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



Denialists will soon run the show? Not at all. Those in denial are losing to the realists.

O woe betide those who are losing. Graham Readfearn moans and laments the Green-Labor losses that are likely to come nationally in the near future. Readfern packs the whole kit-and-kaboodle of fallacies, misnomers, and confounded reasoning into one article.

“Anyone who places any stock in safeguarding the current and future climate (and for that matter anyone who doesn’t) should prepare themselves for the risk that very soon, climate science deniers, contrarians and sceptics will be running the show.

But who are the deniers here? Readfearn fashions himself as a bit of an expert on deniers, so you’d think he’d be able to say what they deny. But Readfearn thinks skeptics deny that CO2 absorbs infra red:

“To Pearson and others, the experiments of John Tyndall in 1859 which established the warming properties of what we now know to be greenhouse gases just didn’t happen.

Dear Graham, if you bother to get accurate you’ll note that Spencer, Lindzen, Monckton, Michaels, Douglass, Singer, Idso, Knox, Soon, Svensmark, Christie, Watts, Carter, Giaever, Schmitt and I could go on (Evans, and dare I say Nova in that list) — all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It may come as a surprise to you — a shock by golly — but the debate (which you evidently aren’t aware of) is not about whether CO2 absorbs infra red, but whether that warming effect is significant.

It’s the feedbacks Graham. Feedbacks. It’s time to admit that the debate is about the amplifying feedbacks (present in simulations of the climate, but not so in the real climate). Graham, as long as you pretend that “Tyndall denial” is what the debate is about, you are misrepresenting the science. What can I say? You are in denial.

Readfearn can’t name any evidence to back his faith, or presumably he would have rushed to send me that mystery paper with evidence I’ve been asking for for 30 months. Yet despite his “scientific analysis” being nothing more than an obedient yes-man for committees and associations, he thinks people who disagree with him are deluded and taking science towards astrology.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (148 votes cast)
Denialists will soon run the show? Not at all. Those in denial are losing to the realists., 9.1 out of 10 based on 148 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/6pbkqoh

239 comments to Denialists will soon run the show? Not at all. Those in denial are losing to the realists.

  • #
  • #
    Andrew McRae

    But Readfearn thinks skeptics deny that CO2 absorbs infra red

    Well the kerfuffle is not about the existence of a CO2 absorption spectrum but rather a handful of slayers and science mavericks questioning whether IR absorption at ~ 4000nm amounts to more than a hill of beans at current temperatures and concentrations and amidst all the other available energy transport vectors.

    he thinks people who disagree with him are deluded and taking science towards astrology.

    You mean making predictions so vague and disjunctive that some part would have to come true regardless of what happens? I thought the warmists were already doing that.
    But surely there is no chance the government will send 8 billion dollars a year to astrologers?

    Hmmm, don’t think Mr Redfearn is going to get much positive feedback in the future…


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Gah, I blame first comment haste. Correction to the above, which I wrote from memory without rechecking the diagram. The relevant band for CO2 is more like 12000nm, not 4000 nm. I do detest it when I see other skeptics spreading falsehoods so am happy to correct my error here. We are all after the truth, I hope.

      Also, that gag about astrologers was a bit of a stretch. If warmists were really like astrologers they might give more credit to our nearest star (and our orbit around it) for modern climate change.
          Let Rajendra, India’s leading mystic, predict your climate! Call 1-900-GLACIER

      Skeptical readers may find Global Warming Alarmism prognostication bears a closer resemblance to Cold Reading. (Nominative irony duly noted. Irony that Michael Shermer believed in CAGW also noted.)

      But I know you want more.

      In researching this comment I found a rather interesting ruling from the ACCC which referred to both electricity pricing and astrology.
      You probably think I am joking. I quote the relevant paragraph with my own emphasis bolded:

      (c) the meaning of the concept of “persuasive evidence”
      Evidence is simply material that logically and cogently supports a particular conclusion.
      In a quasi-judicial setting, Diplock LJ in R v Deputy Industrial Injuries Cmr; Ex parte
      Moore, held that:
      “The requirement that a person exercising quasi-judicial functions must base his
      decision on evidence means no more than that it must be based upon material
      which tends logically to show the existence or non-existence of facts relevant to the
      issue to be determined, or to show the likelihood or unlikelihood of the occurrence
      of some future event the occurrence of which will be relevant. It means that he
      must not spin a coin or consult an astrologer
      , but he may take into account any
      material which, as a matter of reason, has some probative value in the sense
      mentioned above. If it is capable of having any probative value, the weight to be
      attached to it is a matter for the person to whom Parliament has entrusted the
      responsibility of deciding the issue. The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court
      does not entitle it to usurp this responsibility and to substitute its own view for
      his.

      I doubt The Free Dictionary can be relied upon as accurate for Australian jurisdiction, but their definition for “probative value” is nonetheless intriguing:

      relevant evidence, which tends to prove or disprove an alleged fact, may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

      Could this mean that if skeptics tried to bring a case against the CEC in the ACCC for “dubious claims of product efficacy w.r.t. the GHG emissions market actually reducing global warming”, could the ACCC and the High Court both be sidelined by a government minion by giving low weighting to (real) scientific evidence and simply claiming other adverse circumstantial evidence is merely confusing the issues, misleading the jury, causing undue delay, waste of time, or is unnecessary to the case? It seems like a big escape clause to me.

      Lawyers in the house… answers on a postcard please.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Andrew

      The “hill of beans” post that you refernce is a great short, clear article.

      As the writer says, it is not the whole story on CO2.

      All that the diagrams show when comparing water vapour and CO2 is the compound specific absorption frequencies.

      Further processing of the information is required.

      The relative quantities available in the atmosphere to carry out the ground IR absorption would be a totally different graph.

      Water vapour would show up as a major absorber and the CO2 by comparison would be a flat line, being almost zero by comparison.

      A remake of Fig 4 with atmospheric fractions rather than percentages would show the green CO2 as a flat line. Insignificant.

      It’s always good to have the whole picture as the writer hinted at the end because warmers are prone to presenting only half the story and leaving out the good bits.

      KK :)


      Report this

      00

  • #
    DougS

    Joanne usually gives these ignorant journos a lengthy ‘kicking’ and a few lessons in logic.

    Readfearn can consider himself let off lightly, sliced up in few short paragraphs.

    Presumably Jo was, either feeling generous, or just decided he wasn’t worth any more of her time.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kneel 8250

    Can we get Tony Abbott to understand these facts soon rather than have to try and get him to understand it after the Election. Whenever the Election may be.
    (Please make the Election in November)

    Kneel.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gbees

    Quality journalism in the warming camp disappeared a long time ago. I’m not surprised that such rot is written. There’s plenty of money to be had if you tow the warmist party line. No need to investigate the truth. That’s too hard and doesn’t pay.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    It remains, to this day, simply outrageous to call us Climate Deniers because of its uncontested association with Holocaust Denier. But to call them Deniers is to tacitly accept the insult as acceptable. No it isn’t.
    Those on our side that claim righteousness seem to think it’s fine for us to be called Denier, but when I create a thesaurus type listing of synonyms for warmists I was censored, and called out as an unjustified insulter. I almost felt like a racist… I had synonyms to describe warmists that fall into categories of warmists are nuts, liars & deceivers, users of mumbo jumbo, propagandists, political radicals, and fear-mongers (doomsayers). Few skeptics would claim that these aren’t justified or backed by evidence like Climategate. Other than perhaps the too harsh (but often true [consider the exploding heads video!]) “fascists” term, all my “insults” must be considered less insulting than the “Denier” insult hurled at us.
    It’s important to note that ridicule of the opposition, as outlined in Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, is a key component of the leftists and warmists playbook. This has been a proven effective technique to discredit us, and I say, especially in light of their huge huge financial and resource advantage, we should, with discretion, go ahead and return the favor to them when it is appropriate and furthers the cause of discrediting them. This is a war, as Peter Gleick himself recently said, and we can’t unilaterally disarms ourselves and expect to win.
    The very synonyms that I listed are used frequently on this and other skeptic sites. But, maybe putting the synonyms all together at once in a list was just too much to bear, I don’t know. Jo, if you have any specific concerns about my synonym list, you could give a reply or even email me. Thanks.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      inedible hyperbowl

      It would seem to me that those of us who thing CAGW is an outright scam, are a loose collection of (outraged) scientists, mathematicians, engineers and people of good common sense. The media argument is between this group and propagandists. My money is on the propagandists.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      michael hart

      Eric, I take your point, but I usually have to suppress a private chuckle whenever the “D word” is trotted out.

      People who ever enjoyed watching Wayne’s World on TV might enjoy thinking about whether us sceptics will be “Denied” a “Stairway to Heaven”. Laughter can cure many things.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddd7OGMmjKc
      :)


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pattoh

    The way I see it the likes of Redfearn are just the graffiti on the walls of the “battery-hen “cages which our lords & masters have built for us (with the MSM), by keeping us ignorant & afraid of the dark (AGW or whatever). Oh we, the faithful, are so grateful for the protection & peace of mind we get from our benevolent & omnipotent saviours that we will happily support their efforts through increased taxes & rock solid mandates! (sorry, the sarc button is a bit sticky)

    You just have to wonder how short & sharp the inevitable reaction will be, what the next fear will be, who the next bunch of self-righteous do-gooders will be & who the ultimate puppet masters will be.
    Personally I suspect that the only ones which will remain in play will be the puppet masters.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ally E.

    What’s this? Have they run out of things to frighten us with? Are they trying to resort to scaring our knickers off with the looming absence of greenies??? Oh no! /sarc. :P


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Phil Ford

    Excellent piece, Jo. The shrill, almost medieval accusation of ‘Denier!’ from pro-CAGW fanatics becomes ever more telling as climate reality simply refuses to conform to their expensive, tax-payer funded ‘climate models’. It must chafe, in this age of endangered grant funding, to say the very least. Reality is funny like that – just has a way of putting the kibosh on all such folly – in this case a ‘grand illusion’ for our generation.

    I often wonder how future generations will look back on this time of climate alarmism. I suspect they won’t be generous to ‘the science’, let alone the cowardly policy makers who pay for it.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Jo-

    For the side that is ignoring reality and redefining science itself to be worried someone else is navigating the path towards astrology must be the ultimate in hypocrisy.

    As I have written about Australia is heavily into constructivism which denies objectivity. It is pushing science as sense making and interactions within a community.

    This post is just as true about Australia if not more so as lays out the shifts in human thinking needed to get the desired changes in basic values and behaviors to create a sustainable culture and economy. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/real-change-will-require-new-values-and-new-ways-of-thinking-or-social-engineering-is-hard/

    The reason I had become familiar with the Bronfenbrenner Ecological Systems Theory in the first place was from tracking education in Australia and New Zealand. Just a political theory designed to obtain a social and economic transformation. Pretending to be a learning theory to gain implementation in the schools and classrooms.

    Only one side is trying to both ignore reality and alter it.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I wonder if he paints such a stawman intentionally, so as to continue to demonise skeptics, in order to maintain the many misconceptions ignorant Fairfax readers have about us, or is he himself an ignorant Fairfax journo?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Winston

    Redfearn represents the “Mung beans and Moonbeams” brigade admirably (where’s that darn sarc tag again?). He should have entitled his article “King Canute has a Hissy Fit”. I can only imagine the enthusiasm he would have for a comprehensive Royal Commission with the broadest terms of reference to remove that hideous specter of skeptical “pseudoscience” threatening to compromise valid scientific principles and methodology once and for all? That would really show those sceptics who’s boss! And he reckons we are the ones in denial!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    SNAFU

    Jo, is your first (Graham Readfearn) link correct? I think you need this one:
    ‘Pseudo-science thrives in new political climate’

    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/pseudoscience-thrives-in-new-political-climate-20120718-22944.html?rand=2521974

    (link provided opens to ‘Climate ‘propaganda’ on LNP summit hit list’)

    I also notice that this has been taken up by the ‘Academy of Empty Heads’ over here:

    ‘Coalition of the Rational: if the deniers will soon occupy all levels of government, how should we respond?’

    http://watchingthe deniers.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/coalition-of-the-rational-if-the-deniers-will-soon-occupy-all-levels-of-government-how-should-we-respond/

    ————————————————————
    The first link is correct though the two articles are very similar. It looks like some warmists are throwing in the towel. – Mod

    Sorry — SNAFU was right, and I fixed it, but was distracted for hours til now, to say thanks! Apologies. Jo


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      I’ve always thought they have a rather higher opinion of themselves than their actual accomplishments can justify. It looks like they’re proving me right.

      Unfortunately I see “counter power” in the wordpress article and that looks like a euphemism for coercion in some form or another.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Bite Back

    Can I just put on my usual SOB hat and say I hope he’s right that those he calls “denialists” will be running the show? I’ll feel a lot safer that way.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    jo,
    your link to Redfearn is not now linking to the article u quote, but to the following:

    13 July: Brisbane Times: Daniel Hurst: Climate ‘propaganda’ on LNP summit hit list
    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/climate-propaganda-on-lnp-summit-hit-list-20120712-21ygz.html

    the correct url (at least for now) is:

    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/pseudoscience-thrives-in-new-political-climate-20120718-22944.html

    as for Redfearn’s finale “our descent into the deluded world of pseudo-science occupied by astrology, creationism, crystal healing and homeopathy is almost complete” made me laugh as, apart from creationism, these are the very things those i know who are still CAGW believers are into. Redfearn could just alienate the believers with this kind of talk!

    ———————————————————————
    Must have been a glitch, Snafu had the same problem but all is OK now – Mod


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    i take back my exclusion of “creationism” from the CAGW zealots set of beliefs. after all, they do believe “Climate Change” began with the IPCC.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      AndyG55

      The creationist MUST accept that we should be burning coal… why else was it put into storage for so long, but for our use and benefit. ;-)


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Indeed, but the mystery doesn’t end there.

        Andrew Grant, CEO of CO2 Australia‘s Carbon Sequestration Program, and Beelzebub, prince of the demons, have never been seen in the same room at the same time.

        Merely chance, or something more?

        You be the judge. ;)


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Creationists cop a flogging on many science boards around the net. But on this account you would be correct. God Provides is the principle theme of how God prepares before hand for our needs. Before we needed it, God provided it. To then not use it is not only foolish for no good purpose, but is also a slap in the face toward God for what he provided.

