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

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Dr Paul Bain and Nature issue partial correction

It’s a start. Paul Bain regrets the offense caused by the term denier.

But there’s no mention of the term failing basic English or it’s unscientific nature. The term has been used by professors, M.P.’s, Prime Ministers and national broadcasters, and none of them have expressed even a hint of regret, but we can nonetheless call this a small win. Notch up one for skeptics, but ten for the fog.

Credit to Paul Bain for being one of the only people drawn into that unscientific milieu who has the strength of character to back out, ever so slightly.  He has promised to reply to my last email. I look forward to it. Few who claim to be concerned about the planet have the intellectual honesty to even try to defend their work.

The small win here is not so much the correction attached below (though that is useful), but it’s that the internet fray and the questions will have been noticed by other editors and researchers. In the future, a few of those people will be more careful with their terms.

Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers

Paul G. Bain | Matthew J. Hornsey, | Renata Bongiorno  |  Carla Jeffries

Nature Climate Change 2, 600–603 (2012); published online 17 June 2012; corrected online 4 July 2012.

In the above Letter, we used the term ‘denier’ to describe people who are not convinced that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. The denier label refers to an image held by some in the mainstream climate science community that such people are contrarian, which other terms like ‘sceptic’ do not capture. We hoped our findings would suggest to mainstream climate scientists the benefit of looking beyond this contrarian image, by showing that deniers were more supportive of actions to address climate change where these actions produced beneficial social outcomes. However, since publication we were contacted by people offended by the label denier to describe their group due to its broader negative connotations. We acknowledge this point and regret any offence caused.

 

Sadly we note that even in the correction his present tense use of the term “deniers” shows that he has not yet found any other label to apply to people who are unconvinced that changing light bulbs can significantly affect the global weather. Apparently his mental state still places thousands of eminent scientists in the “denier” box, which surely is a mental disability for any open minded scientist seeking to find the truth.

Note to Paul: So long as you keep thinking of us as “deniers” and talking in the tea-room about “deniers”, you will surely struggle to understand what motivates the group you are paid to investigate who do not deny any observation you can name.

A tad arrogant?

“We hoped our findings  would suggest to mainstream climate scientists the benefit of looking beyond this contrarian image, by showing that deniers were more supportive of actions to address climate change where these actions produced beneficial social outcomes.”

Paul Bain is doing his best to be nice but this line translates into saying that mentally-incapable-people who can’t use their frontal cortex are not so bad because they will perform obediently if you convince them there will be “beneficial social outcomes”.

It’s conceited and as insightful as finding that black tea is a shade of brown — which is obvious to billions of tea-drinkers. Likewise it’s obvious to the millions of readers of skeptical blogs that post after post discusses the cost-benefits of green policies. Beneficial social outcomes is what motivates most skeptics and we’ve never tried to hide that.

Indeed, arguably, skeptics and greens have something in common. Presumably many green people think their policies have a “beneficial outcomes” too, it’s just that they aren’t so good with numbers, keep reasoning with fallacies, and don’t test the results. No offense intended of course, I was once a Green, and it wasn’t until someone pointed out there was no direct evidence that global warming is man-made that I looked at the numbers and changed my mind.

In that sense how is a “denier” any different from a “Green”? Answer: the skeptics are not so gullible. It’s harder to convince a logical brain of something which is wrong.

Contrarian? Not so.

It’s obvious that the terms “denier” and “contrarian” are not interchangeable, nor close in meaning, and the aim of calling someone a denier is not to help readers think of them as “contrarians”. More so, the term “contrarian” still implies a mental deficiency, an inflexibility to agree with the masses (on those occasions when the masses are right). While some skeptics are contrarian, many, like myself, wholeheartedly (foolishly) accepted the consensus opinion for years, while others saw through it from the beginning for brutally logical and well informed reasons. So contrarian does not apply to most skeptics either. The term “unconvinced” encompasses far more skeptics, and more of the influential ones. Convince us, we keep saying, show us the evidence! You still have not.

It’s not about “offense” — it’s about bad science and wasting taxpayer funds

My concern, as always, is not about hurt feelings, but about the billions of dollars that are wasted on studies that were designed so badly they would never have produced an outcome that was useful from the start. I want that money spent on scientific investigations, and on topics that matter, not on better ways to target propaganda to achieve an outcome that no one can name evidence for.

h/t Hockey Schtick

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (62 votes cast)
Dr Paul Bain and Nature issue partial correction, 9.3 out of 10 based on 62 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/923ytl8

133 comments to Dr Paul Bain and Nature issue partial correction

  • #
    Sceptical Sam

    Well said Jo.

    We sceptics must continue to find ways to help those on the ‘dark side’ to return to a more scientific position. Your article makes the point without rubbing it in.

    We need to leave the key under the mat – or the door ajar – so that the late comers can quietly re-enter the correct practice of science when they finally realize that their current path is a barren one.

    There will be a hell of a rush for that key eventually.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Dave N

    With respect, wasting billions of taxpayer funds is pretty hurtful to ones feelings, as is being treated like uneducated fools who should just accept the word of “authority figures”.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    sophocles

    Climate scepticism is not “GS” (Good Science) in the sense it does not bring
    in research grants and does not enable the researcher(s) to keep writing paper
    after paper about less and less. It does not meet the modern PBRF (Performance
    Based Research Funding) criteria.

    Most of us understand good science to mean deep meaningful research into a subject
    with collected detailed evidence, carefully analysed and considered with meaningful
    solutions. We are incorrect. That *used* to be good science.

    Since the politicians set out to keep academics busy with the Performance Based
    ideas, the academics have—quite rightly—concluded it’s all about money not
    REAL science. So anything goes as long as it:
    1. produces papers for the paper mill
    2. Pulls in research grants
    3. enables lots of papers to be produced
    4. pulls in more research grants
    5. repeat 1-4 ad infinitum

    then it’s a real success.

