s. If the Bering and Chukchi seas get icy, you’ll find some melt on the other side. If Eastern Antarctic has too much ice, there’ll be less to the West. It’s always too warm somewhere, Maxine!

      But, hey, why am I advising a professional on how to spin?


      Report this

      00

      • #

        What are you talking about? True, spring was a tad delayed in the Arctic, weather you know, but the icemelt is setting new records, posted a link to that effect.

        2009 was pretty bad, max about 48.5°C IIRC, think we will go through 50°C?

        1998 was another El Nino and was an outlier maximum for a while.

        Everything is pointing to increasing temperatures.


        Report this

        00

        • #

          “Everything is pointing to increasing temperatures.”

          Everything! She sounds excited, like an old Rabbitohs supporter. This year, this year, this year – surely this year!

          Seriously, Maxine, thanks for that tip about the highest recorded June temp for Greenland – in 1957! (I blame Sputnik and Doris Day.)

          Of course, not a patch on our Oodnadatta, South Australia: 50.7 degrees Celsius, occurring on 2 January 1960. (Doris again!) Of course, they had to cancel out the dodgy old Oz record of 53.1C at Cloncurry. Who wants Qld to win anyway?

          Oh, and that Cloncurry reading? It was taken in 1889. If this temp is exceeded in the near future it will mean precisely as much as if it is not exceeded in the near future.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          memoryvault


          And STILL it gets colder in the Antarctic.
          And STILL the ice pack there grows.

          .
          Explanation, Maxine?


          Report this

          00

        • #
          David Ball

          Maxine is being disingenuous. Her reference is to the modern record. She cannot explain fossilized coniferous trees on Ellesmere island. In order to believe what she believes, you have to ignore all evidence before the satellite record. It’s what they leave out that is the most revealing. Who is the true denier? http://arctic.synergiesprairies.ca/arctic/index.php/arctic/article/view/1738


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Angry

      “Maxine”,
      So which particular animal are you in the ANIMAL FARM????


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Bob Malloy

        So which particular animal are you in the ANIMAL FARM????

        I think this brief excerpt from wiki answers that.

        Old Major, the old boar on the Manor Farm, calls the animals on the farm for a meeting, where he compares the humans to parasites and teaches the animals a revolutionary song, ‘Beasts of England’. When Major dies two young pigs, Snowball and Napoleon, assume command and turn his dream into a philosophy. The animals revolt and drive the drunken and irresponsible Mr Jones from the farm, renaming it “Animal Farm”. They adopt Seven Commandments of Animal-ism, the most important of which is, “All animals are equal”.

        Snowball attempts to teach the animals reading and writing; food is plentiful, and the farm runs smoothly. The pigs elevate themselves to positions of leadership and set aside special food items, ostensibly for their personal health. Napoleon takes the pups from the farm dogs and trains them privately. When Mr Jones tries to retake the farm, the animals defeat him at what they call the “Battle of the Cowshed”. Napoleon and Snowball struggle for leadership. When Snowball announces his idea for a windmill, Napoleon has his dogs chase Snowball away and declares himself leader.

        It’s all there, “philosophy, setting aside special items for themselves, even windmills get a mention.”


        Report this

        00

    • #

      Maxine, two questions:
      1)Have you read Orwell? (AGW Socialists are the pigs.)

      2)Why haven’t the UN sanctioned climate scientists re-worked their models after weather ballon measurements could not detect the “tropospheric warm zone”. The models said it would be there, but it’s not. The scientific method dictates adjusting one’s hypothesis (in this case the hypothesis is described by models)after it is proved false? Why no re-work and resubmission and re-measurement?

      The UN IPCC has abandoned all science in their run for the farm house.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Sonny

      How do you know what Orwell would or what not approve of?
      Are you in contact with the spirit world? Lol


      Report this

      00

  • #
    manalive

    … if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought … George Orwell: Politics and the English Language 1946.
    Orwell, who was aware back then of the thought corrupting influence of imprecise, deliberately ambiguous and deceptive language, particularly as applied to politics, had the examples of ’30s Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia to draw on.
    Obvious examples linger today like the distinctly undemocratic Democratic People’s Republics of Korea and Vietnam or the oligarchical People’s Republic of China.
    It seems a study of Orwell is essential for any self-respecting spinmeister.
    As he noted examples of doublespeak like ‘climate change’ or our very own ‘big polluters’ ‘carbon pollution’, ‘clean energy’, ‘a price on carbon’ etc., are nearly always intended to deceive.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    This two words “weather” and “climate” originate in the layman sphere and are layman expression about observed, experienced, and expected conditions in the atmosphere. It can comprise one or several component, like temperature, clouds, precipitation and presumably up to two hundred or more classification, meaning, and explanation. As the life of everybody is very depended on weather and climatic conditions from childhood to death, both expressions have a great emotional component. Nothing is fixed, and the use may vary from one thought, or discussion, or day to another thought, discussion or day. This aspect is highlighted in the Glossary of the American Meteorological Society: “Weather is the state of the atmosphere, mainly with respect to its effects upon life and human activities”, but without mentioning the personal component of each individual sufficiently.
    MORE at http://www.whatisclimate.com/
    SEE also the
    “Open Letter concerning a letter by 18 scientific organizations to the U.S.A. Senate, 21st Oct.2009
    Dear President or Executive Director,
    How could it happen that more than a dozen of the most prestigious scientific associations signed and submitted this letter on ‘climate change’ without having ensured that the used terminology is sufficiently defined. Good science can and is required to work with reasonable terms and explanations. The science about the behaviour of the atmosphere should be no exception. ….. (cont.)”, here: http://www.whatisclimate.com/b202-open-letter.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    warcroft

    Does anyone remember when, three years ago, National Geographic published an article about how the sun drives climate change and various weather events. Then the UN held a vote and announced that the sun has NOTHING to do with climate change or driving weather. Nothing.
    Its a complete disregard for science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Phil Ford

    Jo, I think you put your finger on it when you invoke the Orwellian overtones of this sorry business. Changing language by stealth, subtly indoctrinating an entire generation to think about climate change ‘correctly’ (schools and universities are a great place to start with The Grand Project – and they’ve wasted no time doing just that)…it couldn’t be more Orwellian in it’s execution. When it becomes positively dangerous for qualified professionals to speak out against the government-approved version of events, that’s when we know a line has been crossed and this dark business is becoming truly scary.