      Some churches may be either confused, or simply trying to ride public opinion. Running “with” the popular subject instead sticking with what they know.

      You might not understand why Christians believe in God, but that doesn’t mean it’s an irrational belief. Many, who become Christian, have converted from unbelief because they found sufficient evidence/reason to convince them that God is real. You (the inclusive you) might not have found it yet, but many have. It’s not irrational.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    Redfearn is typical of ‘Climate Scarecrows’ everywhere.
    Spends far too much time producing lots of little strawmen!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    AndyG55

    aghh , I like some of those suggestions in the first link, Pat,

    Making large union’s finances open to their members, and having the same legal finacial requirements as a business.. The union bosses sure aren’t going to like that one !! :-) Where are they going to get the money for that house/extension from? or that overseas trip? or the escort agency?

    And getting rid of the climate propaganda brainwashing from the education system.. sweet !!!

    Come on Mr O’Farrell, these are good pointers for the correct direction !!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Speedy

      Andy

      Have a look at what Larry Pickering is saying about Gillard’s shonky past. (Google Pickering Post.com).

      It explains why she’s protecting Thomson – because the same justice would crucify her!

      Cheers,

      Speedy


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Readfern is a talentless alter boy attempting to become a priest of the Global Warming Doomsday Cult!

    The classic rentseeker…or is parasite a more apt desciptor?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    Reuters CAGW propagandists at it again:

    20 July: Reuters: Barbara Lewis: EU Commission to publish ETS rescue plan next week
    (Additional reporting by Jeffrey Coelho in London and Francesco Guarascio in Brussels; Editing by Luke Baker and David Goodman)
    It has decided on a two-step process to reinforce the legality of what is meant to be a relatively quick fix to the market’s weakness…
    At a meeting on July 25, the EU’s executive will adopt a proposal clarifying an article of the ETS law on the timing of auctions of permits.
    Commission spokeswoman Pia Ahrenkilde Hansen said the Commission would also “transmit to member states a draft for a future adaptation of the timing when emissions allowances would be auctioned”.
    She added that all interested parties would be able to express their views on the proposal for the delaying of carbon allowance auctions, referred to as backloading.
    The Commission would not say how long the process will take, but EU sources said that it hopes the use of a streamlined EU procedure — known as comitology — for the backloading proposal will allow it to be completed within months. Other methods of passing EU legislation can take substantially longer…
    Fears about a delay to the Commission’s effort to support the carbon market pushed it down to a low of 6.67 euros per tonne on Thursday. On Friday it rose by about 4 percent to more than 7 euros, but this is still far below the level of 20 to 50 euros that analysts say is necessary to support low-carbon investment…
    Most member states are also said to back the idea of a fix, and an Energy Efficiency Directive agreed in June was accompanied by a declaration of intent that there was a need to support the carbon market.
    ***Poland, however, which is heavily dependent on carbon-intensive coal, has said there is no justification for meddling. It says that the ETS was set up to cut emissions, rather than establish a carbon price, and that a weak market is helpful in difficult economic times.
    From the business sector, oil and gas companies including Royal Dutch Shell have called for intervention because carbon prices are too low to drive technologies, such as carbon capture and storage…
    Heavy industry is resistant to intervention and some have questioned the legality of the Commission’s proposal; doubts that the legal clarification is designed to quash.
    Even if the Commission succeeds with its proposal to delay the auction of some permits, many analysts say that the real need is to remove allowances permanently, which would require a much more detailed EU process.
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/07/20/uk-eu-ets-idUKBRE86J11L20120720


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    doesn’t your hear just bleed for these carbon dioxide vultures?

    20 July: Bloomberg: Matthew Carr: Greenhouse Projects Watch as EU Polluters Profit: Lobby
    Developers of United Nations- sanctioned emission-reduction projects say they are “bitter” as polluting factories in Europe may be making more money buying their credits than they can by selling them.
    ThyssenKrupp AG, Germany’s biggest steelmaker, and Tata Steel Ltd. can profit from emissions trading at a time when share prices for two publicly listed project developers, Camco International Ltd. (CAO) and Trading Emissions (TRE) Plc, are slumping amid last year’s record oversupply in the European Union market…

    Factories and power stations can get 3.88 euros ($4.76) a metric ton today by selling European Union permits they were given for free by the bloc’s governments and replacing them with purchases of UN emission credits generated in developing countries. That’s 91 euro cents a ton, or 31 percent, more than the 2.97 euro price of UN credits themselves. The differential matched a record 1.21 euros earlier today.
    “All the hard work and the risk we take is not being rewarded,” said Gareth Phillips, chairman of the Project Developer Forum, the London industry group representing 30 greenhouse-gas cutting companies. He is chief climate change officer at Sindicatum Sustainable Resources Group Ltd., the Singapore-based developer of carbon offset credits. “It’s a big windfall profit for the compliance companies” and some emission-cutting companies are somewhat “bitter” about that, he said…

    Verified Pollution
    Bob Jones, a spokesman for Tata Steel in London, declined to comment when reached by phone July 17. Erwin Schneider, a spokesman for ThyssenKrupp in Essen, Germany, didn’t return a call July 18 seeking comment.
    CERs for December declined to a record 2.82 euros a ton today, and were at 2.97 euros as of 5:31 p.m London time. EU permits fell 3.8 percent to 6.88 euros. The discount of CERs to EU carbon allowances shrank 7.2 percent to 3.88 euros, narrowing at the fastest pace since May 4…

    ‘Tremendous Disappointment’
    “There is tremendous disappointment” at the low prices, Ram Babu, chief executive officer of General Carbon Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. in Mumbai, said by phone July 17. “Investors will think twice about re-entering the market.”…
    The price drop this month has been exacerbated by supply from Russia and Ukraine, which create credits under the Joint Implementation mechanism of the Kyoto agreement, Matthew Gray, an analyst in London at Jefferies Bache Ltd., said July 16 by phone. “These mechanisms are competing against each other,” and the UN offsets have more to lose than EU allowances, he said.
    Emission Reduction Units for December from that program fell to close at a record 2.68 euros a ton today.
    Additional programs around the world are needed to back up Europe’s climate fight by creating more need for emission reductions, Babu said. “The EU alone cannot be expected to support the international carbon price, given its economic circumstances.”
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-19/greenhouse-projects-watch-as-eu-polluters-profit-lobby.html


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Developers of United Nations- sanctioned emission-reduction projects say they are “bitter” as polluting factories in Europe may be making more money buying their credits than they can by selling them.

      Pat,

      I don’t understand why anyone is surprised by this. They literally asked for it to happen. When I studied biology (too many years ago) it was axiomatic in the biological sciences that if something is there to eat, there’ll be something there eating it.

      After a few years of watching the world go by as I run as hard as I can to keep up I realized this little axiom applies to more than biology — if there’s a way to make money there’ll be someone there making it. If there’s a buyer there’ll be a seller as sure as sunrise.

      Unfortunately the holier-than-thou will never realize this little gem of wisdom so they keep making misguided efforts to control what no one can control — human nature.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    AndyG55 -

    yes, this part of Hurst sounds really good:

    13 July: Daniel Hurst: Climate ‘propaganda’ on LNP summit hit list
    A push to ban “environmental propaganda” from schools and teach “normal science” about climate change is among motions set to be discussed at the Liberal National Party convention beginning today…
    For example, the LNP’s Noosa State Electorate Council says the LNP should call on Education Minister John-Paul Langbroek to “require Queensland government schools to remove environmental propaganda material [and] in particular post normal science about ‘climate change’”.
    At last year’s conference, LNP president Bruce McIver questioned the role of humans in driving climate change, arguing the climate was always changing and children were being “brainwashed” in the way climate science was taught…
    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/climate-propaganda-on-lnp-summit-hit-list-20120712-21ygz.html#ixzz21DyBXibW

    but, being a sceptic, i won’t hold my breath. actions speak louder than words.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Speedy

    AndyG55 @ 17

    Apologies for O/T but that link I meant to send is

    http://pickeringpost.com/news/serious-questions-for-gillardbr-still-no-answers/139

    Gillard is, to use the hackneyed phrase, “worse than we thought”…

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

    • #
      AndyG55

      I have absolutely no doubt that underneath her deceitful, sly, coniving, lying, irksome exterior there is an even worse persona that we will probably see a lot more in her desperate, but totally naive, attempt to get re-elected..


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Jaymez

      It is no wonder she left Thompson alone when she had so many skeletons in the closet as must so many other union connected Labor politicians.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Pierre Gosselin reports German Green Foundation Annual Report Calls Skeptic Organization EIKE “A Setback For Climate Policy”

    Green foundations in Germany, many supported by hundreds of millions of euros in funding from large corporations and political parties, are attacking skeptical European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) for daring to practice the principles of science.

    Congratulations! Herzlichen Glückwunsch!

    Read the rest at the link


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    Jo

    But who are the deniers here? Readfearn fashions himself as a bit of an expert on deniers, so you’d think he’d be able to say what they deny.

    I thought calling people deniers is bad? If so, how does it make sense starting to call people who accept the theory of AGW “deniers”?

    Isn’t that like saying they are like holocaust deniers?


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Adam, my point about deniers is that it is an English word. You can call me a denier (on this science based blog) if you can name the scientific paper or observation I deny. You can’t, so it’s mindless namecalling, and I eventually block people who cannot use English properly. But Readfearn appears to be in denial that all the influential major skeptics accept Tyndalls work, and have always done so. Hence I’m just speaking English. What’s your problem?

      Perhaps Readfearn is not in “denial” — perhaps he knows what the debate is really about — in which case he is deliberately spreading misinformation and hiding the truth from his readers. That makes him a liar. Would you prefer that?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Tristan

        Climate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.

        What do the ‘deniers’ deny: The scientific consensus on the extent of global warming.

        Does Joanne fit the description? Seems to.

        Is it an appropriate term? I’m not sure. I think it’s an effective term, which is why there is such a push to attack it. I tend to avoid it for pragmatic reasons.

        (You appear to be quoting from a source but none is linked.Can you post the source or shall I delete your unfair comment?) CTS


        Report this

        00

        • #

          I’ve never met anyone who denies that climate changes. Not one person. On the other hand, I’ve encountered people who don’t seem to notice much.

          In my part of the world, Eastern Oz, climate changed in 1949, in 1979 and in 2007. I’m often amazed by the people who fail to notice such fundamental shifts in wind patterns and humidity. The trends are by no means neat and consistent, since they involve climate and weather, but to me they have been hard to overlook.

          Some say it’s the PDO. I couldn’t say. Those who miss or ignore these long term trends shouldn’t be called deniers. Just obtuse.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Bob Massey

          Tristan, what a junk comment !

          Is that quote from a reputable publication if so which one, the Oxford Dictionary or did you haul that up from good ol Wikipedia ? Exactly how did the writer come to such a conclusion ? Not one sentence in that paragraph is true and if you can back it up, here’s your chance.

          You are quite frankly, a nonsense and deserve little representation if any at all !


          Report this

          00

        • #

          Tristan, thank you. I was hoping someone would say that.

          Do I deny the consensus? Not at all. There is a consensus amongst government funded climate science experts. Absolutely.

          But I deny that their opinions are more important than observations.

          Since 28 million weatherballoons, 6000 boreholes, 3000 argo bouys and hundreds of temperature proxies tell me the world works in a different way to what the experts say, then as a scientist — I cannot agree with their opinions.

          But if I believed that there were Gods in Science — people who had so many papers, reports, titles and acronyms that they were always right — or dare I say — people so influential that they controlled the weather, then I would deny the evidence, toss the observations, and announce obediently that I “believed” in man-made global warming.

          So really Tristan, it all comes down to argument from authority. If someone is in denial about it being a meaningless, unscientific fallacy — then they believe the experts and call the real scientists “deniers”.

          Does that help?

          Jo


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Jaymez

          Yes I’d love to know where that definition came from Tristan? [Obviously from the US due to the spelling of behaviour].

          It makes a huge assumption:

          “especially for commercial or ideological reasons.”

          How could anyone make such an assumption? Why couldn’t we

          “downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior,”

          Simply because there is insufficient evidence to support a ‘scientific consensus’, to support that global warming is ‘significant’ (as in unprecedented), and that it is mainly caused by humans?


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Tristan says,

          Climate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.

          I don’t know where that comes from, maybe his own head. But no matter the source, I can recognize self-serving nonsense when I see it.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Tristan the Obscurer

          Says accusingly that we are deniers and that: “‘deniers’ deny: The scientific consensus…”.

          The people on this site, in the main, have made diligent efforts to detect ANY scientific basis for the claims of man made global warming via CO2 output.

          Despite great effort and in the company of the vast bulk of reputable main stream scientists, we have discovered NOT ONE scientific fact that would support the idea of runaway CO2 induced warming.

          There is no mechanism.

          There is no evidence found.

          While to the contrary we have been shown that proponents of CAGW use fraudulent, manipulative media hype to create the APPEARANCE or POSSIBILITY of CAGW.

          There is NO science supporting CAGW.

          We are therefore justified in coining the new term WOOSER which represents the fusion of the descriptors “warmer” and “loser”.

          I’ve asked this before: what are you doing? Are you being paid by the number of converts you get?


          Report this

          00

        • #
          AndyG55

          “especially for commercial or ideological reasons.”

          Yes, we want our world to run on commercially and economically sensible agenda, NOT on overpriced, waste of money, idiotic , inefficient so-called green (but highly environmentally destructive), ideologies.

          The damage being done by the AGW agenda over the whole world is massive, the waste of funds that could have been spent on something worthwhile to society is enormous.

          In Australia we have a so-called Carbon Tax, which will achieve absolutely nothing except wasting public money and destroying Australia industry and society..

          so YES, what the AGW bletheren call “deniers”.. it is very much about about commercial and idealogical reason and common sense, back heavily by scientific reality and logical reason.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Tristan

          Can you post the source or shall I delete your unfair comment?

          CTS

          Sure, I crowdsourced it. The first line of the top hit on Google. Seemed the best way to acquire the definition as it is generally understood.

          But I deny that their opinions are more important than observations. Jo

          You deny the scientific consensus on what conclusions can be drawn from those observations.

          Since 28 million weatherballoons, 6000 boreholes, 3000 argo bouys and hundreds of temperature proxies tell me the world works in a different way to what the experts say

          Jo

          This is what I mean. Those observations can’t actually tell you things. You can only interpret what they mean in the context of your understanding of climate science. None of us have a special access path to the truth, but we can increase our abilities to perceive and incorporate information through hard work.