    How dare non-academics get involved. They upset the pineapple cart(s).


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Chris

    So they are just upset at being called what they really are .. flat earthers were called flat earthers for a reason as well ..

    But we have to believe that a mathematician knows more about climate change then any of the top scientific organisations in the world all who say global warming is real and is caused by humans …

    We all don’t go to the local fish & chip shop to get medical advice either for a reason we speak to those who are qualified


    Report this

    01

    • #

      We all don’t go to the local fish & chip shop to get medical advice either for a reason we speak to those who are qualified

      I have just a few words for you. You can research those and get back to me, at which time I will hand your intellectual ass to you on a platter. Here are the words…

      The surgeon, Jayant “Jay” Patel

      Now do a google search and research and get back to me with a comment or two.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Joe V.

      We never ‘have to believe’ , just because we don’t know. That’s what authority would have us believe. That’s argument from ignorance. That’s appeal to authority. Any sensible person would go and find out, examine & weigh the evidence for themselves.
      However inexpertly, the individual has independence.
      Failure to do so isn’t necessarily laziness , though it is relinquishing free thought to authority.
      Various Authorities realise this submission to ignorance by many gives them enormous power. And we know what power does.


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Joe V.

        And we know we shouldn’t begin a sentence with And.


        Report this

        01

        • #
          memoryvault

          And we know we shouldn’t begin a sentence with And.

          That’s a furphy developed by English public schoolboys to show off their knowledge of Latin.
          Dickens was very fond of starting sentences with “and”, “but”, “its” and so on.
          Doesn’t seem to have done his reputation much harm.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            AndyG55

            And we know we shouldn’t begin a sentence with And.

            shouldn’t that last “And” be in quotes? ;-)


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Joe V.

            Well that furphy has given me quite a conscience about it, every time I use it.
            I always felt it was a useful literary device.

            I ‘know’ I shouldn’t be doing it, but I also know it feels right … Like going to the Fish & Chip shop.

            (I should also avoid beginning sentences with “I”).- Thanks mv & Andy. I can. Ow shed that burden of guilt, instilled by false authority , and continue doing what feels right now proudly.
            Shouldn’t put and after a comma either, but sometimes it just feels right .


            Report this

            00

          • #
            AndyG55

            And I know what you mean !:-)


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Joe,

            If it makes you feel any better, you can always start a sentence or a paragraph with the word “And”, as long as you put a comma after it.

            And, if you do, you will find over time that it becomes less of a problem for you.

            And so thus does the English language evolve.


            Report this

            10

      • #
        RoHa

        It is permissible to begin a sentence with a coordinating conjunction. (The coordinating conjunctions are “for”, “and”, “nor”, “but”, “or”, “yet”, and “so”.) This is usually done for stylistic effect. Usually it is preferable to use a coordinating adverb, such as “however” or “also”.

        But one must NEVER put a comma after the conjunction unless it is followed immediately by a subordinate clause or other element that requires comma separation. (But, if it is not followed immediately by a subordinate clause, one must NEVER put a comma after the conjunction.)

        *So, this sentence is wrong.

        There should be no comma in it, just as there is no comma after “so” when it occurs in the middle of a sentence.

        Confusion is caused by the fact that the coordinating adverbs are followed by commas.

        However, although it is permissible to use a coordinating conjunction in place of a coordinating adverb, the reverse is not true.

        *This sentence structure is common, however, it is incorrect.

        In all such cases, the “however” should be replaced by “but”.

        This sentence structure is similar, but it is perfectly correct.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      AndyG55

      “But we have to believe that a mathematician knows more about climate change”

      When that mathematician is pointing out massive STATISTICAL errors/fraud in the work of said climate scientists.

      YES !!!

      When that mathematican shows massive statistical manipulation and massive errors in code.

      YES.

      When that mathematican shows that the clowns have basically zero understanding of scientific process, and have never produce a single validated computermodel (except one that has been mashed to fit past data)

      Then

      YES !!!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Chris

        Well i just told NASA they should be very relieved … The FACT is i trust the people behind the science when they can fly a car sized robot all the way through space to a precise destination approx 255 million km away, land it safely on the planets surface even though their were periods of non communication and send back data , pictures … Yet we have people today still saying NASA’s data on climate change is not accurate , while their claim to fame is a article in a Aussie newspaper…..

        Also pretty sure NASA , NOAA , CSIRO , NCDC , BEST would know far more about what they are doing including their statistics models


        Report this

        01

        • #
          AndyG55

          that is avery different department of NASA from the ultra-activist Hansen led climate department, which has, unfortunately, turned into a total FARCE !!!

          The space department actually deals with FACTS.. engineeering… NOT supposition and hypothesis.. !!!

          And yes, I suspect they do know what they are doing……. until someone cleverer catches them at it.

          Oops…. already happening !!!


          Report this

          10

        • #

          Chris — you are absolutely right. Sharp rocket scientists can spot junk science a mile away. That’s why 50 of the guys who actually do or did the space missions wrote to protest over the unscientific junk that GISS produces.

          So I guess you’ll become a skeptic now since you said you trust them?

          Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
          Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years
          Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
          George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
          Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Mick Buckley

            Jo, if these guys really were sharp rocket scientists who had spotted junk science I think they would have done more than write a letter of protest. The letter they wrote, which you linked to, is science-free to my eyes.

            Maybe they are currently working to get their climate change refutations published in the scientific literature. Only then will their theories (whatever they may be) get serious scrutiny.