    Just watch any of the video footage coming out of Rio+20. An unelected, entirely unaccountable UN-sponsored bureaucratic behemoth compiling new laws and new taxes by virtue of the fact they hold the ‘correct’ version of events. Nobody voted for them; nobody outside of their opaque organizations will ever vote for them because that’s not how their ‘democratic process’ works. In truth, it doesn’t like the democratic process at all; such detail merely gets in the way of The Grand Project.

    Amazing how the mainstream media will not report any of this. Orwell must be turning his grave.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Kevin Moore

      An Orwellian twist

      Frank Gaffney, director of the Center for Security Policy, is fuming.

      Since 2007, Gaffney has been the head of the Coalition to Preserve American Sovereignty, a group founded to help defeat passage of the treaty. Now, the group calls itself the True Sovereignty Coalition, and its message remains the same: don’t cede American authority over to an international bureaucracy; leave the treaty unsigned.

      “What you have is a transparent, Orwellian appropriation of a term that has a common meaning, in the interest of obscuring the fact that this treaty is antithetical to that meaning,” Gaffney said.

      “I think (proponents) recognize that the treaty is clearly inimical to our sovereignty, that it has in a number of different respects a really diametrically opposite impact than promoting sovereignty. And that’s the kiss of death for this treaty. They have to obscure that.”

      Steven Groves, an international law expert at the Heritage Foundation who has also opposed the treaty, used the same word—Orwellian—without prompting.

      “It’s the same group that has been in favor of the treaty for a couple of decades now,” Groves said. “In what can only be described as an Orwellian twist, they’ve co-opted that term and trying to brand themselves as champions of American sovereignty.”
      http://www.humanevents.com/2012/06/11/law-of-the-sea-treaty-becomes-war-of-the-words/


      Report this

      00

  • #
    rukidding

    I would just like to know where in the world the climate has changed since the industrial revolution started.
    You know some place where the prevailing winds come from a different direction or the majority of the rain comes in the summer instead of the winter or now only has two seasons when it used to have four.Or are we only talking about temperature movements.So if the temperature starts falling will that be climate change also or will that be climate unchange.I mean have a look at tornado ally in the US I don’t remember when there was no tornados down there I bet they sure would like some climate change if it stopped the tornados. :-)


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Mike Jowsey

      Amen to that. I live on the east coast of NZ – droughts are common, but the Canterbury plains are great for growing stuff if you can get irrigation. If climate change suddenly switched the west-prevailing winds to the east, we would get a heap more rain and the west coast would dry out. It would be great! That I would call climate change.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Tim

    From Chapter 22 of Robert Jay Lifton’s book, “Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: Lifton, a psychiatrist and distinguished professor at the City University of New York, has studied the psychology of extremism for decades. He testified at the 1976 bank robbery trial of Patty Hearst about the theory of “coercive persuasion.” First published in 1961, his book was reprinted in 1989 by the University of North Carolina Press. It’s a book all cultists should read.

    6. LOADING THE LANGUAGE
    The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché (thought-stoppers) repetitiously centred on all-encompassing jargon “the language of non-thought” words are given new meanings — the outside world does not use the words or phrases in the same way — it becomes a “group” word or phrase.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Mark D.

      Interesting stuff Tim. It supports my notion that the words have been carefully chosen. More evidence that this is all about controlling people.

      I’d like to know if anyone has examined which personality type(s) is least susceptible to language loading?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Thanks to Lance P, here are 3 quotes from the SA meteorologist in 1923.

    CLIMATE CHANGEING? “From the scientific point of view,” Mr. Bromley replied, “these records are most valuable in making it possible to answer the question as to whether or not climatic changes are taking place.”

    “The human mind as a recorder of meteorological events and the human body as a gauge of weather conditions are two very poor registers of actual facts.”

    “My own opinion is that anybody setting out to control the weather is looking for trouble; the weather is best left alone.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lars P.

    Jo, you are perfectly right to point out the misuse of the language. Maybe we should build up a dictionary to talk and understand what the warmists say – but mostly to explain it clearly to the innocent who did not went through our journey of discovery.
    So when a warmista says: “climate change” he means “catastrophical anthropogenic global warming”.
    When they say: sceptic have “tremenduous resources”: they mean “internet”
    “Denier” = not believing the mantra of CAGW
    “fossil fuel shil” = sceptic who had in his life any contact with fossil fuel energy or exploration
    “payed fossil fuel shil” = person who actually is payed in a form or another and is sceptic of CAGW (all who are not doing the work for free)
    “data” = means warmista CAGW model output
    “ethics” = what is good for CAGW
    “bad” = what is not good for CAGW
    “adjustments” = changes to other instrumental data to support model output (see ARGO adjusments, sea level rise adjustments…) all instruments were not properly calibrated and needed post adjustments
    “raw data” = data prepared and adjusted and approved by CAGW high priest
    “science” = the theory of CAGW
    “peer review”= pal review
    …and so on. Once we clarify the terminology it is so much easier to understand what they say. We should have a wiki work, put up these terms and then have a fast translation of the articles for the unprepared people. We lose so much time until we get through the terminology understand what is really ment.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    handjive

    If only the ancients stopped burning fossil fuels to create energy, or knew of the powers of taxation for a ‘clean energy future’.

    Climate Change Contributed to Ancient Indus Civilization Demise, Researchers Say

    Using archaeological data and geoscience technology, an international team of scientists has concluded a study that shows that the great Indus Valley civilization, otherwise known as the Harappan civilization, declined and disappeared in large measure due to climatic and landscape changes.
    The study results suggest that a major, gradual decline in monsoon rains led to a weakened river system, adversely affecting the Harappan culture and leading to its collapse.
    The ancient culture relied on river floods to sustain its system of agriculture.