          So really Tristan, it all comes down to argument from authority.

          Exactly. You are asking others to accept Joanne Nova’s interpretations as authoritative, rather than the consensus of those who actively publish within the field.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Tristan

            Wow, I did a bad job on the formatting. Feel free to edit that.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Lars Per

            Yes, such article was the reason why I stopped contributing to Wikipedia.
            When on conflicting themes it does a poor job to search for reality or objectivity. The most bullish and noisy have their way through. Especially the climate change discussion is completely biased, too much activism and too little science.
            The article you posted is so biased as it can be and it is an insult to all skeptics worldwide.
            It is a pity, the initial wiki idea was good and I supported it, but the way how they let themselves be drained in the Global Warming Alarmist camp shows clearly why Wikipedia cannot be and will probably never be a reliable source of information.
            I am really very sad about it.
            So yes, interesting to search and look in for, but never take its word for it.

            “Climate change denial” is a misnomer. It is not used by the activists in the proper english language of the wording, but has a different meaning to it. The idea is to create an association with people who “deny climate change”, hiding behind is the fact that the users of the term deny themselves the natural climate change, the amount of it and the speed how it can happen.
            So “climate change denial” is a projection of their own denial on the opponents. Opponents of what actually? Of their wrong derived policies based on bad science.
            This is why instead of debating the science the proponents of the policies hide behind name calling, bullying, insulting, obfuscating, perverting reality.

            The terminology used by Global Warming Alarmists is another illustration of their delusion.
            Initial called Global Warming and actually Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming was morphed into Climate Change once the disconnect between no longer rising temperatures and the continuously rising CO2 concentration became evident.
            The proponents continues to trumped increasing global temperatures and is always apparent in the legacy news media when warmer weather happens in a certain area, but the new naming allow it to blame any extreme weather on “Climate Change”. There are even attempts to justify even snow and cold weather on climate change aka global warming, thus the humans guilt can be prolonged ad nauseam.

            Who can be the asserter of this theory and why is it finding support?
            Leaving aside the ones who would directly financially benefit from it, one explanation for its wide spreading could lie in the religious vacuum left in the western countries where religion has been only a marginal force in the society in the late decades, almost century.
            Weaker spirits needing a support for their morale have welcomed the new green religion as giving them confidence they are doing the right thing, have the upper moral ground, gave a reason and a meaning to their life.
            To live only to consume? No, to live and be one with the bigger Gaia, to integrate oneself to Gaia is the new religion, be part of it, gives oneself immortality within Gaia.

            The morphing of Global Warming in a new religion has happened fast, almost unnoticed by the practitioners, and as any doomsday cult has its own end of the world scenario, its high-priests, its prophets, its morale and sins, as well as absolution and paradise.
            This upper moral ground is very important for the new green religion, which redefines the moral priorities – doing wrong is right if one does it for the upper good.

            And this is why conversation with GW-Alarmists is so difficult, frustrating and with little results. The heretics have the science on their side, but climatology being a very young science, with many yet unknown factors and areas, interdisciplinary role, the thread of catastrophe, all this allows for a lot of obfuscation, misdirection and post-modern science.
            It will take years and maybe decades until science will slowly progress and clarify the field. The amount of money poured in the system, interests involved make the situation only worse, but with every new more precise data, any additional information slowly the true picture is taking part and the religious people are pushed back in their doomsday cult corner: ARGO data, satellite measurements. All we heretics need to do is further track the science, make sure the data is not falsified and wrongly adjusted, that normal science course is taking place.
            As Ivar Giaever puts it, climate science is currently pseudo science.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Jaymez

      star comment

      I think it is clear Redfearn is trying to claim that ‘sceptics’ deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Or that it can have some atmospheric warming effect.

      People like Redfearn like to set up this false ‘denier’ position so they can knock it down rather than provide scientific evidence to justify the climate alarmist claim which is that human GHG emissions are causing dangerous climate change. This is the evidence we are still waiting on, meanwhile sceptical scientists have provided plenty of evidence which has falsified that theory (much of it referenced in this blogsite).

      In fact while the politically motivated IPCC Summary for Policy Makers which was written by those we know had their own agenda’s may have implied a high confidence that human GHG emissions causes global warming (not dangerous global warming), but that confidence was not shared by expert scientists who compiled the supporting reports. Here is just some of what contributing scientists said which didn’t appear in the Summary for Policy Makers:


      Dr Robert Balling:
      “The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.

      Dr Lucka Bogataj:
      “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”

      Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”

      Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”

      Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”

      Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”

      Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.”

      Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”

      Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”

      Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”

      Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen:
      “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”

      Dr Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”

      Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful.”

      Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”

      Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”

      Dr Georg Kaser: “This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”

      Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”

      Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”

      Dr Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”

      Dr Chris Landsea:
      “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

      Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”

      Dr Harry Lins: “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”

      Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”

      Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”

      Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales, have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”

      Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”

      Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”

      Dr Tom Segalstad:
      “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”

      Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites — probably because the data show a slight cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction of the calculations from climate models?”

      Dr Hajo Smit: “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change.”

      Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”

      Dr Tom Tripp: “There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made.”

      Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”

      Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”

      Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”


      Report this

      00

      • #
        turnedoutnice

        CO2 is a GHG but beyond ~200 ppmV it is in self-absorption mode so it can’t absorb any more IR. The mechanism is subtle though; the physics is the same as that which causes spectral line inversion in the Sun’s photosphere.

        In short, near an external IR emitter, self absorption is switched off so emissivity increases. This in turn switches off emission from the Earth’s surface. So, the fall in TOA IR for CO2 is because less of that wavelength was generated at the Earth’s surface in the first place. Also, clouds mop up thermal IR from the atmosphere and disperse it over the grey spectrum. This is a very profound change to the GHE!


        Report this

        00

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Great list Jaymez


        Report this

        00

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Hi Jaymez,

        Is there an original document that collects these comments?


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Lars Per

      Adam, the term has been used and re-used improperly. It was used to shut down the discussion, to block any comments and to intimidate.
      In the current situation it is right to show who is really in denial.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Angry

    Big Oil’s Secret: They Support Global Warming Policy………

    Head of The IPCC used to be an Oil man.

    haha this is gonna hurt!

    The Business Week link above lists a certain Dr. Rajendra Kumar Pachauri as founder of Glori Oil/Glori Energy, Inc., but for some reason, his name doesn’t appear on glorienergy.com (although it did appear on glorioil.com not just as founder but as head of the company).

    Well, Dr. Rajendra Kumar Pachauri is none other than the Nobel Peace Prize-winning chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that was established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations’ Environment Programme since 2002

    http://www.activistpost.com/2012/07/big-oils-secret-they-support-global.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    Adam Smith,

    Do you believe in the MWP? Or do you “deny” it’s existence like Mann and Gergis?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Adam Smith

      I have no problems with the Medieval Warming Period. You just need to understand that because it was very warm in some parts of the globe doesn’t mean that the average temperature of the entire globe was higher than what it is now.

      I have no idea why you say that Mann denies the existence of a significant anomaly during this period when he has published peer reviewed research that says there was such an anomaly. If you read this research you would find that the abstract points out the following:

      The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally.

      http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf

      I have added emphasis to that passage to point out the general confusion in this thread. Just because some areas of the globe showed very warm conditions during this period doesn’t mean that the average temp of the entire globe was higher than what it is now.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Tristan

        Or maybe Mann disappeared the disappearance…


        Report this

        00

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Well Adam you will be interested to see this page by John Daly which collects proxy results that demonstrate the world wide nature of the MWP.

        What you need to do is address the issue with your epistemological framework where you ignore data that does not agree with your core thesis.

        It is very important as Human Beings to confront and challenge what we believe to be true, or else we will continue to believe in falsehoods.

        Fix that issue – and you too will be a step closer to becoming an ExWarmist.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          ExWarmist

          21 hours later…

          Crickets chirping in the twilight of Reason…

          Adam and Tristan apparently have nothing to say about the content of John Daly’s web site which demonstrates the world wide nature of the MWP in contrdiction to their stated beliefs.

          That distant death rattle is the last gasp of the meme that the late 20th century warming was “unprecendented”, and therefore must be caused by human emission of CO2.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Still Crickets …


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            I had a Professor who used to say that you learn more by admitting you are wrong, then you do by insisting you are right.

            Because admitting you are wrong, forces you to analyse why you are wrong, and that is when learning occurs. Whereas insisting you are right, whether you are right or not, does not require any analysis at all.

            It seems that they don’t teach’em like they used to.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            ExWarmist

            RW, That was a good teacher.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Angry

    This is worth a read……….

    Critique of A path to sustainable energy by 2030:-

    So what do they say? In a nutshell, their argument is that, by the year 2030:

    Wind, water and solar technologies can provide 100 percent of the world’s energy, eliminating all fossil fuels.

    Big claim. Does it stack up? Short answer, no.

    http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/03/wws-2030-critique/


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Dave

      .
      Angry,

      Yes! Huge claim with no backup!

      US already returning to coal!
      Gas prices have rebounded to USD 3.08 per mmBtu, but coal, which is typically priced per ton, dipped to about USD 2.10 per mmBtu. Power plants are already moving back to coal, a trend set to increase with gas prices expected to continue rising. Source – Reuters

      In a decade or two – windturbinesmills will only be useful as Xmas tree decorations!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Joe V.

      That is yet more fantastic that the IPCC’s assessment last year, for 77% renewables by 2050, which they trumpeted up to 80% to headline their press release.

      That turned out to be only their most ‘optimistic’ scenario projection and based largely on the fantasies of Greenpeace [Teske et al.], which gave Mark Lynas his Green awakening here. and inspired the Greenpeace in Our Time headline , which was duly & masterfully illustrated by Josh.

      The IPCC lost it’s way when they succumbed to the spin merchants, that you have to treat the masses like idiots and tell them what to think, rather than behaving as an honest broker.


      Report this

      00

  • #
  • #
  • #
    James

    I’m surprised anyone gives more than a moment’s notice to this little fellow.

    His days at the Courier Mail were not exactly ones when he showed any inkling of understanding science. Climate physics was way beyond him.

    There was a notable occasion about three years ago when he reported a small group (of the usual suspects) had encircled the Federal Parliament building hand to hand, protesting some climate idiocy.

    When asked how that was possible given the piddling numbers, Mr Readfearn replied in his blog that he was only reporting what the ring leader had told him. Asked why he would report verbatim the unverified words of an activist as the truth, the illustrious Graham wrote that he did not want to make any mistake by using his own words.. Priceless.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Angry

    Here are the educational qualifications of this imbecile “Graham Readfearn”…..

    http://au.linkedin.com/pub/graham-readfearn/1a/387/75

    University of Central Lancashire
    Diploma, Newspaper Journalism
    1995 – 1996

    WOW!

    Well i’m impressed….NOT!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Now wait a minute here. You’ve got to admit that his hubris is impressive. ;-)


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Joe V.

      To be fair, journalism isn’t an academic discipline, certainly not a scientific one.
      Absence of academic qualifications doesn’t a bad journalist make.
      .
      To dismiss one’s ability on their lack of academic qualifications is another logical fallacy.
      .
      It’s interesting to compare with Monckton, who’s also reported to have a degree in journalism, and they both started at the Yorkshire Post, according to their introduction to the Brisbane event.
      .
      The difference is striking. Perhaps it has more to do with a classical education , a brilliant mind and falling in with the wrong crowd.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Jaymez

    I know this article is a couple of years old now, but I suppose Readfearn would welcome the eco-activists described here?

    A Finnish environmentalist guru has gone further than any other global warming alarmist in openly calling for fascism as a necessary step to save the planet from ecological destruction, demanding that climate change deniers be “re-educated” in eco-gulags and that the vast majority of humans be killed with the rest enslaved and controlled by a green police state, with people forcibly sterilized, cars confiscated and travel restricted to members of the elite.

    Philosopher Pentti Linkola has built an enthusiastic following of self-described “eco-fascists” receptive to his message that the state should enact draconian measures of “discipline, prohibition, enforcement and oppression” in order to make people comply with environmental dictates.

    ….author and environmentalist Keith Farnish, who in a recent book called for acts of sabotage and environmental terrorism in blowing up dams and demolishing cities in order to return the planet to the agrarian age. Prominent NASA global warming alarmist and Al Gore ally Dr. James Hansen endorsed Farnish’s book.

    Linkola concurs with Farnish and Hansen, writing, “Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed.”

    Another prominent figure in the climate change debate who exemplifies the violent and death-obsessed belief system of the movement is Dr. Eric R. Pianka, an American biologist based at the University of Texas in Austin. During a speech to the Texas Academy of Science in March 2006, Pianka advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the world’s population through the airborne ebola virus. The reaction from scores of top scientists and professors in attendance was not one of shock or revulsion – they stood and applauded Pianka’s call for mass genocide.

    The current White House science czar [Obama's chief science adviser] John P. Holdren also advocates the most obscenely dictatorial, eco-fascist, and inhumane practices in the name of environmentalism. In his 1977 Ecoscience textbook, Holdren calls for a “planetary regime” to carry out forced abortions and mandatory sterilization procedures, as well as drugging the water supply, in an effort to cull the human surplus.

    Another Finnish environmentalist writer, Martin Kreiggeist, hails Linkola’s call for eco-gulags and oppression as “a solution,” calling for people to “take up the axes” in pursuit of killing off the third world. Kreiggeist wants fellow eco-fascists to “act on” Linkola’s call for mass murder in order to solve overpopulation.

    Climate warmists may well claim that the examples above do not represent the mainstream climate science, they don’t realise how close to main stream it is. James Hansen is the main driver at NASA’s Climate Department and John Holdren is the Chief Scientific Adviser to the most powerful man in the world! It is also this same sort of thinking which made it seem perfectly OK for the climate activists to make TV commercials showing non-believer children being blown up in class rooms by teachers for not saying the correct eco doctrine.

    Yet Readfearn and his ilk have the audacity to fear life under the leadership of sceptics!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Speedy

      Jaymez

      They used to be called Luddites, would you suggest “Hansonites”, “Linkoloites”, or maybe “Readfearnites”?

      Or does the term misanthrope already cover it?