            Report this

            01

          • #
            Winston

            Yet another logical fallacy from Mr Buckley.
            It is not a requirement or prerequisite for those said NASA scientists to propose some alternate theory in order to submit a letter of protest suggesting that Hansen and his cohorts are not, in their opinion, adhering to appropriate scientific methodology, principles or scrupulous transparency in their approach to the advocacy of their theory. Insisting upon absolute integrity, objectivity and intellectual rigor is not only desirable for colleagues witnessing corner cutting, confirmation bias and blatant politicization and advocacy, it is an absolute obligation. Right or wrong, they should be congratulated for insisting on appropriate scientific method and principles. What a surprise that you don’t see the need for such an objective or rigorous approach, since nothing you ever say suggests such ideas are within the scope of your philosophy.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mick Buckley

            Sure they can submit a letter of protest – in fact they did. Sure they can demand best scientific practice, and who would disagree with that. So let them put their pointy rocket scientist hats back on and write it up in a scientific paper. They’re from NASA right? Should be a piece of cake.


            Report this

            01

          • #
            Chris

            So Jo you have 50 even though that argument has been debunked before as that group were ex / retired NASA guys and many not even remotely qualified to talk about climate science Avionics , Thermal Protection for space shuttle has no bearing on climate .. As said you don’t go see a mathematician when you want information on climate science same applies with most of those think 4 were the only ones who could comment out of the 50 …

            But aside from that there has been the letter from the top 19 scientific organisations in the world saying the opposite .. Even add up the amount of scientist in the organisations who say this is a FACT and it is happening vastly outnumber the skeptics ..

            Even say their are 200 or 300 skeptics still out numbered but even beside that if they had a viable argument they would be published in REAL science journals to be scrutinised not local newspapers ..Especially if he says he is correct and all these top organisations are wrong why not put it to the test get them to fully scrutinise his theories after all that is what science is all about ..

            Science is not done in newspapers


            Report this

            01

          • #
            Mark D.

            Darn it! I gave Mick a thumbs in the wrong direction. (blurry morning eyes)

            Mick that is supposed to be a thumb down.

            Nice smackdown Winston. I doubt Mick will comprehend it though.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            cohenite

            Chris and Mike obviously have closed minds; astronauts are like engineers who get their hands dirty in the real world except they go one better because their lives depend on them getting the science right.

            Phil Chapman is an Australian astronaut who blogs about the lies of AGW.

            Guys like Chapman who know the science and have applied it in a practical way stand in stark contrast to the climate scientists who manufacture results with models and adjust data until it suits their theory. It is also the case that the peer review system in Climate Change is hopelessly corrupt and fraudulent.

            People like Chris and Mike who go on about getting papers published are either gullible fools or liars and deserve contempt.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Mick Buckley

            cohenite, maybe I am a fool who deserves your contempt but I don’t think I’ve told any lies. I’ve pointed out that scientific debate takes place in scientific journals. Bread and butter for sharp rocket scientists from NASA. That’s what makes the letter of protest in Jo’s link so unconvincing.


            Report this

            01

          • #
            Winston

            You are not being accused of being a fool, Mike. You are not even necessarily a liar, though only you would know that for certain. The difference between you and I is that you want to believe what you are told because you believe in a cause and a planet that needs “saving”, and you falsely believe that science is strengthened by solidarity in supporting scientists you believe are honest, hard working and highly qualified. I would argue vigorously that such solidarity is absolutely anathematous and contrary to strengthening science, and is actually the path to scientific stasis and entrenching false beliefs which have repercussions through not just that branch of Science, but all those related to it. Lysenko showed the cost of false doctrines, and biofuel advocacy and carbon trading will, IMO, kill significant numbers of the world’s poor and all predicated on unconvincing computer modeling exercises and a loose association of poorly correlated variables cobbled together to sell a narrative. With all that is at stake, I’d want to be pretty certain of my evidentiary support before potentially unleashing tremendous social upheaval with uncertain and possibly deleterious effects. Yet, all I see from people like yourself is cavalier arm waving and pointing to some shaky numerical advantage in advocates, but precious little in anything concrete or empirical that could convince someone genuinely uncommitted and desirous of the truth. The poverty of alarmist arguments which do not stand up to even cursory scrutiny, and a failure to engage openly and honestly is why you are losing the argument in spite of powerful vested interests trying to stack the deck heavily in your favour.


            Report this

            10

          • #

            Chris #4.3.1.2.4

            Skeptics have published peer reviewed literature (see the link in the thread before this — 1100 papers and counting). Just because you haven’t read any or searched for it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

            And since when does being “retired” neutralize an experienced scientific mind? (Ageist bollocks). The reason they are mostly retired is that being retired allows them to speak freely. If the younger guys employed at NASA are too afraid to tell Hansen his “science” is a joke, that’s because they are not retired yet and afraid they might lose their job or their grants.


            Report this

            10

          • #

            Chris @ 4.3.1.2.4 says..

            Avionics , Thermal Protection for space shuttle has no bearing on climate ..

            Oh really?
            So you put a couple of guys in a capsule and send them way above the protection of the atmosphere. As their capsule comes around to the sunny side, their equipment starts to cook.
            Do you cover the capsule with non-radiative materials?
            But then what happens to the heat generated internally, how does one dissipate that? You can’t just open a window Chris.

            Sending people into space is directly relevant to the Greenhouse Hypothesis, that’s why astronauts are generally sceptical about AGW, they’ve been there done that long long before Trenberth and his Earth energy budget cartoon.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Mick Buckley

            Winston, you have projected a whole lot of things on to me that I don’t recognise. I don’t know how you worked out what you think I believe, but in this thread I’m saying something very clear and simple. Sharp rocket scientists do their work in scientific journals. Letters of protest have little weight and are likely to be ignored by serious scientists no matter who they are written by.

            If these 50 guys are NASA’s best they need to show it by making a contribution in a scientific forum. Citing this letter of protest to support your case serves, unfortunately, to show how weak your argument is.


            Report this

            01

          • #
            AndyG55


            Both Muller & Hansen have changed their views… Why ?