    Ghaggar-Hakra river as ancient Sarasvati, based on sedimentary, topographical, and archaeological data of settlement near the river during the Harappan era.
    Moreover, the findings suggest that the ancient river was actually fed by perennial monsoons, not Himalayan glaciers, as was previously supposed, and that the increasingly arid climate had reduced it to the short seasonal flows of today.

    Ancient network of rivers and lakes found in Arabian Desert

    Satellite images have revealed that a network of ancient rivers once coursed their way through the sand of the Arabian Desert, leading scientists to believe that the region experienced wetter periods in the past.

    The images are the starting point for a major potentially ground-breaking research project led by the University of Oxford into human evolutionary heritage.
    The research team will look at how long-term climate change affected early humans and animals who settled or passed through and what responses determined whether they were able to survive or died out.

    And the gullible and weak minded think climate change is only created by humans as displayed here by some contributors.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Catamon

    1:

    “Climate change is defined by the Convention as “change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods” (article 1 (2)).”

    1: from the OP is a reasonable definition in context. It refers to how the term is meant to be read in the Convention. Many document do this where a term is meant to have a specific meaning in context of that document.

    2:

    In other words, there is no “climate change” without humans because there cannot be, and by extension, the climate did not change, could not have, for the 4.5 billion years before 1880 when the first coal powered electricity station was fired up.

    2: from the OP is just silly. 1: does not assert anything like what follows, “In other words”.

    we must demand that journalists and pollsters use English.

    I think we should demand that bloggers who write in English have a functional understanding of the language.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Before challenging the OP, kindly read the definition as stated:
      “ARTICLE 1: DEFINITIONS / For the purposes of this Convention: “Climate change” means a change of climate which….. “

      That is tautology and nonsense.
      But the UNFCCC set of definitions is worst. There is no definition of CLIMATE in the first place. Does WMO (or other scientific institutions) offer a solution? No! WMO says “climate in a narrow sense is average weather”, but does not define “weather”.

      One of the rare exception is the very comprehensive Glossary of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). After a brief explanation of weather as: “The state of the atmosphere, mainly with respect to its effects upon life and human activities”, (full text in box below), the weather issue is broken down to:
      • The “present weather” table consists of 100 possible conditions,
      • with 10 possibilities for “past weather”, while
      • Popularly, weather is thought of in terms of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, visibility, and wind.
      Even if the AMS-Glossary is silent on “future weather”, the nonsense get a face. If the “weather” consists of 100 possible conditions, how can “past weather” consist only of 10 conditions? Who is making the selection? Who decides over the period of time, whether data are used over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years? What are the “10 possibilities for past weather”? Which mix of data represents the past weather or the future weather? The extreme shortcoming of the explanation is revealed by the reference to “popularly weather”, which may reflect the layman’s version reasonably, but not necessarily. If AMS Glossary actually says that popular weather exist –presumably- of five conditions, past weather consists of 10 conditions and present weather consists of 100 conditions it seems that this is nonsense talking. There is no such thing as small, medium, and big weather, with few, several, or many dynamo-physical atmospheric elements. Weather is either weather, or it is statistics on weather components. MORE at: http://www.whatisclimate.com/b206_need_to_talk_July_2010.html


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Kevin Moore

        The IPCC’s definition of climate stated more rigorously -

        Climate

        Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.

        Climate change

        Climate change refers to a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer). Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.
        Note that the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines climate change as: a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods. The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes.
        See also: Climate variability
        http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/518.htm


        Report this

        00

        • #

          RE: Kevin Moore
          It is not really helpful what IPCC (as WMO) is offering. Does it make sense if IPCC is actually saying that a “climate scientist” is an “average weather scientist”? The problem is that they use a layman’s term, used by them since Ancient Greek time, without being able and willing to come up with definitions in a reasonable scientific manner. The cited IPCC definitions on climate are irrelevant as long as they do not define WEATHER. For more: http://www.oceanclimate.de/Archiv/pdf/may6_10.pdf . The cited explanation from AMS-Glossary indicates that it is a challenge.

          IMO it is unacceptable that science is using a highly emotional term from the layman’s sphere (see Comment 35 above) with neither being able or willing to work with scientifically relevant definitions. It seems to me that they accept that the scaring effect is the most, the more superficial the terms are. 20 years have passed since the adoption of the UNFCCC and ‘climate’ science seems unable to meet minimum academic standards.

          A letter to the Editor of NATURE raised this matter in 1992 as follows:
          _______”SIR – The Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and the earlier struggle for a Convention on Climate Change may serve as a reminder that the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea has its tenth anniversary on 10 December. It is not only one of the most comprehensive and strongest international treaties ever negotiated but the best possible legal means to protect the global climate. But sadly, there has been little interest in using it for this purpose. For too long, climate has been defined as the average weather and Rio was not able to define it at all. Instead, the Climate Change Convention uses the term ‘climate system’, defining it as “the totality of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere and geosphere and their interactions”. All that this boils down to is ‘the interactions of the natural system’. What is the point of a legal term if it explains nothing? For decades, the real question has been who is responsible for the climate. Climate should have been defined as ‘the continuation of the oceans by other means’. Thus, the 1982 Convention could long since have been used to protect the climate. After all, it is the most powerful tool with which to force politicians and the community of states into actions.”
          HERE: http://www.whatisclimate.com/1992-nature.html
          ___ Letter to the Editor, NATURE 1992, “Climate Change”, Vol. 360, p. 292;


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Mike Jowsey

      @Catamon:

      2: from the OP is just silly. 1: does not assert anything like what follows, “In other words”.

      I see your point, but your point fails to see Jo’s point. Which is this (it is a semantic or language-use point):
      “Climate Change” as defined in point 1. is caused by anthropogenic activity over and above natural variability. This is the IPCC’s “Climate Change”. By logical extension therefore, anything that happened before or without human activities is not “Climate Change”. Therefore, it would be logical to conclude within the framework of the IPCC definition that “the climate did not change, could not have, for the 4.5 billion years before 1880 when the first coal powered electricity station was fired up.”

      Therefore, your point 3 could be directed at yourself. Shooting self in foot is painful, no?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Catamon

        Have to call your post as trivial bollocks and a perpetuation of the OP silliness.