      Cheers,

      Speedy


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Jaymez-the Belmont Challenge that I have written about and the Future Earth Alliance that it funds and seeks to use as an operating entity for the type of social, political, and economic reorg envisioned through the Planet under Pressure and Rio+20 documents basically reports to Holdren. Future Earth Alliance involves UNESCO and UNEP and seems to physically exist so far in the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) in Sweden.

      It is essentially quite the international social reengineering project whether we taxpayers want it or not. A largely out of site vehicle.

      I also wrote about Holdren’s mentor, Paul Ehrlich, recently. How Julian Simon was right and Ehrlich was wrong and paid off in the famous wager. But through government control over all aspects of education and its funding of public policy initiatives, we are pushing and enacting Ehrlich’s vision anyway. Even though he has been consistently wrong.

      I believe AGW will go down as the greatest case of rent seeking in history and will ultimately make the average person understand the historic phenomenon. So many of the recipients of this largesse we pay for have no genuinely marketable knowledge and skills.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Bruce D Scott

    Thank you for an informative, accurate and honest article Jo. I expect no better from the ABC, but “Free TV”, having been bought and paid for by at least $250 million in tax exemptions(bribes), choose to not respect the right of the voters to know, in this case.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Juliar

      I got told the other day that the ABC have no political agenda and that a Government run organisation wouldn’t do anything to influence the broadcasting. I was left speechless. The person then went onto say that the commercial networks are all controlled by the companies that sponsor them.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Joe V.

        It could be argued that the ABC represents the taxpayers, who fund it, but we know democracy doesn’t work like that.
        .
        Court favour with those that make the funding decisions.
        .
        Democracy works by cheques & balances on those who get themselves elected to re-present us .
        .
        Of course while the ABC , like the BBC and indeed the CBC, have the publicly funded resources to produce good journalists, they usually leave , leaving behind a growing pool of talent that couldn’t get a job in the real world.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Juliar

    Talking about Greens – Labor, the by election in Melbourne is proving to being a close result.

    Currently it is ALP 50.14 to Greens 49.86 on 2PP. Going to be a close battle. I just thought some would be interested in this.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      MadJak

      I fail to see any difference between the Greens and the ALP.

      They’re both either led by people with communist affiliations or hold command economy fantasies dearly to their heart.

      It’s just an illusion of choice between them as far as I can tell.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Juliar

        I think Labor is certainly more moderate and realistic on certain issues but in saying that, they are becoming closer. I personally believe that Labor will eventually have to form a Coalition with the Greens if they want to survive in the future.

        btw, The 2pp in the by -election is 51.4 ALP to 48.6 Greens. Disappointing result for The Greens as you would think they would have expected to win yesterday with no Liberal candidate. Bad result for them. Amusingly, it was the Sex Party who got Labor over the line


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Mark

          Amusingly, it was the Sex Party who got Labor over the line

          Well they’ve been ####ing the country since 2007 last time I looked!


          Report this

          00

        • #
          ExWarmist

          That’s actually “not” survival.

          The ALP in coalition with the Greens is analogous to someone becoming a (hollywood) Zombie! I’e. Yes – your still moving – but are you still alive? Are you still you?

          The biggest threat to the future of the ALP is the Greens who are eating the ALP from the inside out.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    “..is not about whether CO2 absorbs infra red, but whether that warming effect is significant..”CO2 CONDUCTS heat..thats it. A total CO2 atmosphere like Mars and Venus have different lapse rates. NOT ‘trap’ heat [Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object. An object does not possess "heat"] or cause some unphysical ‘back radiation’.

    “To Pearson and others, the experiments of John Tyndall in 1859 which established the warming properties of what we now know to be greenhouse gases just didn’t happen..”..true funnily Tyndall was WRONG!…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard Pearson

    This blog topic involves and names me. Your good readers might enjoy some background. The resolution that passed the LNP Convention in Brisbane on 13 July 2012 was – ‘[t]hat the LNP calls on the Minister for Education to require Qld government schools to remove environmental propaganda material – in particular, post normal science about ‘climate change’ from the curriculum and as adjunct material at exam time.’
    At Convention one has 2 minutes to speak and ‘change the world’ if you like.
    Speaking to the resolution the opening remark was – ‘[t]his resolution is aimed like an arrow at the heart of those false prophets who would poison the minds of our children in Queensland government schools.’
    The speaker went on to explain and define the terms used – ‘propaganda’ and ‘post normal science’.
    Support for the resolution was strong and reported as ‘overwhelming’.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Bravo

      Now to get the environmental rentseekers out of ALL government offices including local government.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Tristan

      Richard

      Why do you think you know better than the Bureau of Meteorology or the CSIRO, our public scientific institution? Why wouldn’t you, as someone who requires so often to carefully consider impacts of various decisions, not go to Australia’s own world class experts for information?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Steve R W.

        Tristan has just walked up to the control panel of a Merry- go-around ride at a local fair and hit the GO button for yet another repetitive ride.


        Report this

        00

      • #

        World class experts? Pull the other one mate, it’s got bells on it.

        Science Expert: “We can eradicate the Cane Beetle.”
        Dumbass Hick Farmer: “Don’t do it mate, my pappy always said look out for unintended consequences.”

        science Expert: “We can preserve our forests in a natural way.”
        Old Uneducated local: “You gots to get rid of that ground fuel regularly.”

        I’m actually a big fan of our CSIRO and have been proud of them since I was a kid. BUT DON’T LUMP THE RENTSEEKING ECOACTIVIST CLIMATE CHANGERS in with the regular scientists of the CSIRO.
        It’s a vast, diverse institution. Inevitably, some sectors are usurped by sectional interest.
        Climate change department is one of them.


        Report this

        00

      • #

        See Tristan? That’s my point. It boils down to argument from authority. Some of us a born to think for ourselves and some of us were born to follow.

        Let’s assume the experts are right… let’s assume they made up their own minds… assume they figured it all out correctly, that means somewhere there must be observations that support their reasoning.

        So go find us those observations.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Winston

          And yet people like Tristan, born to follow as he is, believes he is the “right” sort of person to assume a leadership role in politics. Trouble is that those with foresight, not to mention just plain sight, refuse to be led by one so “blind”. I’m sorry Tristan, I quite like you but you are under-qualified to tell me almost anything, and certainly to dictate my future and that of my children and future grandchildren.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Tristan

          Some of us a born to think for ourselves and some of us were born to follow.

          Haha ;)

          So go find us those observations.

          What you mean is ‘Go find Joanne observations which will convince her’.

          I have no idea what your evidentiary threshold is. For instance, UAH is currently tracking at 0.136 +/- 0.078 C/dec. If it hits 0.16 C/dec in the coming years, will you construe that as evidence? What about 0.18, 0.20? Or will you just say UAH has been taken over by Team Climate Science?

          This is how it works in climate science:

          Q: Have the observations given us cause to refute the physical bases underpinning our understanding of the climate system?

          A: No. The observations have been very useful in refining our understanding of what is occurring.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            This is how it works when real science is applied to the problem:

            Q: Have the observations continued to support what we had previously predicted would happen with the climate system?

            A: No. Then our understanding of the climate system must be flawed, and we must amend the basis underpinning our understanding to accommodate this new evidence.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Nope, in Climate Science you devise your economic Answer first and then contrive carefully worded Questions to manufacture pseudoscientific support for the predetermined conclusion. eg Rather than set up an international science panel aimed at learning how the climate works, devise a panel that aims to prove humans are causing global warming. Climate Science is Science done backwards.

            1983: The USA’s Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee releases a report stating that although “large numbers of people now live in almost all climatic zones and move easily between them”, and despite unpredictable social and economic changes being the factor that will “largely determine whether the climatic impacts of greenhouse gases are a serious problem”, they nonetheless “are deeply concerned about environmental changes of this magnitude; man-made emissions of greenhouse gases promise to impose a warming of unusual dimensions on a global climate that is already unusually warm. We may get into trouble in ways that we have barely imagined“. This shows the unscientific basis of the issue at that time.

            1984: Margaret Thatcher co-opts the hypothesis of man-made global warming (amongst several other reasons) for the purpose of shutting down the coal miner’s union.

            1987: According to UNCED 4th World Conference attendee George W. Hunt, top international banker Edmund de Rothschild hatches plans for a one-world bank and a 300,000-strong world environmental police force.

            1989: Thatcher makes a speech to the UN saying global warming (from human GHGs) is the world’s number one problem. (Less than a year later she admits knowing the reality is more complex and warmer temperatures are not without precedent.)

            1990: The IPCC publishes its first report saying they “calculate with confidence [...] Carbon dioxide has been responsible for over half the enhanced greenhouse effect in the past”, and based on model projections, business-as-usual will cause 3 degrees of warming by 2100, and that over the next 35 years the global temperature would warm at 0.3°C/decade which “is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years”, whereas in fact these statements were either fundamentally unknowable to science in 1990 or have since proven to be false.

            1992: Maurice Strong tells the delegates of the Rio Earth Summit that carbon taxes should be used to pay for UN development programs in the 3rd world, and then introduces his good friend Edmund de Rothschild who talks up clean energy and clean development. According to UNCED world conference attendee George W. Hunt, Edmund de Rothschild inserted his own text into the draft treaty without vote or debate. The Precautionary Principle is enshrined as Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration to impede reasoned objection to expensive action.

            1995: Several lead authors and contributing scientists to the IPCC SAR agree upon text that emphasises the numerous sources of uncertainty in model projections, but Doctor Santer doctors the final report to remove these uncertainties. “The coordinating lead author for Chapter 8, Benjamin Santer, responded justifying this change on the basis that it made the assessment clearer, thus ignoring clause 10 of the IPCC’s governing principles which requires the inclusion of such uncertainties. Edwards and Schneider said that the removal of expressions of doubt were demanded by the politics of the day and were thereby justified.” (Energy & Environment · Vol. 18, No. 7+8, 2007)

            2003: NASA begins measuring the only meaningful quantifier of global temperature, ocean heat content, with the new ARGO float network during this year, with previous XBT measurements being considered sparse and inaccurate enough to justify the costs of the new robot network.

            2009: The CERN CLOUD experiment is approved, and later in conjunction with Svensmark’s own lab tests, proves that cosmic rays affect the concentration of Cloud Condensation Nucelei in the atmosphere, providing the explanatory mechansim for the astonishingly close correlation between cosmic ray flux and rainfall in several proxy records from the last 5000 years. By now ARGO’s flat line in ocean heat content is becoming inconvenient and the data is divulged sparingly whilst effort commences at finding a way to “correct” the trend that the instruments are reporting. Trenberth’s travesty is born in FOIA’s ClimateGate.

            2010: Under the definition of “climate” from the World Meteorological Organisation (that being the 30 year average of temperature and rainfall), the 1 Jan 2010 was the first day a measurement of the climate that was both global and accurate could be made from weather satellite data.
            This means that the world had gathered its FIRST ACCURATE DATA POINT of modern global climate around 22 years AFTER it was pronounced politically as a problem.

            Climate Science: Conclusions always done first, measurements are second and only if you can’t avoid it, and sharing data with other scientists is practically forbidden.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Jaymez

        Tristan, I think your faith in BOM and CSIRO is misplaced. They are full of left wing people who couldn’t get a job in the real world. Jo Nova’s blog has shown many examples of BOM’s incompetence and unprofessional-ism, but this blog from Andrew Bolt on Nov 26 2011 with one of the Climategate 2 emails from David Jones head of Climate Change at BOM really says it all about their competence and lack of objectivity. (my bolding)

        At the Bureau of Meteorology, prominent alarmist David Jones boasts of snowing sceptics, and cites as evidence of global warming a drought now passed and a prediction since debunked:

        0601.txt

        cc: “Shoni Dawkins” < ???@bom.gov.au>
        date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 08:28:03 +100 ???
        from: “David Jones” < ???@bom.gov.au>
        subject: RE: African stations used in HadCRU global data set
        to: “Phil Jones” < ???@uea.ac.uk>

        Thanks Phil for the input and paper. I will get back to you with comments next week.
        Fortunately in Australia our sceptics are rather scientifically incompetent. It is also
        easier for us in that we have a policy of providing any complainer with every single
        station observation when they question our data (this usually snows them)
        and the
        Australian data is in pretty good order anyway.
        Truth be know, climate change here is now running so rampant that we don’t need
        meteorological data to see it. Almost everyone of our cities is on the verge of running out
        of water and our largest irrigation system (the Murray Darling Basin is on the verge of
        collapse
        - across NSW farmer have received a 0% allocation of water for the coming summer
        and in Victoria they currently have 5% allocations – numbers that will just about see the
        death of our fruit, citrus, vine and dairy industries if we don’t get good spring rain).
        The odd things is that even when we see average rainfall our runoffs are far below average,
        which seems to be a direct result of warmer temperatures. Recent polls show that
        Australians now rate climate change as a greater threat than world terrorism.
        Regards,
        David

        Consider that bizarre email for a second. Jones was so sure that the weather here was evidence of a man-made change to the climate that he didn’t even need meteorological data to confirm it.

        But what does the Climate Commission now concede – just four years later – about that drought that so convinced Jones that man was to blame?:

        “Australia naturally has a high degree of variability in rainfall, with long periods of intense droughts punctuated by heavy rainfall and flooding, so it is difficult from observations alone to unequivocally identify anything that is distinctly unusual about the post-1950 pattern”.

        And as Climate Commissioner Will Steffen confirmed to me:

        Andrew Bolt: “We have also been told by this Government that the recent drought in the Murray-Darling Basin was caused by global warming, again your own report says there is nothing unusual about that drought either is that true?”

        Professor Will Steffen: “We’ve had very severe droughts before so again we cannot attribute this drought statistically to climate change….”

        As for Jones’s warming that “almost everyone of our cities is on the verge of running out of water” thanks to climate change, let’s check:

        Sydney’s water storage: 78 per cent full

        Melbourne’s water storage: 65 per cent full.

        Canberra’s water storage: 96 per cent full

        Brisbane and SE Queensland’s water storage: 79 per cent full.

        Adelaide’s water storage: 77 per cent full

        Perth’s water storage: 36 per cent full

        In short, not a single city is “on the verge of running out of water”. And the Murray Darling basin is in excellent shape after last summer’s floods:


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Merriam-Webster Online defines world-class as

        adjective: being of the highest caliber in the world

        I’ve always wondered who is qualified to make that determination…highest caliber in the world. Wouldn’t it imply that their predictions actually come true?