            I didn’t know they were now skeptics, ?????

            because neither of them EVER was before !!!


            Report this

            10

          • #
            turnedoutnice

            There are 6 mistakes in basic physics in the climate models. In another post I have added the latest, the failure to take into account intermolecular mixing effects in the prediction of GHG ‘radiative forcing’.

            it is a very clever fraud with probably the cleverest bit being to put in 40% more energy than reality thus increasing evaporation rate over the oceans then getting the right temperature by exaggerating cooling by clouds.

            This harnesses the extreme non-linearity of evaporation rate as air-sea temperature increases to create the entirely imaginary positive feedback.

            And then these Marxists allied to the carbon traders character assassinate everyone who says they’re wrong. It’s a determined attempt to create a totalitarian society and kill billions, a rerun of Pol Pot.

            True scientists have to stand up against these people before they get into real power and kill us in the camps.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            turnedoutnice

            PS The Gillard saga shows the scam is operating with organised crime.

            The story of Oxburgh is very important here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/25/global-warming-the-oxburgh-inquiry-was-an-offer-he-couldnt-refuse/


            Report this

            10

        • #
          Ross

          So I suppose Chris supports Hanson’s lastest paper because it is from NASA even though Martin Hoerling from NOAA and many others have torn the the paper to shreads already.
          Probably also blindly accepted the Gergis et al paper even though a high school kid initially picked the errors in within a day or so and had his view supported by McIntyre and co very quickly.


          Report this

          10

        • #
          Ian Hill

          NASA once stuffed up a mission to Mars because they were using yards while their European partners were using metres.


          Report this

          10

        • #
          gai

          So You BELIEVE in NASA, at least the ENGINEERS at NASA.
          The I suggest you read what a NASA ENGINEER, A. J. Strata has to say about CAGW and Global warming. He is another person well schooled in math as any top notch engineer is. He also looked at the numbers. Read what he found:

          I have not had to work this hard on a post for quite a while, but the topic is – after all – the total annihilation of the Earth by man-made CO2. So I have set aside some work and free time to investigate some critical data that shows, without much doubt, that man-made global warming is a con, a false alarm created by shoddy statistics and faux science….

          I am going to focus this post on two key documents that became public with the recent whistle blowing at CRU. The first document concerns the accuracy of the land based temperature measurements, which make up the core of the climate alarmists claims about warming. When we look at the CRU error budget and error margins we find a glimmer of reality setting in, in that there is no way to detect the claimed warming trend with the claimed accuracy.

          The second document contains 155 graphs showing the raw global temperature measurements and ‘trends’ for every country from 1900 though today. It contains two version of the CRU ‘processing’ – one from 2005 and one from 2008. What is just amazing from this ‘raw’ data is the realization that many areas of the Earth are not showing a huge upswing in temperature. The raw data paints a completely different picture than the final ‘results’ we see in Al Gore’s charts. And we also get a glimpse at the ’1940′s blip’ that was the subject of so many emails.

          This post will review my analysis…
          http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11420

          A.J. catches the core problem with CAGW. The science is so faulty and the statistics are so shoddy that the problems stand out like a glowing neon sign so any scientist, engineer or mathematician who bothers to look can see it.

          Why else do you think the Climastrologists have been dodging FOI requests, and fighting tooth and nail in courts all over the world? That is another big fat neon sign.. As Phil Jones said,

          “Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. ”

          Finding something wrong with other scientists’ data and ideas is an integral part of how science progresses. Climate Science as it stands now is nothing but conjecture because it has never been verified and validated by scientist outside the “Team”

          Once an honest scientist realizes that he really needs no other fact to become a skeptic (one who questions)

          As a scientist I have nothing but contempt for these people and their hangers on. Actually it is more a deep hatred for those who have dragged the good name of science through the mud to line their own pockets, to help corporations steal tax payer money by way of grants, subsidies and guaranteed loans, and to help politicians and bureaucrats usurp more and more power.


          Report this

          10

    • #
      Joe V.

      What most who arent familiar with science themselves don’t realise is that Mathematics is the language of science. Not just the language but the gauge by which observed effects are measured, in order to determine their significance, quantitatively & objectively.
      Without that guage we cann’t tell what it all really means or where & what it is likely & not so likely to lead to.

      Observing effects can be entertaining, but measuring their degree & significance is what matters.


      Report this

      10

      • #
        AndyG55

        I prfer to think of mathematics as being language used to describe physics and other branches of science.

        Science is still its own language though…….. yeah , I know just semantics ;-)

        Mathematics is interwoven and inseperable from all other science strands. It is the foundation stone.

        A mathematics degree at uni contains a LOT of Chemistry, Physics, Statistics, Scientific principles, etc.

        It is a very good tool for picking up errors/junk/fraud in the ignorance of Climate Science. As Mr McK has shown so often.

        I would trust a mathematician over a self-labled climate scientist ANY day !! And certainly over any Social science/humanities charlatan.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      Joe V.

      Argumentum ad ridiculum.
      A lot of us who go the the fish and chip shop are doing so against medical advice, but still they go.

      All that brain food, swimming around in that fat.

      What is it that the doctors don’t know ?


      Report this

      10

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Chris,

      And he has to be quoted:

      “But we have to believe that a mathematician knows more about climate change then any of the top scientific organisations in the world all who say global warming is real and is caused by humans … ”

      You fall into the trap of ALL scientifically unwashed hangers on to the Coattails of Climate Change Aspirants.

      You talk about “a mathematician” and compare his capacity with a “top scientific organisation”.

      Now this is the point.

      You go to the mathematician you talk about to ask about Climate Change Fraud and he will talk to you about CO2 and the air and

      carefully explain why humans cannot influence climate change.