        Therefore, it would be logical to conclude within the framework of the IPCC definition that “the climate did not change, could not have, for the 4.5 billion years before 1880 when the first coal powered electricity station was fired up.”

        No, syill trivial bollocks.

        Hmm……no holes im my feet.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Mike Jowsey

          OK Catamon (or whatever your name is), you can call whatever you like whatever you like. But do you have a clear and logical rebuttal to my post? I argued logic. Can you deal with logic?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Catamon

            [Can you deal with logic?]

            Easily, when its the issue, which here its actually not.

            However if you want to make the OP’s error and take the term out of the context it was written, and then have a bleat about it, then carry on rewardless.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            MattB

            pretty fuzzy logic. Once could easily argue that the IPCC, knowing more than most about climate, knows it is inherently variable, therefore when the climate “changes” due to natural variables then that is just the climate doing what it does… thus “climate change” is a change to what the climate would otherwise be doing.

            Mike, we know that the IPCC does not think that the climate has always been as it is today. As we know that is not the IPCCs position, any logic you apply to reach that conclusion is flawed. not surprising.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Sonny

            The IPCC is more interested in redefining climate history for it’s own evil agenda.
            They have destroyed knowledge of the climate. They are buttholes.


            Report this

            00

  • #

    The mere fact you’re asking that question is the problem – you don’t *believe* in a scientific theory, you test its credibility.

    “Belief is the death of Reason” (Robert Anton Wilson)

    “Belief is an accident waiting to happen”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] The UN defines “climate change” as being man-made: Orwell could not have done it betterGreen Guru James Lovelock: ‘So-called sustainable development is meaningless drivel’  Flashback April 2012: ‘Gaia’ scientist James Lovelock reverses himself: I was ‘alarmist’ about climate change & so was Gore! ‘The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago’      Article here [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    MadJak

    I Suspect this is just a taste of what is to come with the Carbon Tax and ETS:

    Millions of Dollars wasted on Australian Labor Partys Global Carbon Capture and Storage institute

    Oh well, never mind. You can trust the ALP – they come up with these fantastic rorts like:

    A $6 Million Dollar Ski Jump for Brisbane

    and

    a $1.25 billion Payroll system for Queensland health (checkout what the IBM Consultant rates were on that one)

    Still can’t wait for a government run Wealth Redistribution scheme anyone?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    This reminds me of an article a couple of years ago by J.R. Nyquist. This explains the strategy used in choosing the unfathomable term “climate change”.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    97% of Climate Scientists not climate deniers?

    Do you remember a survey proclaiming that 97% of Climate Scientists agreed with the climate consensus? Lawrence Solomon debunked it thoroughly. However, this was based on based on two trivial questions.

    1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
    2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

    The second question allows for people who believe that just 10% or 20% of the temperature rise is due to human factors and not exclusively due to greenhouse gas emissions.

    By implication, there are four possible positions to take on the combination of the two situations.

    1. Those accept the UN’s view that all climate change is anthropogenic, and repudiate the “97% of scientists believe” survey. By implication much less than 97% of climate scientists will agree with the much more extreme UN view.
    2. Those who reject UN’s view that all climate change is anthropogenic, and accept the “97% of scientists believe” survey. Therefore they should accept that the UN’s views are extreme, and a range of opinions are possible.
    3. Those climate alarmists who accept both, so implicitly admit that they do not know what they are talking about.
    4. Those who reject both the UN’s definition and that the survey properly identifies the range of possible opinions. That is anyone who places logic and language higher than the the noisy opinions of any extreme minority.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Re-defining the problem so that the desired solution is the only solution possible is a common trick among the warmists.

    For example the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study (BEST) has been flacked by the warmists as “proving that global warming has happened” — as if anybody except perhaps Michael Mann didn’t already know that we have recovered from the Little Ice Age. When one looks at the “New Mathematical Framework” that BEST has invented to improve the process of finding out if Earth’s temperature has changed, one finds that they have defined Urban Heat Island effect (UHI) as “Global Warming”.

    Since the existance of UHI is undeniable, and has been measured by NASA to be as much as 10 deg C, and furthermore increases with the rise of population and industrial activity, it would be a miracle if BEST didn’t conclude that there has been a rapid rise in “Earth’s Surface Temperature” coincident with the rise of industrial civilization.

    Of course, they tried to hide this “defining the solution before the problem” in mathematics. If you look at equations 1 and 2 (on page 7) in their methodology document “Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process” , one finds that they only consider three effects on a thermometer series: Where the thermometer is (climate effect), what the weather does there (weather effect), and global average temperature (global warming). They further assume that both the climate (positional) effect and the weather effect are stationary functions — that is, they don’t change, on average, over time. Only the global warming component is allowed to change over time.

    So, anything that causes a thermometer to change its readings over time (multiple years) is defined as a change in Earth’s average surface temperature. So UHI, which tends to increase over decadal time scales as urbanization and industrialization increase in the surrounding countryside, is defined by BEST’s “New Mathematical Framework” as an increase in average global temperature.

    With this degree of circular reasoning and mathematical slight of hand, it would be imposible for BEST not to come up with a Hockey Stick for “Global Temperatures”.

    Warmists need not worry, however — Hell will freeze over before they will put this pig out to any “peer reviewers” who will bring this fatal flaw up, so we will soon be hearing about how BEST’s study is “peer-reviewed” and proves AGW.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      BobC,

      as you all know, when it comes to the Science, I prefer just to sit back and take it in, as, on this subject, I have no expertise, only questions, and sometimes, even those questions make me look pretty simple.

      So, having said that, I have another question, that may or even may not be relevant.

      We are told by so many experts that the temperatures here in Australia have been steadily rising over time, and data that they have (somehow) found confirms this.

      I was just wondering. All the major land masses in the Southern Hemisphere, including Antarctica were once part of a huge Megacontinent called Gondwana.

      As those land masses split off and moved apart, they moved, (in the case of Australia) Northwards into warmer Latitudes.

      That being the case, would not the Continental land mass of Australia been in a cooler area and then moved Northwards to a warmer area, hence, of itself, making it seem that over the millennia, Australia has indeed warmed, not from actual warming but from moving from a colder place to a warmer place, if you can see that.