        Oops! Skeptics 1, Tristan 0.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Jaymez

        Tristan, check out the predictions in this CSIRO Report: http://www.sewl.com.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/Business/Business_Breakfasts/CSIRO-Climate_change_in_Victoria.pdf
        Quite embarrassing really.

        Specifically:

        • As a result of reduced precipitation and increasing evaporation, water security problems are projected to intensify by 2030 in southern and eastern Australia

        • 0-45% less flow in Victorian catchments by 2030

        • 14% less flow in south-western Australia by 2030

        • 9% less water in the northern Murray Darling Basin (MDB) by 2030, and 13% less in the southern MDB

        • 7-35% less flow into Melbourne dams by 2050


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        The peoples of the Pacific are constantly being told that their islands will be inundated with water due to the rise in sea levels, and they are being told this by both Australian and New Zealand “climate experts”.

        Publicly the leaders go to the UN, and to the Australian and New Zealand Governments, and demand financial aid and other assistance to help them “mitigate” the rise in sea levels. Privately, they admit to people they trust, that because their islands are built on coral, they know the height will adjust if the sea level rises, as long as it does so at the speed of nature, and not at the speed of politics.

        It seems the uneducated and simplistic “natives” are considerably smarter than the so-called experts.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          MadJak

          Rereke,

          Of course there is also the other side to this constant need to “help out the islands”. Any excuse to get the right people over there to remove reefs for shipping, build playgrounds, sea walls, whatever are chances for Australia and NZ to reassert it’s presence and to observe all sorts of geopolitical goings on in the pacific.

          Of course, if Australia and NZ didn’t do this, the Chinese wouldn’t hesitate to “help out” for exactly the same reasons.

          No countrys’ government ever does anything for another country out of the goodness of their heart. There is always an agenda which involves the government providing aid.

          The prompt for that aid is, in fact irrelevant, as I am sure you will agree. It’s about boots on the ground.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Of course. I was being a little simplistic in order to illustrate the pompous attitude of the “experts” who, uninvited, make pronouncements with little understanding.

            Yes, the Chinese have an increasing presence in the Pacific. But there are the also the Americans in Guam and Hawaii. And lets not forget that French Polynesia is officially a Department of France. The current interest is all about mineral deposits, and the rights thereto.

            But it is not political largesse that is the major influencer in places like the Pacific – the islands will take it if it is offered, who wouldn’t – it is ongoing and consistent trade that is important. It is trade that gives you a presence, and it is the presence that lets you observe what is going on.

            Rising sea levels are no threat to the islands. International controls on fishing, are. And centralised control of fish stocks comes from the same stable, as the people who want to determine what sort of light bulbs you can buy.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Gnome

          The problem with that is that the corals can’t build up the bit above the waterline, only the stuff underwater.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            I am no Marine Biologist, but I understand from people who are, that there are species of coral that thrive in the tide margins, so if sea levels increase, these corals will simply move up with the increasing time levels, allowing other corals to grow in the margin they previously occupied, it that makes sense.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            That should read, “increasing tide levels” ho hum.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Australia’s once reputable CSIRO still has many top notch scientists.

        Few , if any, are in the climate Change Department or whatever it is called.

        perhaps they are good but their efforts are being misdirected.

        I have always wanted to see the money wasted on windmills, roof top solar panels and other stupid expensive rubbish like retroactively proving the existence of CO2 based AGW stopped completely

        I have also wanted this money to be directed to CSIRO for pure research into renewable in a proper scientific manner.

        Everybody wins. We get to see value for our taxes, a great scientific organisation can be what it was supposed to be and we will see renewables scientists sleep well at night knowing they are doing something useful.

        KK :)


        Report this

        00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        People should not underestimate Tristan the Obscurer.

        His real purpose in being here on this blog is obvious, to obscure the scientific truth about the Global Warming scam and associated Money transfers.

        Just what his motive is we don’t know. he is not stupid, so it is not ignorance. He knows CAGW is a money making scam.

        The unfortunate conclusion is that he ha a financial interest in this somewhere.

        Any ideas??

        :) KK


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Dave

          .
          KK

          Google any of these:

          Tristan Gratton Institute
          Tristan Climate Spectator
          Tristan Energy Research Program

          Its all the same person and same writing style!
          Plus there’s lots money & political gain there also for supporting CAGW!


          Report this

          00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Thanks Dave

            I actually commented about one of his twisted AGW bits on the Allan Kohler Business site and reprinted my response here a week ago.

            Wasn’t sure if it was him.

            Money———- -money——— Money,

            The slanted views of the Climate Change section was one of the reasons I no longer have an annual membership of the associated pay site.

            KK


            Report this

            00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Dave I think we have solved he problem of his use of standard climate change media speak.

          Ferrier Hodgeson etc, business studies. FINANCIAL MODELING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          He is an accountant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          Trying to pretend he is a Scientist.

          Well I never.

          KK :)


          Report this

          00

          • #
            MadJak

            Ferrier Hodgeson,

            Aren’t they one of those companies that pick the bones of dead companies?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            MadJak

            Are you saying that when AGW falls in a heap he will be there with FerHo to oversee all the winding up of “Renewables” companies.

            Picking over the skeletons.

            Big business people like Mr Garnaut always talk about the accounting aspects of CO2 taxing as though the “science” was settled but Tristan does not exactly give his qualifications.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            MadJak

            KK,

            there with FerHo to oversee all the winding up of “Renewables” companies.

            Yep, vested interests indeed :)


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Finally figured out what Tristan is doing here.

            If you are a publicist for Man Made Global Death by Incineration by CO2 you would want your yourself and political allies to be kept

            up to date so that THEY COULD HAVE PREPARED ANSWERS READY TO REPEL NASTY SCIENTIFIC TRUTHS in the media frenzy.

            I think Tristan is just sampling current waves of Scientific Truth here so that he can be armed before hand with dismissive media

            replies.

            Kunnying fellow. Very good for an accountant. My first wife was an accountant.

            KK :)


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Dave

            .
            KK

            Kunnying fellow he is :)

            Tristan comments here often – he is able to vent his frustration because HIS REAL JOB does not allow this!

            But as you say, he uses Jo’s Blog exactly as you have stated and comes out with typical Grattan Institute renewable energy attitude. But extremely careful in his Clarke Kent role not to crush the daisys or sugar cane income fields!

            But he will jump ship at first oportunity – very obvious in some of his own penned articles!

            Kunnying little Tristan!


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Dave

            My wife, the accountant, does not share my passion for stopping the Global Warming scam.

            As well as being an accountant she trained and worked for a short while as a Lawyer. A lovely, brilliant person and the reason I mention her is that it illustrates a point that Tristan seems to be well aware of.

            If you repeat something that sounds scientific and has humanitarian overtones like “Saving The Planet” she will fall for it hook line and sinker.

            As for the deeper stuff like moving large amounts of money around under the guise of Saving the Planet she can’t even begin to imagine that someone would be so bad.

            So, getting people to understand complex issues like CAGW is very difficult and with the help of publicists like Mr T it is very easy to use the media to mobilise large blocks of votes.

            Making money is easy for some.

            My hope is that the pressure from internet blogs, allowing the Truth to be teased out of Media Smokescreens, will lead to pressure on print media to follow suit or lose all turnover.

            KK


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Dave

            .
            I am currently working on an environmental project in QLD!

            An accountant and lawyer are the main investors with a green major name!
            The things that are happening currently, disgusts me and I will release details later.

            They have no idea apart from the monetry or legal aspects of any development!
            They are leeches on society!

            I also write on another internet site in steel manufacture and find that more and more readers are coming across! It is the only hope for the halting of this criminal aspect of the SUSTAINABILITY push!


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Dave

            I currently don’t work anywhere so I can say what I like.

            My name is really Keith but I do hope yours isn’t Dave.

            Sometimes we have to work in situations that are difficult like that but jeopardizing one persons income won’t make much difference to the scale of this silly business called AGW.

            The great thing we have going for us in exposing CAGW is that taxpayers are becoming extremely aware of the cost thru their taxes.

            Becoming aware of the jobs for the boys, and girls,

            Becoming aware of the stink around it.

            It will eventually crumble.

            Until then , stay safe,

            Keith

            :)


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Richard Pearson

        Tristan, hubris is bad style, sophistry a pet hate, cant is a sin. Empirical falsification is science. I did an experiment to demonstrate the ‘greenhouse gas’ properties of carbon dioxide. If you Google ‘greenhouse effect theory’ it’s in the top 10 replies; if you Bing the ‘greenhouse effect theory’ it’s in the top 20 replies, if you Yahoo7 the ‘greenhouse effect theory it’s there too. I am but a fool compared to many interested in the post normal science of ‘climate change’ – that is immaterial – it only takes one ugly fact to disprove a beautiful theory in science.
        It all comes back to the laws of thermodynamics – those annoying universal laws that keep us miserable yet magnificent creatures in our place. Silly aides memoire can help remember them- the one attributed to CP Snow is good – we are all in the game (zeroeth law), you cannot win ( first law), you always lose ( second law), you cannot leave the game (third law).
        It seems even here on this august site there is an aggressive attack on the ‘you always lose’ law saying it fails just a little bit in relation to the ‘greenhouse effect’ warming of the earth. Unfortunately, until hell freezes over we must always lose on this one, and even when hell freezes over the increment of approach to not losing is so small that we ‘cannot leave the game’. Raving about entropy is so romantic it moves one to simply say dS=deltaQ/T.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Tristan

          Richard

          You talk of Hubris and then draw attention to a blog post written by you claiming that you may have disproven the GHE on a site called ‘The Galileo Movement’.

          A) When is your paper being published?

          B) Read the following, copied from this very blog post of Joanne’s for your convenience:

          Dear Graham, if you bother to get accurate you’ll note that Spencer, Lindzen, Monckton, Michaels, Douglass, Singer, Idso, Knox, Soon, Svensmark, Christie, Watts, Carter, Giaever, Schmitt and I could go on (Evans, and dare I say Nova in that list) — all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It may come as a surprise to you — a shock by golly — but the debate (which you evidently aren’t aware of) is not about whether CO2 absorbs infra red, but whether that warming effect is significant.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            memoryvault

            Richard

            You talk of Hubris and then draw attention to a blog post written by you claiming that you may have disproven the GHE on a site called ‘The Galileo Movement’.

            WOW!! – NEWFLASH !!

            Denialists deny “science is settled”!
            Skeptics disagree with each other on climate drivers, causes and effects!
            Prefer to continue to study subject in scientific manner and consider all options.

            .

            Church of Climastrology in shock!
            Saint Al Goracle issues new rosary in defence:

            Consensus is the Truth – Amen.
            The Truth is Consensus – Amen.
            Consensus is the Truth – Amen.
            The Truth is Consensus – Amen . . . .


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Funny.

            Tristan has done it again . Changing the frame of reference always works well in the media.

            He has isolated a real effect but wont integrate it back into the problem because it becomes insignificant.

            lets mess about.

            CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Well we agree Tristan.

            What’s the point in saying that when you don’t qualify the comment as scientists must.

            So lets add the qualifier:

            CO2 is a greenhouse gas; and

            And its’ influence on atmospheric temperatures is dwarfed by that of the other “Green House Gases” and more;

            the effect of the human component of the total pp CO2 is a microscopically small part of that small effect.

            Tristan, when you “do” science, you have to include all relevant detail.

            Summed up.

            CO2 from humans is so insignificant an effect that anyone using it as an excuse to frighten people should be put in jail for fraud.

            The science is so clear cut.

            KK

            its late and thats a mess


            Report this

            00

  • #

    From Readfearns article in the Brisbane Times comes this little gem of a paragraph..

    Plimer’s genuine piece of propaganda was described by the Commonwealth Department of Climate Change, which analysed his book, as “misleading” and based on “inaccurate or selective interpretation of the science”.

    The Department of Climate Change criticises a book by a scientist criticising the hypotheses of Anthropogenic Climate Change.

    The people working in the department, no doubt many with 6 figure salaries and associated perks for being public servants, need not worry about their cushy jobs.
    Nor should the wags at the department of Sunrise (incorporating the department of Sunset) and the hard working folks at the Department of Oxygen Inhaling worry either.

    Should the LNP ever dismantle their departments, they can quite easily qualify for the below (just as important) department.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYlzTdSZeI4


    Report this

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      I loved the ‘naming’ and outing of those other previously secret departments.

      Hilarious

      KK :)


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The people working in the department, no doubt many with 6 figure salaries and associated perks for being public servants, need not worry about their cushy jobs.

      Shush! Not so loud. These are the people that must not be named. These are the people with the real power.

      The politicians may adjust the levers of state, but it is the faceless men and women with the 6 figure salaries who decide where and how those levers are connected.

      Ask Gillard – she knows all about getting egg where it is not wanted.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Gee Aye

      Whatever the next government does, it will not make Plimer’s books look any worse. There is no room to move in that direction.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Hi Gee Aye,

        I have a copy of Heaven and Earth, specifically, where did Plimer go wrong about Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming?

        I well remember when Plimer was a leading proponent against the gibberish of the creationists. It stikes me how similar the methods of the Creationists and the Alarmists are in attempting to dress up pseudoscience as real science in an attempt to acquire the “authority” of science.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          Well for a start his claim that volcanoes put out far more CO2 than industry was flatly denied rejected by the American Geological Survey.

          I posit that Ian Plimer knows how much CO2 comes out of the world’s volcanoes about as accurately as I do, which is not at all. Neither do I know how the AGS can possibly know with so much greater certainty what the ballpark figure really is, and of course one suspects institutional bias there (which is hard to prove). But the bottom line is that it is not necessary to guess how many carbon atoms dance on the head of Mount Etna because the Mass Balance argument settles it.

          Partition the entire earth into three carbon buckets, Anthropogenic, Atmosphere, and Other.
          Since no nuclear reactions are occurring, the annual mass changes of each bucket must together sum to zero. Plug in the observed empirical numbers, in gigatonnes/year they are -8, +4, and X. Now apply algebra to the real world.
          Therefore X == +4, which directly implies nature has been a net sink of carbon, not a net source, therefore it is impossible that recent CO2 rise could have come from natural sources, and the Anthropogenic bucket is the only other source.

          You will know someone is a Chemistry Denier and not a true skeptic when they deny that this basic chemical reaction arithmetic applies to the real world.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Andrew

            When specific criticisms of Ian Plimer’s book were made some time ago I followed a lot of them up.