      Your “top scientific organisation”, by comparison, is always very willing and free with unscientific opinion based publicity

      statements but when you go to ask someone a question the response is ” sorry but this was the result of a committee and they are not

      home at the moment and I can’t comment”.

      You will have to wait for the committee chairman who has the Authority to discuss this.

      Yes; we know about authority but science doesn’t work by authority.

      KK:)

      ps. (sorry for using “and ” at the start of a sentence)


      Report this

      10

      • #
        jorgekafkazar

        And why shouldn’t you?


        Report this

        10

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          twas just a joke Jorge, a reference to a previous exchange where someone was pulled up for using “and” at the start of a sentence.

          On another topic I went back and had a look at the original paper by DR. Bain. The entire thrust, content and origin is totally flawed.

          For a start the subject of modern Psychology is not about WHAT people think and any attempt to produce a paper that purports to say that one thought is more politically acceptable than another is shouting from the wrong office.

          The paper is an abuse of all of the decent Psychology students and teachers who are trying to map and understand the human brain and explore “how” we think.

          The paper does not belong in an Australian University Psychology Department.

          It should be published under the auspices of departments interested in Modern History, Politics or Philosophy.

          I realise that I might be doing those departments a disservice in trying to dump Dr Paul on them but hell, he doesn’t fit in as a psychologist.

          The content and origin of Dr Paul’s paper is based on the scientifically flawed assumption that “Man Made Global Warming and Certain Death If We Don’t Act Soon Because CO2 Is Rising” is real.

          It is not real and is simply a fabricated political meme created by those with less honorable intentions than the vast bulk of us.

          Global Warming is NOT about pollution but has a more sinister aspect in that it seeks to entrain the minds and bank accounts of the uneducated, sentimental, and easily led.

          It is disgusting to see an Australian Universities Funds being used in such a blatantly political manner.

          The whole thing is appalling.

          KK

          ps. Sorry for using ” and” after a comma.


          Report this

          10

    • #
      Siliggy

      Would Chris listen to a climate scientist instead of Dr paul Bain?
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDFH0Hs4Q8s


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Chris

        That is the same Dr. John Christy who is heavily funded by ExxonMobil and other vested interests .. He would not be reliable on these matters seeing where his interests lie

        [I challenge you to find verification that Dr. Christy is "heavily funded" by ExxonMobil. If you cannot, then post a retraction for posting gross misinformation. ] ED

        [ http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy2011/index.html ]


        Report this

        10

        • #
          AndyG55

          Given the $79B flowing to the AGW scam and the $176B in the carbon credit market.. you are leaving yourself WIDE open there Chris, as well as showing your continued ignorance.

          Anyone with any nouse KNOWS where the money is coming from and going to. and it ain’t TO the skeptics !!!!


          Report this

          00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Andy

            Also the bank commissions in the carbon trading market..

            About $300 million a year.

            Wouldn’t you like to be a banker?

            KK


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Why wonder about it, KK? Just ask the Absolute Banker! :D

            A year-old challenge which has still gone unanswered by the Left Dishonourable Member for Goldman Sachs.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Chris

            what to fund cleaner greener energy is bad thing .. nothing left to be wide open about .. vested interest versus changing habits to a cleaner way far cheaper then costs to health .. as the saying goes

            Climate Change is a Reality: Skeptics / Den##$$ argue the financial cost — Supporters argue the cost to the planet or to human life


            Report this

            01

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Samol samol stuff from SS

          Don’t you have any personal; pride in putting forward your own thoughts.

          Why use the Skeptical Science template for all that you write.

          It would be demeaning for anyone with some sense of self worth.

          KK


          Report this

          01

        • #
          Bob Malloy

          Now I,m a believer, no trace of doubt in my mind!!!!

          “Dr. John Christy who is heavily funded by ExxonMobil and other vested interests”

          This line of argument is old, tiresome and boring. At least bring something new to the discussion.

          Original sponsors for the CRC at UEA, included British Petroleum, the Nuffield Foundation and Royal Dutch Shell”

          BTW, heavily funded by Exonmobil, recheck your sources Chris.

          Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.

          Pot, kettle anyone.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Chris

            might be old tiresome and boring it was the fact , still is fact and he is still funded by vested interests Exxon amongst others .. Even the Koch guys involved

            [I challenge you to find verification that Dr. Christy is "heavily funded" by ExxonMobil. If you cannot, then post a retraction for posting gross misinformation. ] ED


            Report this

            01

          • #
            Bob Malloy

            Chris

            might be old tiresome and boring it was the fact , still is fact and he is still funded by vested interests Exxon amongst others ..

            Even if this is true, how does it devalue Christy as a scientist, While the climate research centre at east anglia, one of your temples of worship is open to accept money from both British Petroleum and Shell. As it seems you ignored my previous link, here it is again


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Bob Malloy

            Damn it, just ignored my own advice not to respond to Chris at post 4.8


            Report this

            00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Thanks for that link Andrew.

          A light hearted end to the day at malcolms expense.

          KK :)


          Report this

          10

        • #

          What heavy funds? No really. Please give us the details?

          Jo


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            You are wasting your time Jo. Chris is showing all the signs of an organic auto-responder.

            The education systems in the West are churning them out by the tens of thousands every year.

            They come equipped with nice clean brains, though, totally unsullied by any original thought.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Chris

            Just google it very easy to find is found under many categories / names Skeptics for Exxon even John Christy had comments on the original BEST result …

            [Chris, I insist you post proof or a retraction of your claim. "just google" isn't good enough. Either provide proof of your potentially libelous claim or retract now. these are your two choices and permanent moderation is what will happen if you do not comply. P.S. a link to "Source Watch" or "Exxon Secrets" is not sufficient proof either. Provide something well documented and traceable.] ED


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Chris

            already replied but got deleted funny that

            [I'm not laughing. Nothing has been deleted. You have two unrelated posts in moderation and you will continue to be in moderation until you provide proof, or retract your claim.] ED

            (I am not laughing either also I wonder if this Chris is someone I have read about before because the Chris I have known about is a serial big oil funding accuser in other places but never post actual evidence that Dr. Christy takes such money personally.Maybe I should go ask someone I know to look up your IPS and compare with yours here and see if you are the same person?) CTS


            Report this

            00

          • #
            gai

            Dr. John Christy’s Bio

            … the Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991. In 1996, they were selected to receive a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society “for developing a global, precise record of earth’s temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate.” In January 2002 Christy was inducted as a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society….