      Tony.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Kevin Moore

        Tony

        “That being the case,” may not be the case.

        Plate Tectonics is the only Earth Science theory that is taught in schools today. There is another well thought out theory that better and more simply explains the facts and evidence found in Geology as to how the Earth developed. It is the Expanding Earth (EE) Theory. The implications of the EE Theory are so profound and alter 50 years of science theory that it has met the fate of being ridiculed and ignored. There are a number of scientists studying these phenomena, mostly outside the United States scientific community. The evidence is growing, getting more precise, more visual and more difficult to ignore. This site will explore new evidence of expansion and its cause. We will make a brief introduction to the EE Theory, and then focus on the graphics of drawing Great Circles on a 12″ globe. These lines connect and provide clear evidence of not just growth from within but the cause of that growth. A 12″ Globe, the Globe Stand and marker pens are all that’s necessary to replicate these extraordinary scientific “experiments”, even at home.
        http://eearthk.com/Expand.html


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Kevin,

          The EE Theory does not explain the Himalayas, Andies, or Alps (nor, being parochial, the smaller north-south backbone ridge in New Zealand). What appears to be emerging is an amalgam of the EE Theory with a new theory of “Plate Displacement”, that would account for these mountain ranges.

          I have only seen passing mentions of it, in connection with other things, so I do not have a reference to hand, sorry.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          BobC

          Kevin Moore
          June 17, 2012 at 12:16 pm · Reply

          “Plate Tectonics is the only Earth Science theory that is taught in schools today. There is another well thought out theory that better and more simply explains the facts and evidence found in Geology as to how the Earth developed. It is the Expanding Earth (EE) Theory.

          If it is indeed “well thought out”, then there must be answers to these questions:

          1) Why don’t we see effects of the expansion in the orbital data from satellites?
          2) Why don’t we see effects in the GPS (or other surveying) measurements between “fixed” positions on the Earth?
          3) Why doesn’t the Earth’s shadow get larger on the Moon during successive Lunar eclipses? (The apparent shadow size has been measured for thousands of years — first by the ancient Greeks.)
          4) Why don’t we see effects on the measured distance to the Moon via the laser retro-reflectors left by the Apollo astronauts?
          5) Why isn’t the violation of conservation of mass noticible in sensitive laboratory measurements?
          6) Why don’t we see a systematic change in the Earth’s gravitational field? (We can measure it to 1 part in 10^10 — enough to detect a 1 cm increase in the Earth’s diameter.)


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Mark D.

            BobC says:
            1) Why don’t we see effects of the expansion in the orbital data from satellites?
            Aren’t they saying sea level is rising and continents are rebounding from past glacial weight?

            2) Why don’t we see effects in the GPS (or other surveying) measurements between “fixed” positions on the Earth?
            Last I heard GPS doesn’t have the resolution to deal with this. Also, would not satellites orbit move out with EE?

            3) Why doesn’t the Earth’s shadow get larger on the Moon during successive Lunar eclipses? (The apparent shadow size has been measured for thousands of years — first by the ancient Greeks.)
            That’s easy: the sun has been expanding too.

            4) Why don’t we see effects on the measured distance to the Moon via the laser retro-reflectors left by the Apollo astronauts?
            The earth is expanding, not the space between the earth and moon! (duh)

            5) Why isn’t the violation of conservation of mass noticible in sensitive laboratory measurements?
            What?

            6) Why don’t we see a systematic change in the Earth’s gravitational field? (We can measure it to 1 part in 10^10 — enough to detect a 1 cm increase in the Earth’s diameter.)
            Probably a cover-up by grant ($) hungry, one world government types.

            Sorry Bob, I was just trying out my new John Brookes glasses… :)


            Report this

            00

          • #
            BobC

            Mark D.
            June 18, 2012 at 1:48 pm

            Sorry Bob, I was just trying out my new John Brookes glasses…

            Hopefully you have kept the receipt, as your glasses are obviously malfunctioning — Correctly operating John Brookes glasses could never show a “cover-up by grant ($) hungry, one world government types”, but only by Big Oil, Coal companies, and Right-Wing Billionaires.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Kevin Moore

        Tony

        With 2 incomes needed now to keep a family in their necessaries and comforts and the Carbon Tax increasing at 6% [?] a year, I think we are quickly reaching the situation described here by Thomas Jefferson. – What do you think the average household power bill will be in 4 or 5 years time?

        “…And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have not time to think, no means of calling the mismanager’s to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow sufferers…” — (Thomas Jefferson) THE MAKING OF AMERICA, p. 395


        Report this

        00

      • #
        BobC

        TonyfromOz
        June 17, 2012 at 11:16 am · Reply

        That being the case, would not the Continental land mass of Australia been in a cooler area and then moved Northwards to a warmer area, hence, of itself, making it seem that over the millennia, Australia has indeed warmed, not from actual warming but from moving from a colder place to a warmer place, if you can see that.

        This might be true of many places on Earth — I don’t remember ever seeing a correction done for it in reconstructions of paleotemperatures. Of course, nobody puts much stock in reconstructions of the Earth’s temperature 600,000,000 years ago anyway.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Broccoli Fan

    Q. Do you believe in climate change?

    A. “Belief” belongs to religion. Believe is what you do in the absence of evidence.
    Science relies on evidence not belief.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      • #
        memoryvault

        .
        WOW Matt.

        What a a stunningly clever riposte.
        How can us mere mortals compete with such clever witty, incisive criticism?

        .
        Got your spare jumper?
        Current events in large parts of the NH would suggest you’ll need it soon, even down here.

        Wouldn’t want you catching your death from cold, would we – as my great-grandmum used to say.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        The Black Adder

        MattB,

        do you know 97% of knuckleheads think you are cool!

        :)


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Brian of Moorabbin

        MattB
        June 17, 2012 at 8:19 pm · Reply

        what a crock.

        Which part Matt?

        That religeon relies on belief (faith)?
        Or that science relies on evidence?


        Report this

        00

      • #
        BobC

        Broccoli Fan:

        Science relies on evidence not belief.

        MattB:

        what a crock.

        And why would MattB think that something that is so obvious, so self-evidently true, is a crock?