            One fellow, from perhaps UNSW and a computer programmer, had a lot of “scientific” criticisms.

            So I went to it. Many of his “criticisms’ were an embarrassing reflection on his “scientific” acumen and where that wasn’t the case

            he was picking at errors in spelling and graph ordinates which were correct but incorrectly referred to in the text.

            Not an impressive rebuttal at all and this episode was perhaps the main thing the confirmed for me the absolute scientific ineptitude of Warmers .

            The worst criticism of Ian’s book is that it was written in a hurry .

            Otherwise it is a densely packed rebuttal of the simplistic CAGW meme.

            But to your comments on arithmetic. I agree, if you know every thing it is possible to do a mass balance on that system.

            And no doubt your arithmetic is perfect.

            What I am concerned about is the simplicity of your substitution of values.

            Any value that derives from assumptions that have no foundation cannot be used.

            This argument has been discussed with Ferdinand Englebeen at length and it has been pointed out to him that in nature there are

            unknowns and that these unknowns do fluctuate considerably.

            I am puzzled how Ferdinand can so easily pretend that obvious factors can be dismissed to end up with “the Anthropogenic bucket is the only other source.”

            One big factor that no one ever mentions is that the worlds human population is increasing all the time.

            This means that even if these extra people are not using electricity they are still pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

            I have not attempted to quantify this effect but considering that the world population would increase annually by about 2.5 million we need to imagine another city the size of Sydney coming online every year.

            These people will liberate a lot of CO2 each year but whether the quantity is relevant compared to other factors and natural fluctuations I don’t know.

            Anyone who has studied basic chemistry also knows that the extra CO2 will trigger natural sequestration of the CO2 which will grow to deal with annual increments.

            After about 3 years each annual increment is “covered” by the extra sequestration developed ie more trees more grass, more biodiversity.

            As far as Ian Plimer’s capacity to understand sub ocean volcanic output I would think that as a highly functioning Geologist he

            would be as well qualified as anyone to point out that this effect had previously been hidden or dismissed by Climate Scientists.

            You don’t have to reflect too long as to why they would do that.

            The death by CO2 CAGW gravy train rolls on and if anyone discovers the two important facts then the train would stop.

            Fact

            1. Humans emit an insignificant proportion of the atm CO2 compared with nature.

            2. CO2 (even the totalCO2) is an insignificant “greenhouse” gas.

            This thrusts the conclusion at us that man made CO2 cannot lead to Global Warming.

            KK


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Joe V.

            KK @39.3.1.1.1
            You wouldn’t mean ‘Deltoid’ would you ? That’s his MO completely.
            Shameless faux argument, nit picking on anything & everything from the merest trivia to the colour of the targets socks.
            Intellectual hooliganism
            He’s the one Monckton pwned in Sydney after Readfern’s show in Brisbane.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Joe

            That name does ring a bell but , of course, that is only a nick name.

            KK


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Should have looked at the ref first

            Thanks

            KK.

            Yes Tim Lambert was the one.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Gee Aye

          I think the other comments here speak volumes for Plimer’s work. Plimer is indeed an anti-creationist campaigner and good on him. Why did he have to use their silly tactics in his latest book? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/us/WEB-tenquestions.html?pagewanted=all

          A bad book is still bad even if there are some bits that are correct. It is not just the correctness or otherwise of individual parts that make a book good or bad.


          Report this

          00

  • #

    Hi Jo, you mention Schmidt. Do you mean Harrison Schmitt?

    Are you drawing on a particular collective statement to support your claim that they all agree CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

    ————————
    1. I do. Fixed. Thanks.
    2. No. Some are based on specific comments made publicly, and some privately. One or two inferred. – Jo


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve R W.

    How far did the the Sun, Earth and the Planets ( Solar System ) travel in the last 24 hours?

    Just remember, human cognitive thought traveled with it.

    And so far, no proof exists in the scientific domain that suggest we as humans are a threat to our existence on this planet via the consumption of fossil fuels? Yes i am aware of soot, and it’s particulates. CO2 INCREASES on planet Earth today represent a human discovery. Yet the danger does not exist on the public record. Taking into account our CO2 input vs the input of “nature” is trivial!

    I’m of the belief that cosmic influences will always trump the day and are the driving force of life as we know it!

    (:

    Can i prove it?

    Not today, but i believe it to be the case.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    The bedwetters* would have us worrying, simply that we’re not worrying about something.

    I hadn’t actually seen the Brisbane event before.

    It seems to have been rather a rude awakening for Redfearn, getting out in the real world, outside his journalistic bubble, learning about engaging with people, rather than just criticising them by reputation.
    .
    Sadly the experience only seems to have driven him further towards the ranks of the disturbed, though desperately self-satisfied sideswipers, known for little other than their efforts to denigrate Monckton at every opportunity, such as Deltoid, Bickermore, Abrahams, ‘Potholer’, Monbiot & a coterie of protegees at the Guardian.
    .
    While Monckton has already turned his talents to addressing other real world problems, they will probably amount to nothing more.
    .
    * – Credit to Monckton for such apt, & descriptive addition to the language of Climate Change.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tom

    Journalism has committed many sins, but the fact that it has willingly given a platform to such a reckless hijacker of everything journalism is supposed to stand for is one of its most unforgiveable.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Capn Jack Walker

    Aaargh, ol swabbie Readfern sure has some teats, I have never seen an msm piece so full of links it has more tentacles than an octopussy.

    He seems a tad distressified with me home port here on the pongscum coast, the folk around here tend to be a pragmatic lot at times. Anyway his links is all to do with politics which he do not mention his own flavor of.

    Anyway the sails fell off his bath time favorite toy so teddies getting a thumping and an almighty toss out of his cot.

    The ol argument from authority is now a hatefest at too many people to matter.

    Aye the funny part is they use a thing called the blog army a play on Newman’s mud army which came into being as an unintended consequence of their great chickenm little kiddie yarn.

    Aye he is not happy that fella and it’s gonna get sadder for him.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Message in a bottle to Cap’n Jack Walker:


      I for one would like
      to see the Cap'n dropping
      anchor in Port Jonova more often. The captain
      brings a maritime perspective to the issues
      of the land lubbers, and can
      undoubtedly offer insight
      and practical advice.

       
      See I told you it was in a bottle.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Capn Jack Walker

        Aaargh, that bottle message of kind words bespeaks yar for a matey of the first water, aye.

        Not like that Readfern’s bilgewater full of barnacles.

        He is a short of mateys and long on being marooned, sometimes soon methinks.

        There is rumbles of mutiny everywhere over that great big bastard tax and them that dies will count themselves the lucky ones.

        The scurvy dogs they be.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Gnome

    Poor old Readfearn is right for once! Here are some (round) numbers the ABC (the only news service available to rural folk) won’t go into.

    Melbourne by-election- 45,000 enrolled, 30,000 voted, 28,000 formal votes, 10,000 voted Green, 9,000 voted Labor.

    In round terms, 40% would rather not be represented at all than be represented by Labor or the Greens. Did not vote came first, with about 35%, somewhere around 20% of the electorate voted Labor and a few more voted Green. Informal came fourth and the sex party came a distant fifth.

    The ABC is saying Labor can take heart because it shows they can win with 33% of the vote. Labor is saying this sends a message to Bailleiu. The Greens are saying this shows their fortunes are rising inexorably. I’m saying “what a debacle for Labor and the Greens”.

    (My calculator isn’t working so someone might like to tidy up the figures and repost for Readfearn’s future detailed reference.)


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Capn Jack Walker

      Aaargh using yer numbers, aye I not checked results I keep the fock away, from Australia’s poop deck if I can.

      The peeps who voted (correctly or not) a whopper of 66.7 % aye 33% per cent not happy with politics at all.

      Them hippie hairy armpits 22%
      The red raggers socialites comes in at 20%per centile.

      That gives their coalition rainbow, if you count red and green a rainbow, 42% and that is a seat that adjusts itself left of centre.

      (On a serious note the real impact to young voters, the left’s natural demographic, Dinks, appears to have voted with their feet, voted against the revolution).


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Capn Jack Walker

      I got me ol matey Perfessor Holmes to run the numbers with a conclusion and everything, he’s a bit like Darwin was to Cookie on me ship, he can count better but can’t draw fer shit.

      Melbourne By election Vote:

      Total enrollment 44889
      Total Formal Votes Counted 27245
      Informal votes 2526
      Total real Voter Intentions 29771
      % of Total real votes available 67%
      ALP 9079 20 % of available voters 30.4% of voters turned out.

      Greens 9909 22 % of available voters 33.3% of voters turned out.

      Others 10783
      AEC website: http://vec.vic.gov.au/Results/StateBy2012resultMelbourneDistrict.html

      This means that at this stage of counting the representative will have support in electorate terms of under 25% of the available enrolled voters.
      No mandate is noticeable.

      Of interest will be the singles and DINKs vote. These would miss out as usual on income supplements for the Carbon Tax by thresholds and so on.

      Of course a by election is an abnormal vote, but that so many would fail to vote in view of mandatory presentation and fines for non voting, this can be regarded as a major protest vote, by the majority of the electorate.

      Whether against carbon tax or political classes in general would need further clarification and research. This is an inner city electorate.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Capn Jack Walker

        We don’t listen to young people, tending to lecture them and not listen and with any demographic this is not a good thing to do.

        What the ALP and the greens do with respect to this demographic is try the old 20th century indoctrination schtick and these kids are wired together, more than my generation could even know, they will rebel against lies and fraud, they are by and large a lot more responsible than we were, certainly better educated in debate and interpersonal stuff.

        I was a youth and young man at the time of the moratorium marches, I never marched. The ALP rebuilt on the moratorium marches.

        This by election result indicates to me the progressive vote is becoming pragmatic and disenchanted at a younger age, this indicates the so called progressive parties are in deep trouble, it is not the interim that is the issue, this stuff will be generational.

        So generally, one swallow does not make a European spring, but that Melbourne vote in the left most progressive seat in the left most state in Australia, is ominous.

        The carbon tax has killed Prime Ministerierial ambitions and is now destroying whole spheres of politics.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Capn Jack Walker

          So take two generations, 1) Superannuants and potential superannuants and investors, who understand the so called carbon economy and how it effects investments and 2) The young who for super is an age away but tax is here and now and does nothing except cause pain in expenditure with no mitigation or rebate for them available, this tax has unintended consequences of cutting the electorate away from the progressive side of politics, two generations for two different reasons monetarily.

          For the ALP there is a further consequence and to a degree the greens, the non public service union sector will not like recessionary impacts causing job losses and income curtailments.

          This was a bad deal for the ALP most of all. The greens less so but is even impacting them.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Capn Jack Walker

    incorrectly


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    talking about realists:

    20 July: Reuters Point Carbon: Kathy Chen and Stian Reklev: China keen to avoid CO2 rollercoaster ride
    European permits have lost 80 percent of their value since mid-2008 and 50 percent in the last twelve months, spurring claims that the carbon market is becoming irrelevant in the EU’s efforts to cut emissions.
    “China will consider introducing both a price ceiling and a price floor to prevent the dramatic price fluctuation seen in the EU ETS,” said Chen Jianpeng with the State Council’s Development Research Centre, which is involved in studying the impact of a future Chinese ETS.
    China, which accounts for almost a third of global CO2 emissions, plans to use the experiences from its pilot schemes to set up a national CO2 market later this decade.
    The Beijing municipal government, which will host one of China’s seven pilot schemes from 2013 or 2014, plans to implement a price floor and ceiling in the capital’s CO2 market…
    Tax evasion, theft of permits and re-usage of credits have also damaged the reputation of the world’s biggest carbon market.
    China, which is generally skeptical about financial markets, is planning to keep its CO2 scheme under tight control.
    After state-owned power company China Aviation Oil lost $550 million on speculating in oil futures in 2004, Beijing has ruled out forward markets in all but a handful of commodities.
    Emissions trading will take place on government-approved exchanges, and recently announced regulations by the State Council means only spot trading with a five-day delay on delivery will be allowed.
    ***(LOL) Some observers said it would be beneficial to keep the market simple, at least initially, as Chinese compliance traders lack experience in emissions markets.
    “The market is not ready to have carbon derivatives, green bonds and green funds in the pilot phase,” said Shi Minjun, deputy director at the China Academy of Science’s Research Center on Fictitious Economy and Data Science.
    But other observers were doubtful whether an emissions market could be effective if it did not provide a forward price, because companies would lack the information they need to make future investment decisions…

    http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/20/us-china-carbon-trade-idINBRE86J0BA20120720


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    denialists:

    22 July: SMH: Jason Clout: Sit tight, the tidal wave of clean energy is on the horizon
    The introduction of the carbon tax means the focus will be on companies that operate in the green sector, either delivering energy in an environmentally sustainable way, reducing waste or minimising the impact of other companies’ pollution…
    The editor and publisher of Eco Investor, Victor Bivell, says the sector has been hurt by the policy flip-flops of the past few years.
    ”There was a lot of momentum in the clean energy sector a few years ago but that has weakened,” he says.
    ”However, there are still plenty of cleantech businesses that have great technology.”
    http://www.smh.com.au/money/sit-tight-the-tidal-wave-of-clean-energy-is-on-the-horizon-20120721-22grs.html

    realists:

    5 July: San Diego Union Tribune: Green energy bad idea for pension funds
    By Bill Gunderson, president of Gunderson Capital Management Inc. in San Diego. He is also the host of the “Best Stocks Now” radio show, and the creator of the Best Stocks Now app.
    I shorted First Solar, America’s largest solar manufacturer.
    The stock was at $120. Today is at $14.
    Line ’em up: The green-energy cars, green battery companies, green solar, green wind, green you name it: They are toxic to a portfolio. Unless of course you short them.
    Four years ago, the Solar Index – TAN – was $307 a share. Today it is $19.
    The Wind Index was $31 a share. Today it is $6.
    Vestas Wind was $25 in 2009. Today it is $1.70.
    Months before President Obama made his now infamous visit to Solyndra, I wrote about how Solyndra was “not a going concern” in several papers throughout the country.
    A lot of people in the investment business knew it. If any reporters did, they did not see fit to share it with us. Maybe they were in it for the long term…
    http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/jul/05/green-energy-bad-idea-for-pension-funds/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    mostly negative piece, however note:

    22 July: The Land: Colin Bettles: PM taxing protesters’ patience
    PROTESTERS plan to descend upon Canberra when parliament resumes again next month to vent their anger at the Gillard government’s “seven biggest disasters”, including the carbon tax and Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig’s 2011 snap live exports suspension.
    The Seven Labor Disasters rally is being organised by the Consumers and Taxpayers Association (CATA) for noon on August 22.
    The protest will arrive exactly 12 months on from the Convoy of no Confidence; a rally that also slammed the Gillard government’s perceived mistreatment of rural Australians and undemocratic attitude…
    http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/political/pm-taxing-protesters-patience/2614691.aspx


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    hilarious:

    22 July: Guardian: Carbon course
    Grab some counters, a die and your family or friends, and move along the footprint path. Start with three carbon feet points each. Whoever reaches the end with the least carbon points wins
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/hp-making-a-difference/graphic/carbon-course-game-hp-lorax?newsfeed=true


    Report this

    00

  • #

    As I’ve mentioned above, climate change denial is rife. It’s just that the deniers of climate change in real time are the very ones who promote it most vigorously in the abstract.