            Dr. Christy has served as a Contributor (1992, 1994, 1996 and 2007) and Lead Author (2001) for the U.N. reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in which the satellite temperatures were included as a high-quality data set for studying global climate change. He has served on five National Research Council panels or committees and has performed research funded by NASA, NOAA, DOE, DOT and the State of Alabama and has published many articles including studies appearing in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate and The Journal of Geophysical Research. Dr. Christy has provided testimony to several congressional committees….

            Prior to this career path he had graduated from the California State University in Fresno (B.A. Mathematics, 1973, Distinguished Alumnus 2007) and taught Physics and Chemistry as a missionary teacher in Nyeri, Kenya for two years. After earning a Master of Divinity degree from Golden Gate Baptist Seminary (1978) he served four years as a bivocational mission-pastor in Vermillion, South Dakota where he also taught college math. He was featured in the February 2001 issue of Discover magazine and in a National Public Radio profile in 2004 in which his diverse background was highlighted….

            And THIS is the man Chris wishes to vilify??? Words escape me…


            Report this

            10

        • #
          Siliggy

          Are you consistant Chris? You object to science being funded by a vested or biased influence while others of us here think that if the science is correct it does not matter who funded it. By this objection you intend to show that what is presented by the scientist can be manipulated by the scientists afiliations. You criticise a mathematician for not being suitably qualified. So you must follow your own rules at all times or it will become obvious to us all that your objection is religious and not rational.
          Should these scientists below be dismissed by your standards and rules

          The IPCC fails according to Chris’s own rules:
          Donna Laframboise Part 1.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kMyX8dOZCk.
          Donna Laframboise Part 2.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2iHWXpd-kQ


          Report this

          10

        • #
          AndyG55

          Did you read that Christy link ?

          “He has served on five National Research Council panels or committees and has performed research funded by NASA, NOAA, DOE, DOT ………”

          good one !!!


          Report this

          10

        • #
          Bob Malloy

          While I know Chris is in moderation, having been repeatedly asked for verifiable proof of his mischievous smears about John Christy and Exxon, I believe one more source is appropriate in the defence of Christy and others smeared in similar fashion.

          John R. Christy, B.A. Mathematics, California State University (1973); M.S. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1984); Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1987); NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991); American Meteorological Society’s Special Award (1996); Member, Committee on Earth Studies, Space Studies Board (1998-2001); Alabama State Climatologist (2000-Present); Fellow, American Meteorological Society (2002); Panel Member, Official Statement on Climate Change, American Geophysical Union (2003); Member, Committee on Environmental Satellite Data Utilization, Space Studies Board (2003-2004); Member, Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the last 2,000 years, National Research Council (2006); Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1991-Present); Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2000-Present); Contributor, IPCC (1992, 1994, 1996, 2007); Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

          1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?

          Christy: “No.”

          2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?

          Christy: “I don’t believe so.”

          3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?

          Christy: “No.”

          4. Please include any additional comment on the article,

          Christy: “The connection between industrial interests and me is given by describing me as a “Marshall Institute expert”. I spoke at a luncheon sponsored by the Marshall Institute, free of charge, to about 30 people. My remarks were incorporated into a booklet. That is the extent of my connection – hardly evidence to accuse one of being an industry spokesman.”

          http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-skeptical-scientists-funded-by.html

          [Thank you Bob Malloy, I was eventually going to club him with these quotes directly from Dr Christy. Chris turned out to be more lame, ignorant and thoughtless (mindless actually) than I even believed possible. In his final post that is still in moderation, he continued his smear campaign. It was also clear that he didn't even really know who Dr. Christy is or what his level of expertise. Chris and his inane smearing attempt will remain only as a feeble, anonymous, unsuccessful and embarrassing example of a typical warmist troll. No science, no logic, no evidence, no argument, no shame and no game] ED


          Report this

          10

    • #
      Bob Malloy

      I acknowledge I have responded to Chris further down, however on reflection while Chris has the right to be here, I suggest we all ignore his further post before he becomes a vexation to our spirit.

      Unlike Brooks and MattB, who at times bring a smile to ones face, Chris offers nothing new and his arguments have all been dealt with before. Some of Eddy A’s post spring immediately to mind, but with Chris it would be like cracking a nut with a sledge hammer.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      old44

      We all don’t go to the local fish & chip shop to get medical advice either for a reason we speak to those who are qualified
      Aeronautical engineers proved that hummingbirds cannot fly, what is your point?
      Statisticians use accurate data to construct graphs, climate scientists select one sample from 35 trees to fit their objectives.
      Computer programers test and cross check their programs to ensure they are accurate, climate scientists alter the program to fit the expected results. One observant statistician proved that and the result was Climate-gate.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Mike of NQ

      Is a flat-earther more likely to be a ‘warmist’ or a ‘skeptic’. I have never understood the insults of flat-earther or holocaust dinier because to me its like questioning your own mental capacity. The flat Earth brigade preached from authority, namely the church, about the Earth being flat. The flat earth model was based on hearsay with no observational input. They even ignored what their own eyes saw when they stared out to sea. Many scientists were demonised as heratics and even executed for attempting to teach that the Earth and other planets revolved around the Sun.