        Science, for MattB, is indistinguisible from belief. Apparently, he didn’t learn to analyze while getting his physics degree. Unfortunately, this is a characteristic of our educational system — independent thinkers are a pain and cause extra work for the teacher, so simple rote memorization is what’s rewarded. A few other skills are rewarded as well, such as a facility in mathematical manipulation — but God help the student who wonders aloud what the mathematics actually stands for.

        The real progress in science is made by independent thinkers who usually learn to hide that fact while undergoing their ‘education’ so as not to make waves.
        Many, however, fail to heed Mark Twain’s advice: “Never let your schooling interfere with your education.”


        Report this

        00

      • #
        MattB

        Because science relies on interpretations and assumptions… the conclusion is what we BELIEVE to be the case based upon the evidence available to us. Belief is most certainly the basis of religion… but it does not follow that anything we “believe” is a religion.

        Thus the comment “belief belongs to religion” is a crock.

        Lets have a look at the Collins definition:

        World English Dictionary
        belief (bɪˈliːf)

        — n
        1. a principle, proposition, idea, etc, accepted as true
        2. opinion; conviction
        3. religious faith
        4. trust or confidence, as in a person or a person’s abilities, probity, etc

        SO only 1 of 4 is “religion”. so “I believe increases in CO2 caused by man is causing climate change” is the same as saying “It is my opinion, based upon the evidence available to me, that increases in CO2 caused by man is causing climate change.”

        So if anyone believes my comment “what a crock” is out of place then I’m afraid your belief is not based on the available evidence.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          MattB

          So just to add… if we look at science over the years there are literally hundreds of thousands of examples where new evidence changed what is known. Now the actual physical thing didn’t change, just what we knew about it, but that does not mean that what we used to think was a religion even though we only “believed it” to be true (after all it was false!).

          Accepting that new evidence may appear that could challenge pretty much anything we understand about the universe (and I’ll cite Louis Hissink’s electric universe stuff) I think is critical to being a good scientist. And that boils down to being man enough to accept that we all just believe our interpretation of what we think the evidence is saying.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          BobC

          MattB
          June 18, 2012 at 1:50 pm · Reply

          Belief is most certainly the basis of religion… but it does not follow that anything we “believe” is a religion.

          Nor does the comment “belief belongs to religion” imply that “anything we believe is a religion”. You are arguing that an incorrect logical conclusion drawn from Broccoli Fan’s comment is wrong — a meaningless tautology.

          Then, you give us the Collins Dictionary definitions:

          belief (bɪˈliːf)

          — n
          1. a principle, proposition, idea, etc, accepted as true
          2. opinion; conviction
          3. religious faith
          4. trust or confidence, as in a person or a person’s abilities, probity, etc

          and conclude:

          so “I believe increases in CO2 caused by man is causing climate change” is the same as saying “It is my opinion, based upon the evidence available to me, that increases in CO2 caused by man is causing climate change.”
          [My emphasis]

          But, none of the four definitions you rely on mentions anything about “evidence”. Again, you are constructing an argument based on an unsupported deduction.

          All you’re doing Matt, is arguing against yourself.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    “Control the vocabulary and you control the agenda”. Don’t know who said it. But you are right Jo.

    I suspect part of the problem also stems from someone with a science background trying to explain to a semi-literate committee at the UN the basics. There would be a lot lost in the translation. Transferring “n” years of science into the mind of someone consumed by the political agenda is a difficult task (witness mattb). UN committees seek to reduce any subject to a few catchphrases so that they can make a press release.

    It’s just bureaucrats at work.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    And Gore spoke all these words, saying: “I am the Lord your Gore, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and out of the house of bondage.

    You shall have no other gods other than yourselves and your celebrity scientists and heroes like me!
    You are all now omnipotent climate destroying machines and you all need to pull it back.
     
    You shall make for yourself renewables – anything that can be powered from the heaven above, or fromthe earth beneath, or from the water under the earth; except ofcourse coal and oil which is evil and you are not allowed to use it!

    you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your Gore, am a jealous Gore. visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My ecommandments.
     
    You shall not take the name of the Lord your Gore in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
     
    Remember the Earth day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your Gore. In it you shall not use electricity: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them sustainable and then rested the seventh day on two transcontinental flights first class ofcourse. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
     
    Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you. Unless they don’t believe in global warming in which case expose them with the res button 10:10.
     
    You shall not murder. Unless thy friends will not cut down their Co2 emissions by 10%, then you shall cut them down in the namesake of your Gore you lord.
     
    You shall not commit adultery. Unless they are really hot.
     
    You shall not steal. (just joking! Got you!)
     
    You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Unless you are convincing him via Gore your lords hockey stick.
     
    You shall not covet your neighbor’s house with solar panels; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s. Without first explaining the Benefis of selling power back to the grid at an inflated price.

    And God spoke all these words, saying: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

    You shall have no other gods before me.
     
    You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
     
    You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
     
    Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
     
    Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
     
    You shall not murder.
     
    You shall not commit adultery.
     
    You shall not steal.
     
    You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
     
    You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    And Gore spoke all these words, saying: “I am the Lord your Gore, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and out of the house of bondage.

    You shall have no other gods other than yourselves and your celebrity scientists and heroes like me!
    You are all now omnipotent climate destroying machines and you all need to pull it back.
     
    You shall make for yourself renewables – anything that can be powered from the heaven above, or fromthe earth beneath, or from the water under the earth; except ofcourse coal and oil which is evil and you are not allowed to use it!

    you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your Gore, am a jealous Gore. visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My ecommandments.
     
    You shall not take the name of the Lord your Gore in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
     
    Remember the Earth day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your Gore. In it you shall not use electricity: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them sustainable and then rested the seventh day on two transcontinental flights first class ofcourse. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
     
    Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you. Unless they don’t believe in global warming in which case expose them with the res button 10:10.
     
    You shall not murder. Unless thy friends will not cut down their Co2 emissions by 10%, then you shall cut them down in the namesake of your Gore you lord.
     
    You shall not commit adultery. Unless they are really hot.
     
    You shall not steal. (just joking! Got you!)
     
    You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Unless you are convincing him via Gore your lords hockey stick.
     