    It’s odd. After some very wet weather in the 1890s we had the catastrophic Fed Drought. However, the real catastrophe was a half-century of rainfall deficit which followed. Sustained heat and drought marked the first half of the twentieth century in eastern Oz, despite the inevitable severe flood and cold wave. That was certainly a climate change from the 1890s. It was a whopper.

    I was born in 1949 – just as well. Despite some heat and drought around 1960, the Australia I grew up in was wetter and cooler than that of my parents and grandparents. Grand finals in the mud! Climate change! I don’t deny it!

    Around 1979, after all the global cooling scares, westerly winds began to dominate in late winter/early spring, drought returned, winter thunder went away for decades. Despite a Big Wet in the late eighties, we were nearly always looking for rain. There were big, big fires. Climate change!

    Around 2007 (the year the Arctic ice went low like in the twenties, after there was too bloody much of it in the seventies!) things got wetter, oceanic winds began to dominate, the were southerlies and thunder in winter again, after decades of inland influence. It was…

    …climate change!

    I don’t deny any of it!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Debbie

    The name ‘climate denier’ is ridiculous and highly ironic.
    How does one successfully ‘deny’ the climate?
    Answer:
    ? ? ?
    Go to the mind boggling number of computer generated statistical extrapolations.
    You can successfully ‘deny’ the climate there.
    Supplementary question.
    Why don’t people just ‘trust’ the ‘climate science’? ? ?
    Answer:
    Because it is a mind boggling number of computer generated statistical extrapolations that successfully deny the ‘real’ climate and is therefore not science, climate science or any other science.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Tristan writes at post # 38.2.3.2,

    I have no idea what your evidentiary threshold is. For instance, UAH is currently tracking at 0.136 +/- 0.078 C/dec. If it hits 0.16 C/dec in the coming years, will you construe that as evidence? What about 0.18, 0.20? Or will you just say UAH has been taken over by Team Climate Science?

    Hmm it is then cooler than it was since you have it as .136 C/decade when it WAS about .16 C/decade.I will just link to a post I made a while ago showing how common the warming trends have been since the 1850′s that seem to cluster around the .62 C/decade rate.

    LINK and then this LINK

    In all this is the fact that the IPCC themselves predicted projected a .20 C/decade warming (by average) in the very first decade.You apparently know that it is NOT happening and thus MUST admit the AGW conjecture in which the IPCC predictions projections are based on is a developing failure.

    From the METoffice is this telling comment:

    The answer goes back to the 2001 and 2007 science reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that had predicted the world was likely to warm by an average of about 0.2C a decade.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tristan

    Hmm it is then cooler than it was since you have it as .136 C/decade when it WAS about .16 C/decade

    UAH is .162 since 1988, when Hansen published his oft-referenced paper. The decadal rate I gave was since UAH’s inception in 1979.

    As for your links, using the latest version of HadCRUT (The only record that goes back that far) I get:

    1860-1880: .109C/dec
    1910-1940: .135C/dec
    1970-2012: .172C/dec

    Not that this proves anything but it’s best to be accurate.

    You apparently know that it is NOT happening and thus MUST admit the AGW conjecture in which the IPCC predictions projections are based on is a developing failure.

    I pay most attention to the surface data with the greatest coverage (GISS), adjusted for aerosol optical depth, solar activity and ENSO. At last update, the rate of warming was 0.178 +/- 0.042C/dec since 1988. And that’s with a likely cool bias due to kernel smoothing at the poles. We’re not far under 0.2C/dec at all as far as I can tell.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      So much for the history lesson.
      Meanwhile, it continues to get cooler.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Bite Back

      Not that this proves anything but it’s best to be accurate.

      Let’s leave those surface temperatures aside and concentrate on the real matter at hand. You say, “Not that this proves anything but…” And there’s always a, “but,” in there to distract attention from the fact that none of this is worth the attention it’s been getting for the last 2 or 3 decades. We have accumulated a vast body of evidence that such long-term changes are a normal event — something that happens repeatedly.

      little ice age

      Vostok ice cores

      reports of a northwest passage across the arctic from Europe to Asia

      pictures of U.S. Navy submarines on the surface in open water at the north pole in the 1960s

      I can go on if you want.

      We have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that carbon dioxide is responsible for any of it. We have ample evidence from history and observation that CO2 is not responsible for any of it.

      And that’s the key thing. So I’ll risk repeating myself. “We have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that carbon dioxide is responsible for any of it.” It’s just a theory, backed up by absolutely nothing, that says a property of CO2 is somehow responsible for disastrous climate changes about to descend on the human race.

      And the worst of it…none of the outrageous predictions about it have come true. This is the strongest argument of all against you — you simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

      Absent any evidence linking CO2 to any temperature change and having compelling evidence that there is no link between the two, I’d rather argue about how many angles can dance on the head of a pin. It would be just as useful, Mr. oh so precise and accurate Tristan.

      So where is the evidence? It all boils down to just that one question. Do you really have something to contribute or are you just a pain in the ass?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Otter

      Tristan, can you show us what temps were doing:

      Between 1880 – 1910
      Between 1940 – 1970

      And why it was doing that?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Tristan

        Otter

        I can’t tell you about the early instrumental period, though presumably it’s just natural variability. I think any anthro influences would have been pretty small at that point.

        From 1940-1975 you had:

        GHE pushing temps up ~0.4C
        Sulfate aerosols pushing temps down ~0.5C

        For a slight net cooling.

        The the Clean Air Act happened which roughly stabilised the Sulfate emissions so the GHE became the primary driver once more.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          memoryvault

          From 1940-1975 you had:

          GHE pushing temps up ~0.4C
          Sulfate aerosols pushing temps down ~0.5C

          And you have some kind of observed evidence or data to support this interesting “theory”?

          Observable truth is, that the 25 to 30 year cycle of warming and cooling can be seen in the Hadley record since the 1600′s.

          Would you care to explain the mechanism by which “natural variation” in “sulfate aerosols” (or anything else) just happen to crop up cyclically every 25 to 30 years to “mask” GHE?

          Oh sorry, I forgot. GHE only goes back to around 1880. So that leaves you having to explain what caused the cyclical 25 to 30 year WARMING periods prior to that date, as well as the 25 to 30 year COOLING periods.

          .
          Tread carefully Tristan. Any plausible explanation involving cyclical natural variation for what happened prior to 1940, just as simply explains what has happened since 1940, without the need for any implausible (and already discredited) CAGW “theory”.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Otter

            Thank you, Memoryvault. I knew Someone would get it right. Actually, Most people posting here, would get it right, you were just first in line.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Otter

            It occurs to me, Memory, that if they are going to blame ‘aerosols’ for cooling in the 40s thru 70s, that they are setting up to blame India and China for the cooling that is coming in now.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Tristan

            Otter

            I think you will be in for quite a wait for that cooling.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Im with Tristan there.

            It may be a while before it cools. Possibly even a thousand years.

            Then it’s going to freeze again and we are all going to m m m m migrate to New Guinea or H H Hawaii.

            Funny thing when all the ice starts to pile up again at the poles the oceans will drop about 130 metres and Australians will be able to walk across the link to New Guinea.

            Don’t try walking to NZ its going to get colder and it will still be too bloody deep.

            We could even build floating island cities in the tropics based on old beer cans held together by ecologically approved plastic wrap.

            KK :)


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Tristan

            He doesn’t have time to respond to everyone, and generally the polite ones get preference.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Bite Back

          I guess he is just a pain in the ass.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    P Dragone

    Climate Change Deniers Explained. CWM
    So used to ruling their world, it must be a right shock to learn that the world is going to rule them.

    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/the-cwm-effect-what-climate-changes-biggest-sceptics-have-in-common-20110818-1izd6.html


    Report this

    00

    • #

      I’m a CWM, but not much of a ruler or controller. For example, it never appealed to me to control the climate by covering the poles in soot during the global cooling scare of the seventies. (To tell you the truth, I never bought global cooling. I’m a typical CWM, after all!)

      Likewise, if I did subscribe to CAGW, it would not occur to me to control it by deliberately emitting particulate pollution, by scattering iron filings in the ocean, or by instituting trading and financial schemes for the scoundrels we neglected to lock up after 2008. I would certainly not frustrate the modernisation of coal power in Australia, and burn coal in ancient clunkers while exporting 75% of our production to be burnt in the same atmosphere as the one I’m breathing now. Nor would I stop the progress of nukes or hydro.

      No, I’m a CWM, but you’d be surprised how uninterested I am in ruling or controlling anything or anyone. The prissy bed-wetters and smug finger-waggers of the Fairfax-perusing classes, on the other hand…

      You might find some rulers and controllers amid that bunch!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Bite Back

      It seems to me that they don’t understand their problem. And that unfortunately is our problem.

      Group me with those who would rather be in control enough to prevent policy decisions based on unproven theories, theories for which there is much evidence that they’re wrong.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Debbie

        Exactly Bite Back!
        It doesn’t really matter that scientists are testing theories.
        Actually, that’s what they’re supposed to do.
        What matters is that we have a political agenda that has hijacked these unproven theories and are using them in a totally inappropriate manner.
        They are using theoretical, precautionary ‘MIGHTS’ based on theoretical ‘FORCINGS’ as a basis to dictate policy.
        Tristan & co are simply not getting it.
        AGW theory and the modelling MIGHT be right….but increasingly it appears that it MIGHT not.
        Why on earth would anyone think it’s a good idea to base far reaching social policy based on MIGHTS? Especially scary precautionary MIGHTS?
        It’s almost as silly as me claiming I can no longer wash the dishes because there is a significant statistical chance that I MIGHT break a glass.
        We can’t do anything sensible or progressive or responsible with that sort of mindset!


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Mark D.

      P Dragone says this about the apparent fall of the Conservative White Male (CWM):

      So used to ruling their world, it must be a right shock to learn that the world is going to rule them.

      So it’s bigotry that will rule? I recall the last time this was tried. It didn’t turn out well for the bigots.

      But nice for you to expose the truth.

      Are you prepared to face the ANGRY White Male?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Angry

    Here is the latest LUNATIC idea from the global warming NUTJOBS who believe that human beings are parasites on the Earth !

    Ocean fertilisation to seed ocean with iron…….

    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/ocean-fertilisation-debate-rages-on/story-e6freoo6-1226429617900


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Of course you lot are denialists. When you are being attached (and climate scientists are), then you find it useful to characterise your enemies. Give them a label. It saves time. So when someone says that Plimer has published a paper saying blah blah blah, you can say to them, “Don’t bother reading it, he’s a denialist”. And straight away they know why it is not worth reading.

    So “denialist” essentially means anyone who for ideological or financial reasons feels the need to argue against any or all aspects of climate science in an effort to prove that there is no problem with our current emission of greenhouse gases. Its interesting to note that “denialists” have coined a term of their own, “luke warmers”. A “luke warmer” is someone who is not whole-hearted in their denial.

    Of course there is always a chance that people are wrongly characterised as “denialists”. That they are in a search for the truth, and that the whole edifice of climate science is rotten to the core, full of nasty deceitful scientists deliberately lying to keep their greedy hands on public funds (anyone seen Mann’s latest Maserati, or Phil’s new mansion?) – while good hard-working public spirited people like, say, Gina Rhinehart, are working away to save the world from the ultimate socialist conspiracy. No, don’t laugh, it could be true…


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Otter

      I see you took time off from beating [self-snip] with your buddy, mann.
      I hear he’s in trouble with the court on that case, btw. Good on ‘em!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Bite Back

      Mr. Brookes,

      This isn’t even up to the usual poor standard I see from you. What happened?

      BB


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Debbie

      John?
      Yes I have noticed that you see the world as one side good one side bad.
      I have also noticed your over reliance on name tags.
      Have you noticed that the weather/climate doesn’t seem that interested in co operating on those terms?
      It was no more interested in following the IPPC ‘projections’ than it was in following anyone else’s.
      Also…..
      Gina Rheinhart is neither a greedy evil person or an unselfish philanthropist.
      Neither is she deliberately trying to rape the environment and destroy the weather.
      She also must have a great deal of respect for scientists and what science can offer as she employs quite a lot of them and has gone into partnership with others and even funded others with their research.
      I have to admit however that I suspect there are not that many “Climate Scientists” in that workforce….but I’m willing to bet there would be some nonetheless.
      She, like the rest of us, is just a person…albiet a rather successful business person.
      However….I’m fairly confident that she ISN’T a misanthropist.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        John Brookes

        Debbie, are you sure you aren’t actually Gina?