      Science, as always, is the great equaliser. Aristotle never quite understood gravity, Marie Curie never understood the dangers of radiation until she started glowing in the dark, Ptolemy believed that the Earth was the Centre of the Universe, others surmised that the atom was the smallest particle in existance or the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Even Galilao, the father of modern physics, never understood motion like Newton or Einstein. The scientists mentioned above were all brilliant and they weren’t brilliant because they accepted argument from authority. Through true sketptism they were able to push the known boundaries of the day. Therefore, when anyone calls me a flat-earther or holocaust denier I can only assume they are brain dead as neither term even remotely identifies with my views of anthropogenic climate skepticism.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Joe V.

    Many skeptics are Green at Heart. But not the Rotten Heart of the Green Movement.
    Meanwhile the Green Movement has been hijacked by malevolent forces, intent on exploiting the good natured naivety of most of its followers for a greater purpose.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Bulldust

      “Useful idiots” the ole Soviet intelligence used to call them. Same dog different day.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Joe V.

      Has ever a mass following been so ripe for picking as that of the Green Movement ?


      Report this

      10

    • #

      “Many skeptics are Green at Heart.” I’d say most but that’s just a personal impression. And yes, the green movement was hijacked many years ago.

      http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/how-environmentalism-turned-to-the-dark-side/

      Pointman


      Report this

      10

    • #
      AndyG55

      The very fact that wind turbines are the poster child for green energy tells you just how far the so-called environmentalist groups have sunk.

      To the VERY BOTTOM !!!

      there is NOTHING environmentally sound about them. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING !!!!!!!!!


      Report this

      10

      • #
        AndyG55

        In case you hadn’t got my feeling about these monstrousities..

        They are a BLIGHT on the landscape

        They are a BLIGHT of the environment.. human and nature

        They are a BLIGHT of airborne life.

        If I had the wherewithal, I would disintegrate/atomise every one of them, and send them back to the very depth of Hell from whence they came!!


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Winston

          Agreed, Andy
          Wind turbines are nothing short of environmental and aesthetic vandalism, with the health effects on humans and animal life adjacent to them a veritable ticking time bomb waiting to explode.


          Report this

          10

          • #

            The other BIG problem with them is their high opportunity cost – i.e. draining monies away from finding more advanced and truly cleaner ways of either generating, storing or distributing power to where it is needed.

            Very akin to Solar Panels in my mind.. Another waste of monies that on the all inclusive bottom line (sans grants) ends up doing nothing for the environment..

            If you truly want to help the environment – use less power in the first place.. Subsidies on double glazing and wall insulation anyone?…


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I am at least glad that he said “…due to its broader negative connotations. We acknowledge this point and regret any offence caused.” Had he been more weasel-like he would have said the “…perceived negative conotations.” At least he acknowledges it is a genuinely offensive term. That’s something I guess…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    AndyG55

    “beneficial social outcomes”

    1. minimise electricity prices by removing the carbon tax and all wasteful alternative energy subsidies, feed-in tariffs etc. (use coal or nuclear.. cheap, robust, efficient)

    2. Allow atmospheric concentration of CO2 “plant life” gas to climb, bringing fertility and abundance of food sources both in ocean and on land

    3. Allow plentiful, robust power supply to all 3rd world countries for their development

    4. Allow freedom of speech for all regardless of if it hurts your poor little feelings.. (ie… grow up, people) !!!

    5. Allow more dams for water storage.

    6. Get rid of the namby-pamby nanny state trying to tell everyone what they can and can’t do.. in every little detail.. ie (get the f*** out of my life)

    that will do for now..

    but feel free to add to the list ;-)


    Report this

    10

  • #
    AndyG55

    “The term “unconvinced” encompasses far more skeptics, ”

    Sorry Jo, but…

    I am totally covinced that raised CO2 levels are ONLY beneficial.

    I am totally convinced that CAGW is a farce !!!

    I suppose that that means I’m not a skeptic, because “skeptic” sort of implies, “not sure”

    certainly not a denier.. there are NO facts in the AGW hypothesis.. therefore no facts to deny.


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Joe V.

      Yes, you cannot deny that which is only supposed, at least not until the debate is declared over.

      I suppose any truth can be denied ‘though, even false ones, once they have been elevated to that state.


      Report this

      10

      • #
        AndyG55

        “at least not until the debate is declared over”

        NO-ONE on Earth has the authority to declare the debate over….. YET

        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .

        (but they are certainly trying to get that authority)


        Report this

        10

  • #
    pat

    not too smart!

    8 Aug: MotorSportsNewswire: Federal officials mandating minimum four-gallon gasoline purchase from ethanol-blend pumps
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will require all consumers to buy at least four gallons of gasoline from certain gas pumps after the new E15 ethanol-gasoline blend is introduced into the market, the American Motorcyclist Association reports.
    The EPA revealed the requirement to the AMA in a letter dated Aug. 1, responding to AMA concerns that E15 — a gasoline formulation that contains up to 15 percent ethanol by volume — could be put in motorcycle and ATV gas tanks inadvertently when consumers use blender pumps. A blender pump dispenses different fuel blends through the same hose, and the vast majority of motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles in use today aren’t designed to operate on E15 fuel…
    Another problem with the new EPA policy, Allard said, is that not all motorcycle and ATV gas tanks hold four or more gallons.
    “Not only do we find it unacceptable for the EPA to mandate that everyone — including our members — buy minimum amounts of gas, but the EPA answer simply won’t work because of the sizes of many motorcycle and ATV gas tanks and the fact that off-highway riders take containers of gas with them on their trips, and most times those containers are much smaller than four gallons,” Allard said…
    http://motorsportsnewswire.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/federal-officials-mandating-minimum-four-gallon-gasoline-purchase-from-certain-ethanol-blend-pumps-0808121/


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    Dr. Bain’s CAGW position is for general public consumption. all the important stuff that would show the public what a scam it is can only be found in the elite “financial press”.