    You shall not covet your neighbor’s house with solar panels; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s. Without first explaining the benefis of selling power back to the grid at an inflated price.

    And God spoke all these words, saying: “I am the Lord your Gore, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Gee Aye

      wow Gore did this twice!

      Funny about the word “belief”. Let’s not let this forum become a dictionary denial site.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Gee Aye

        I believe that Australia will qualify for the next world cup. I believe that Australia qualified for the last two world cups.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          MattB

          I believe Australia will win the next world cup.

          I believe Austrialia won the last world cup.

          There are just so many angles to believe!


          Report this

          00

          • #

            Australia has already won the World Cup twice, in 91 and 99.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Hard to believe eh!

            Four gold medals have been awarded for Rugby at the Olympic Games, and the U.S. won two of them.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            MattB

            too many world cups!


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Gee Aye

            well thanks for saving me from getting tainted by actually agreeing with you even though I did. The “believe” conversation above was so stupid. So many jumped on you because of who you are and did not even bother to parse the conversation. The above exchange shows that Tony, it is obvious, can see that this is a simple thing about dictionary definition and common usage.

            There are a number of sceptics here who really worry about their sceptical contemporaries. When they fight against comments from someone they disagree with on the subject of AGW, even if that person is saying something they agree with, are obviously just being bloody minded and are probably not people who thing carefully about what they read. They are not applying a sceptical eye to what they read.

            so to go completely off topic is there anyone who agrees with this…

            A. “Belief” belongs to religion. Believe is what you do in the absence of evidence.
            Science relies on evidence not belief.

            and why?

            I don’t


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Hey look! It’s Britney Spears!

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            BobC

            Gee Aye
            June 18, 2012 at 9:02 pm

            …this is a simple thing about dictionary definition and common usage.

            I would say it’s more about MattB constructing strawman arguments about others’ comments — constructing strawman arguments using dictionary definitions is a new direction for him, but strawman arguments he is well practiced at.

            …is there anyone who agrees with this

            “Science relies on evidence not belief.”

            and why?

            Try replacing “Science” with “Engineering” — and imagining what the world might be like if that weren’t true. Maybe that will make it clearer.

            “Science” can probably tolerate a certain amount of unsupported belief, since it doesn’t matter much if any particular piece of science is true or not. Once you start seriously proposing risky actions based on “science”, however, you had better start treating it as engineering — where the only thing that matters is whether it is true or not. No one’s beliefs are of the slightest importance.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Dave

            .
            GeeAye,

            You have got to be more accurate in your replies!

            MattyB stated:

            I believe Austrialia won the last world cup.

            There is no such country, state etc.
            But you say:

            They are not applying a sceptical eye to what they read.

            Does not this include being correct? The mirror is a good judge! :)


            Report this

            00

  • #
    John Seabrook

    I can’t speak for all the agendas I read on this sight, but I can say this: Mildura, Victoria, Australia experienced six consecutive days over 40 degrees celsius in early 2001. Three more than the previous record set some 30 years prior. Not particularly unusual, until you consider the the next ‘hot spell’ In February 2009, that record was smashed with 14 consecutive days over 40. Furthermore, in the summer of 2010, they received the highest summer rainfall in a century. D[SNIP]s will no doubt say that records are made to be broken, but I think it’s more than just fickle weather. ‘just imagine if we could have done something, but chose not to.’

    John Seabrook, we do NOT permit use of the “D” word (or variations).
    ED


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    John Seabrook
    June 19, 2012 at 12:11 am · Reply

    ‘just imagine if we could have done something, but chose not to.’

    You make a lot of unexamined assumptions:

    1) You assume that warmer temperatures (and higher CO2) is bad. The stark differences in Human welfare between the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age strongly suggests that you are wrong. If you think that feeding Earth’s increasing Human population is a good idea, then more CO2 is an excellent idea — commercial greenhouse operators routinely double or triple the CO2 concentrations inside their greenhouses to enhance production. In addition, warmer temperatures will bring vast areas of land into potential cultivation (Canada and Siberia, for example).

    2) If you think that getting the Earth’s Human population under control is important, then limiting access to cheap energy virtually guarentees that you won’t be able to. Societies only reproduce below maintaince level when they are relatively wealthy, and cheap energy is the key to wealth.

    3) If by ‘doing something’ you mean severely limiting Human emission of CO2, then you won’t be doing anything that matters — even the IPCC’s models show a trivial effect on global temperatures even if all advanced societies are plunged into abject energy (and real) poverty.

    Perhaps you should worry about “doing something that matters”, rather than just “doing something that makes you feel good”. Nature doesn’t give a damn about moral posturing.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Winston

      If it was possible Bob, I’d give you several thumbs up for that reply.

      Unfortunately, deluded people like “John Seabrook” think that the sum total of human existence begins and ends within their lifetime. In Aristotelian fashion, the world didn’t exist before they experienced it, and so out of the narcissistic elevation of self, the concept that these “record” temperatures were no doubt exceeded in Mildura or anywhere else outside the pitifully short (and incredibly doctored and manipulated) temperature record is something he cannot grasp. Because it was not measured, it never could have happened. And more troubling is to note that, like a drowning man, he invokes what I call the “nonspecific precautionary principle”- running from a perceived threat that may or may not be real, only to run across a main road to be hit by a bus. There are consequences to all actions, irregardless of the moral foundation of that action. A full and impartial assessment of appropriate actions in any circumstances needs to include assessment of whether a “threat” is real, over what time frame must one act, and what are the consequences likely in each response generated. John’s impersonation of a headless chicken, running around in a blind panic, will ensure that precisely the wrong decision is made in respect of mankind’s future direction for civilisation. Unfortunately, he is also just as likely to have limited capacity to understand just how ignorant and ill-conceived his belief system truly is.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Reggieman

    Hi Jo

    This is OT, but my 15 year old son came home from school this afternoon and showed me his science assignment he wrote in his Year 9 science class today. If you will allow me, I’d like to copy it here in full:

    Nuclear energy

    1. Do you think nuclear power should be used in Australia? Why/ Why not?

    I strongly believe that Nuclear power should be used here in Australia because it is a very efficient power source considering, that we are running out of fossil fuels and we buy oil from other countries.