        I’ve not met her, but it seems that Gina is an [snip] [I've snipped for your own protection John. You can't say "it seems" without providing evidence of the seeming. You can however re post your comment with "I believe" etc and take your chances of a law suit. mod oggi]


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Debbie

          Settle John,
          You attempted to use a comparison with Gina.
          I found it rather odd….even more so now that you claim you don’t know her.
          I don’t know her either.
          She does however have a great deal of respect for scientists and science. That’s easy to figure out.
          The more important part of my comment was the first part.
          Have you noticed that the climate/weather hasn’t been interested in taking sides or following anyone’s projections?
          It isn’t interested in any name tags either.
          This links take you to a very well updated, easy to follow, statistical representation of what the weather/climate has actually been doing.
          The graphs and explanations on pp22-23 are particularly interesting.
          http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_June_2012.pdf


          Report this

          00

  • #
    richard

    Dear Graham, if you bother to get accurate you’ll note that Spencer, Lindzen, Monckton, Michaels, Douglass, Singer, Idso, Knox, Soon, Svensmark, Christie, Watts, Carter, Giaever, Schmitt and I could go on (Evans, and dare I say Nova in that list) — all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It may come as a surprise to you — a shock by golly — but the debate (which you evidently aren’t aware of) is not about whether CO2 absorbs infra red, but whether that warming effect is significant.

    interesting,

    Hans Shreuder does not follow this thought, i agree with Hans Shreuder, but of course it take courage to do this. there again 99% of doctors were 100% wrong about stomach ulcers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    richard

    unless the slowing down of cooling at night by atmos gases is classed as greenhouse gas.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    bananabender

    I’m pretty sure that the vast majority of analytical chemists (who deal with spectroscopy every day) deny the existence of the Greenhouse Effect. In fact the only mention of the GE I’ve ever seen in a spectroscopy textbook was to ridicule the entire concept.

    Gerlich and Teuscher in painstakingly detail demolish the entire Greehouse Effect myth in a paper that has never been refuted.

    Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics.

    International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (30 January 2009), 275-364

    World Scientific Publishing Co.

    There is a freely available post-print version 4.0 from the preprint server of the Cornell University :

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Tristan

      In that case, I’m pretty sure you don’t spend much time talking to analytical chemists about the GHE. A basic property of the atmosphere is the GH effect of H2O, without which the earth would be cold and probably lifeless.

      I’m sure there are some analytical chemists amongst the skeptics (Hans Schreuder?) but unless they’ve gone bonkers they wouldn’t debate something so basic as ‘is there a GHE’, they’d adopt the slightly more defensible view of ‘climate sensitivity is low’.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        I’m sorry Tristan

        Wasn’t the story originally that Water was NOT a greenhouse gas because it occurred naturally.

        And CO2 was a GHG because WE PUT IT THERE- WE EVIL BURNERS?

        It seems even the warmers have to move along with the times when it gets too hot for comfort.

        KK


        Report this

        00

        • #
          John Brookes

          Wasn’t the story originally that Water was NOT a greenhouse gas because it occurred naturally.

          Sigh. No, that isn’t the story. Its kind of simple really. If you add water to the atmosphere, it just comes out again in a few. The technical term is “rain”. If you add CO2 to the atmosphere, it takes many many years to come out again. So water is a greenhouse gas, but we can’t control the amount of it in the atmosphere – except indirectly. That indirect method is by warming the atmosphere through adding CO2. A warmer atmosphere can hold more water.

          So, to go all technical again, CO2 is a forcing, but water is a feedback.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Mark D.

            Contradiction Alert:

            Its kind of simple really. If you add water to the atmosphere, it just comes out again in a few.

            Then:

            A warmer atmosphere can hold more water.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            memoryvault

            .
            Sigh.

            Input energy UP = ocean temperature UP = evaporation UP = clouds UP = ocean temperature DOWN = air temperatures DOWN.
            Clouds UP = ocean temperature DOWN = evaporation DOWN = clouds DOWN = air temperatures UP.

            Input energy DOWN = ocean temperature DOWN = evaporation DOWN = clouds DOWN = ocean temperature UP = air temperatures UP.
            Clouds DOWN = ocean temperature UP = evaporation UP = clouds UP = air temperatures DOWN.

            .
            Within certain well-defined limits, it’s a self-correcting cycle where the only actual meaningful input is the energy coming from the sun.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            That’s pretty good for an accountant.

            BTW there is NO EXCUSE for totally eliminating the contribution made to the “GHG” effect by water.

            THAT WAS THE ISSUE.

            Water was just Disparu from the equation altogether leaving poor old CO2 to take the entire rap for non existent AGW.

            Hell its been cold here.

            Must be all the plants sucking CO2 out of the air.

            KK


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Tristan

          No, water vapor has always been a GHG and the amount in the atmosphere changes with changes in temperature. All gases with 3 or more atoms are GHGs (plus a few with 2).


          Report this

          00

      • #
        bananabender

        The atmosphere is not heated by the Greenhouse Effect. It is heated by almost entirely by the evaporation and condensation of water vapour. This uncontroversial basic fact has been known to meterologists since the 1920s.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      John Brookes

      If you don’t think that Gerlich and Teuscher has ever been refuted, you are a super-denialist!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        memoryvault

        .
        So, where’s the link to the peer-reviewed, published paper refuting them?


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Debbie

        Really John?
        Do you have a link?


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Otter

        We’re waiting. Put down the beating stick, leave Dr. Ball alone, and give us a link.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Debbie

        John,
        I have others telling me at other sites that this paper has been refuted….but no one seems to be able to find a published, peer reviewed rebuttal anywhere.
        Can you possibly help?
        It has been around since 2004 so I’m assuming SOMEONE has refuted the paper?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          John Brookes

          Its a bit like Ann Elk’s theory of the brontasaurus. You won’t find a refutation anywhere, because its just too silly. However, if you read above you’ll find

          Dear Graham, if you bother to get accurate you’ll note that Spencer, Lindzen, Monckton, Michaels, Douglass, Singer, Idso, Knox, Soon, Svensmark, Christie, Watts, Carter, Giaever, Schmitt and I could go on (Evans, and dare I say Nova in that list) — all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It may come as a surprise to you — a shock by golly — but the debate (which you evidently aren’t aware of) is not about whether CO2 absorbs infra red, but whether that warming effect is significant.

          So here is a list of people who think that Gerlich and Teuscher are wrong. You might like to explain to them why Gerlich and Teuscher is correct – but I doubt whether they will listen to you.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Debbie

            I’m sorry John?
            This paper was a physics paper that was peer reviewed and published in a reputable science journal.
            You said that it was refuted or, rather, you said:
            If you don’t think that Gerlich and Teuscher has ever been refuted, you are a super-denialist!
            Also…if you read the paper it doesn’t deny that C02 has physical properties, it questions the ‘assumptions’ about the strength of those properties according to physics.
            It also seriously questions the mathematical ‘assumptions’ in the modelling re AGW.
            Which is quite similar to your cut and paste.
            So…what does this mean in relation to asking for a link to refutations that you said exist?
            Its a bit like Ann Elk’s theory of the brontasaurus. You won’t find a refutation anywhere, because its just too silly.
            Could you please explain what is just too silly about the paper?
            I’m assuming that Physics is still regarded as science?
            And I am also assuming that this article would be subject to the peer review process as much as any other article?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Gee Aye

            So conflating the two things here; you are saying that Spencer and Schmitt are quite thin and the thickest ones are Idso and Knox?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            crakar24

            Hey Debbie congrats on leading JB with bread crumbs into that painted corner, i am sure that as i type you are basking in the warm glow of your intellectual victory but be warned JB does not debate on the intellectual level.

            He has already slithered away and shall return again in a time of his choosing which is normally about a week, by then he thinks we have forgotten all about this embarassing moment for him and when he returns it will be as this conversation never took place.

            So warm in glow whilst you can and look forward to watching many more of your victories over JB.

            Regards

            Crakar


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Tristan

            You won’t find a refutation anywhere, because its just too silly.

            Partly true. A paper has to be regarded as pretty significant to receive the time and effort of a refutation. G&T is not so regarded.

            There was however a published comment in the journal it appeared in, G&T duly replied of course.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            There was however a published comment in the journal it appeared in, G&T duly replied of course.

            Says Tristan, links to the comment paper but not to the G&T reply to the comment (which was by Halpern et al, Halpern better known as Eli Rabett)

            I wonder Tristan, did you ever read the reply by G&T to the Halpern comment? Why didn’t you link to that as well?

            The Halpern comment is behind a paywall (surprise) but a slightly extended version of the extract can be found at Eli Rabetts blog HERE

            The reply by G&T can be found HERE

            The original G&T paper is HERE

            Now, anyone interested can study the WHOLE exchange and make an informed decision. Isn’t that right Tristan?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Well Baa H

            Tristan can be right or wrong depending on what argument he wants to make..

            In pure science of course there is no such thing as Green House Gas. Everyone knows that.

            On the other hand ( we all have two hands) there is Engineering where we use pure science in very, very complex problems of real life.

            Some times in Engineering we overlook or cannot see all of the factors contributing to a situation.

            Global Warming by CO2 is one such nightmare.

            Where “Warmers” love to tread is to place Global; Warming in the “pure” science category.

            They do this for a number of reasons.

            One is that they don’t know any better and couldn’t do the engineering anyhow.

            Secondly they can scam most people without much trouble, so why bother to do it properly.

            And third because if they did it properly the results would show that it was a SCAM and they would be out of the money.

            They love PURE science that has been peer reviewed 5 times because it is SOOOO scientific and even if they don’t understand it they can still say it was peer reviewed so … blah blah.

            Scientific scam!

            KK


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Tristan

            I cbf finding the reply as well, thanks baa


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Debbie

            Tristan says John’s comment is ‘partly true’?
            He also says that’s justified because:
            A paper has to be regarded as pretty significant to receive the time and effort of a refutation. G&T is not so regarded.
            Not so regarded by whom Tristan?
            Also Tristan….this paper is a physics paper and discusses the physical properties of C02.
            It was peer reviewed and published in a PHYSICS journal.
            Is there something disreputable or insignificant about PHYSICS and this particular journal?
            May I also point out that the paper still stands and the refutation at rabbet run was withdrawn under the peer review process (I discovered that fact yesterday)…mainly because it did not refute the information on PHYSICS and the physical properties of C02 which was what that paper was about.
            Along with John, you continually either imply or say that we must ‘trust’ the science.
            By your own dismissive treatment of Scientists like G & T….that is obviously NOT what you mean at all.
            Along with John, I don’t believe you have a clue about science and due diligence in the scientific process…neither do I believe you have any trust or respect for science.
            You have mixed it up with ‘Advocacy’ and ‘Statistical Analyisis’ and the public perception of a ‘THEORY’.
            None of those are ‘science’ Tristan.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            very nice smackdown Debbie!

            I can’t think of many people more deserving than JB or Trissy.

            Good job.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Tristan

            May I also point out that the paper still stands

            The entire weight of thermodynamic science, most notably Kirchhoff’s law of thermal radiation, and 50 years of atmospheric backradiation measurements.

            or

            G&T.

            I’m totally cool with agreeing to disagree :)

            You have mixed it up with ‘Advocacy’ and ‘Statistical Analyisis’ and the public perception of a ‘THEORY’.

            Science. No longer the domain of statistics or theories.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        bananabender

        You may be surprised to discover that Arrhenius was totally discredited as soon as his Greenhouse Effect papers were published in 1896.

        Btw Tyndall actually measured the absorbance of radiation by aqeaous solutions of carbonic acid (CO2 dissolved in water) – not gaseous CO2.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Debbie

          Tristan,
          Read the paper.
          You will discover that to maintain any credibility you may find yourself having to withdraw that comment for exactly the same reason the rebuttal was withdrawn in the first place.
          You imply that the paper denies thermodynamics.
          Prove it Tristan.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Debbie

    Crakar

    No not basking.
    I just get annoyed when people like John continually claim we should ‘trust’ the science when that’s so very obviously not what he means at all.
    I have a great deal of respect for genuine science and scientists and what he is demanding we ‘trust’ has nothing at all to do with what I respect about science.
    He doesn’t ‘trust’ science if it leads him to call published, peer reviewed, physics papers…’just too silly’.
    He appears to have no clue at all about scientific process.
    He appears to be mixing it up with ‘political advocacy’ and ‘statistical analysis’ that uses (and abuses) an impressively increasing resource of stored data.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Myrrh

    John Brookes
    July 24, 2012 at 10:27 pm

    Sigh. No, that isn’t the story. Its kind of simple really. If you add water to the atmosphere, it just comes out again in a few. The technical term is “rain”. If you add CO2 to the atmosphere, it takes many many years to come out again. So water is a greenhouse gas, but we can’t control the amount of it in the atmosphere – except indirectly. That indirect method is by warming the atmosphere through adding CO2. A warmer atmosphere can hold more water.

    So, to go all technical again, CO2 is a forcing, but water is a feedback.

    ——————————————————————————–

    John – rain, all clean pure rain, is carbonic acid – which is water and carbon dioxide.

    This is called the Water Cycle. It is standard traditional physics in the real world. That’s why iron outdoors, rusts.

    Carbon Dioxide cannot ‘accumulate in the atmosphere for hundreds and even thousands of years’ as the AGW science fiction fisics claims – not only does it come down in rain, snow, dew, fog, but it is heavier than air and so will naturally displace air (nitrogen and oxygen) to sink to the ground.

    The real world is so much more interesting than this AGW fake fisics.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Myrrh

    Gosh, someone didn’t like my post.

    There is no Greenhouse Effect – it’s fake fisics, a magic trick, a sleight of hand, it doesn’t exist.

    Achieved by taking out the Water Cycle – without water the Earth would be around 67°C, think deserts. The Sun heats the Earth, the water cycle cools it bringing it down to 15°C (and Carbon Dioxide fully part of the Water Cycle).

    There is no “Greenhouse Effect” is the claim that “the Earth would be -18°C without greenhouse gases and that it’s the greenhouse gases which warm the Earth 33°C to 15°C.

    For a start – remember this is a con – that -18°C is for the Earth without any atmosphere at all, that is, without any nitrogen or oxygen too.

    There are no “greenhouse gases warming the Earth 33°C” from that figure which is falsely presented by AGW as being the Earth with an atmosphere of oxygen and nitrogen. It’s a blatant fib.

    The rest of the AGW fictional fisics is created to promote that fib, by tweaking real world physics terms and processes and swapping properties and so on. All designed to confuse.

    That’s what both CAGWs and AGWs base their arguments on.

    Shrug.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Seabrook

    Not all observers of noticeable erratic climate events are ‘alarmists’. By the same token, not all denialists can put their faith in someone as obviously ridiculous as Monckton. I really think you need someone a bit more, how should I say this, a bit more real. In other words, not an eccentric, far right wing loony. How about a scientist for starters?


    Report this

    00

    • #

      In other words, not an eccentric, far right wing loony.

      Monckton has done more than most to bring attention to the UN scam that is Global Warming.

      He may be eccentric, he may even be a bit loony, at least he’s not a MORON eh Seabrook?


      Report this

      00