    Firstly, there are many debates about is Nuclear power safe. The greens followers are convinced that we should change from Nuclear power to wind turbines for a more safe and more efficient future with power. The main problem about wind turbines though is that when there is a strong wind the turbines spin to fast and the engine inside breaks down. Also they try to say that they want a cleaner planet by recycling and yet the materials that are used to make the wind turbines are not recyclable. So what does that tell you.

    Secondly, people are trying to change to solar power instead of fossil fuels and nuclear power. But solar energy isn’t the best solution for a better future. Firstly because they are expensive to buy and install and not many people have enough money to be able to afford solar power. Secondly because they don’t get much power each day. They may store sum power but you need the sun out to be able to gain energy. Now if your somebody that uses a lot of electricity solar power wont be the best power source for you.

    Also, The greens are playing scare campaigns to scare people out of using Nuclear power by pretty much saying if we continue with nuclear power they will all explode and we will all die from radiation. Now that is not fully true. There have only been 3 recorded nuclear melt downs. The first one was the three mile Island accident in 1979, then there was Chernobyl in 1986 and lastly there was Fukushima in 2011 which was last year. As you can see nuclear meltdowns rarely ever happen. We don’t have to be scared of Nuclear power because nuclear plants don’t always melt down.

    Lastly, they try to get us out of using nuclear power because of “carbon dioxide”. The greens are saying that it is a big pollutant and is contributing a lot to global warming. But once again this is lies and a scare campaign so they can bring in the carbon tax. Carbon dioxide is a pollutant but if you have ever done science with plants like agriculture, plants eat carbon dioxide and create oxygen. This process is called photosynthesis. And carbon dioxide only contributes in a small way to global warming so this is yet another scare campaign.

    In conclusion I very strongly believe that we should use Nuclear power here in Australia as our power source with fossil fuels.

    I am so proud!


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Hey Reggie, buy that kid a flavoured milk on my behalf.

      Oh what the hell, stuff being pc and buy the kid a beer, he deserves it


      Report this

      00

    • #
      MattB

      your problem is he thinks we are running out of fossil fuels. It is also a shame that he doesn’t spend enough time on nuclear power and instead decides to answer “what is bad about wind and solar” and “do you think AGW is a genuine concern”.

      He also seems to think that a lot of things are due to “greens followers” but seems unaware that the greens have never been a government majority and have until this term never even been a coalition style partner… so really his issues should be with the ALP and Libs and Nats.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      MattB

      “the materials that are used to make the wind turbines are not recyclable”
      not true

      “The greens followers are convinced that we should change from Nuclear power to wind turbines” – not true – we dont’t have any nuclear to change from.

      “The main problem about wind turbines though is that when there is a strong wind the turbines spin to fast and the engine inside breaks down” – not true. The main problem is that they don’t produce enough power when we need it.

      “Now if your somebody” you’re

      “So what does that tell you.” he really needs a question mark here…

      “They may store sum power”… needs to stop using texting lingo at skool.

      “Also, The greens are playing scare campaigns to scare people out of using Nuclear power by pretty much saying if we continue with nuclear power they will all explode and we will all die from radiation” well no one is really saying that are they?

      “Now that is not fully true”… so it IS partially true? remember I’m a nuclear fan.

      “We don’t have to be scared of Nuclear power because nuclear plants don’t always melt down.” but they do sometimes yeah? Look the Japanese have loads of nuclear plants that don’t always melt down… and they seem to want them all closed because one DID melt down…

      “Lastly, they try to get us out of using nuclear power because of “carbon dioxide”.” why the quotes? is “carbon dioxide” something that is pretend?

      Seriously this kid would do well to read a text book and not listen to dad so much. his conclusion is good though. 65% B


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Dave

        .
        MattyB

        Spelling & Grammar! :) You’re joking!
        Let’s do a compliation of all your comments for the last year!

        We could send it in PDF format to all the voters in the upcoming election!

        The content will be the big factor – don’t you think! Or is this a Crock also!
        .

        You can’t even spell Australia MattyB!
        Here – just above

        I believe Austrialia won the last world cup.

        Yes VOTE 10 MattyB for councilloreirhrnebdgst??????
        Not a good look MattyB!


        Report this

        00

        • #
          MattB

          you clown. I’m not submitting my posts here for assessment!


          Report this

          00

          • #
            BobC

            MattB
            June 20, 2012 at 12:29 am · Reply
            you clown. I’m not submitting my posts here for assessment!

            Then perhaps you should knock off the pcayune criticism of young people learning to think for themselves. Complaints like this simply brand you as a hypocrite.

            It obviously took courage and self-confidence for Reggiman’s son to submit that essay. What errors he made pale in comparison to yours, especially given the supposed ‘benefit’ of your greater experience. Don’t be jealous.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Reggieman

    You’re a big man MattB to criticise a boy’s grammar and punctuation, aren’t you? Typical warmist cultist behaviour.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      MattB

      I gave him a B didn’t I?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      MattB

      I note it would probably also be typical warmist cultish behaviour if I were to champion my own child’s essay because it had a conclusion I agreed with regardless of the quality of the content or the argument?

      In the future if my boy wrote an essay that said “there is a push to consider nuclear in Australia, but nuclear plants blow up all the time and wind turbines and solar panels are totes awesome. Some people also don’t believe in climate change but they are sucked in by propaganda from oil companies that is so innacurate it is LOLworthy.” then I hope I show him how to better research and express his arguments rather than post “How awesome is my kid” at a greenie blog.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    [...] the economy. Because of a natural alliance between ICT visionaries and the movement to combat man-made climate change, we can increasingly look to this sector for inspiration in the ongoing effort to reduce [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Seabrook

    Winston, your meandering response to my completely accurate and compelling observations can only be described with one word : waffle. I merely reported some understandably erratic weather events, and suggested that we should perhaps take notice. You should be the one examining your own ‘belief system’ and not insult me with your arrogant claptrap. BTW, what exactly is a belief system? It’s obvious mine is lacking, and I’d dearly love to have yours. After all, it has all the answers.


    Report this

    00

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>