    forever making up the rules as they go along:

    10 Aug: Bloomberg: Jason Scott: Australia Discussing Possible Changes in Carbon-Price System
    The government may scrap a proposed minimum price of A$15 ($15.80) and restrict access to cheaper international carbon credits, the Australian Financial Review reported today, without citing where it got the information. The government is in negotiations with the Greens, the political party that Gillard relies on to pass laws in the lower house of parliament, over the proposal, the newspaper said…
    While Certified Emission Reductions in the United Nations’ Clean Development Mechanism traded this week for less than 3 euros ($3.70), Australia’s carbon law established a minimum price of A$15 in 2015, and the government is working out exactly how about 300 emitters bound by the plan would make up the difference. Australian carbon costs are forecast to be more than double the rate in the European Union, which runs the world’s biggest emissions markets.
    European Union carbon permits fell yesterday to 7.15 euros, the lowest level since Aug. 3 on the ICE Futures Europe exchange in London…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-10/australia-discussing-possible-changes-in-carbon-price-system.html


    Report this

    10

  • #
    turnedoutnice

    Bain is a typical freeloader on the Marxist climate science bandwagon. This is because it’s easy for a professional to prove the IPCC ‘consensus’ modelling is based on 5 areas of incorrect physics. What’s more, it’s also easy to prove CO2-AGW is physically impossible and the models have been set up to prove the opposite, i.e. he is apparently supporting a massive fraud designed to justify totalitarianism and extra taxation.

    The evidence is here: http://notrickszone.com/2012/08/07/epic-warmist-fail-modtran-doubling-co2-will-do-nothing-to-increase-long-wave-radiation-from-sky/

    MODTRAN is as near the IR physics’ Gold Standard as you can get. The data show that the emissivity of CO2 in dry air enters ‘self-absorption’ mode by ~200 ppmV. This was experimentally proven by Hottell 60 years’ ago. What is surprising though is that from ~10% RH, change of [CO2] has no effect on emissivity. MODTRAN is based on the HITRAN database of experimental molecular absorption data so includes the effects of mixtures.

    On the other hand, the IPCC assumes that total radiative forcing is the sum of the theoretical RFs for individual GHGs so does not incorporate the effect of mixing. The MODTRAN data apparently show that the addition of water vapour damps the warming effect of CO2. The IPCC predictions for CO2-AGW are bunkum. QED


    Report this

    10

  • #
    AndyG55

    Radiative energy is the main source.. (that big shiny thing in the sky during day time) but PRESSURE and TEMPERATURE differences provide the regulation of the atmosphere.

    CO2 has ZERO effect on either of these differences.

    Even if CO2 did absorb radiation and warm the atmosphere, convection would immediately compensate. Basic gas laws !!

    That’s what the atmosphere does !!!!!! transfers energy from the surface to the outer atmosphere as a cooling/regulation effect. and the form (be it radiative/convective/conductive/latent/kinetic etc) of energy transfer DOES NOT affect the amount of energy transferred.

    The whole atmosphere is in a state of continued flux between different forms of energy.

    Model that.. bozos !!!!!


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    The guy’s a Denier Denier.
    He’s in denial about the true nature of CAGW scepticism, so he’s in denial about the inappropriateness of “Denier”.

    Note to Doctor B: It’s on!

    And this is all we get? Having just slipped this most meagre of missives into the Warminista’s Bible AND called us deniers ONCE AGAIN, he now scuttles away into academia to put his ill-gotten gains to counter-productive use.

    Some days it’s hard to believe the skeptical zealots outnumber the alarmist zealots 4 to nil.
    There are certainly bigger issues to worry about than the carbon tax, but this issue is so easily fixed and in theory is under our control.
    When the compensation cuts out the apathetic public will suddenly care and the UN carbon rent can then be snookered, if not sooner.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    manalive

    There is an organisation called Australian Skeptics (U S spelling).
    Their aim is to investigate pseudo-science and the paranormal “from a responsible scientific viewpoint” (‘responsible’ is one of those beware words — like ‘appropriate’).
    They fearlessly investigate and expose any number dangerous frauds such as paranormal phenomena, ufology and presumably Santa Clause and the tooth fairy.
    But this is what they have to say about “climate change sceptics”: On the very important and very complex questions of climate change and its causes, only the carefully formed opinions of relevantly qualified experts should be taken seriously.
    Apart from the obvious fact that large numbers of highly qualified scientists remain sceptical about the extent of AGW, you could say the same thing about any number of pseudosciences, e.g. only qualified chiropractors (iridologists, homeopaths etc.) can be taken seriously about the efficacy of their purported remedies.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Phil Ford

    “… I want that money spent on scientific investigations, and on topics that matter, not on better ways to target propaganda to achieve an outcome that no one can name evidence for…”

    I’d like that money spent on genuine, tangible real-world environmental protection (think forestry, endangered habitats and species, pollution (not CO2 nonsense, but measurable pollution of rivers, of soil and air), etc.

    It’s heartbreaking for so many of us CAGW skeptics to see such unbelievable amounts of taxpayer money wasted over-and-over on a politically-driven project such as CAGW and all it’s attendant propaganda. Future generations will curse us for such foolishness, but the forests and the wildlife don’t have the luxury of being able to wait so long for commonsense to return.

    Anyone else remember when ‘environmental protection’ was exactly that?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David Cain

    Joanne:
    I despair. Perhaps you are of another generation with different educational priorities, but please learn the correct use of “its” and “it’s”. Please, for your own credibility.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Well Done Dr Bain,

    I have a massive amount of respect for people who can put their egos behind their quest for truth and fairness.

    Regardless of what tribe you may or may not be seen to belong to, you get a massive amount of respect from me. And you should from many others.


    Report this

    01

  • #
    redc

    The “denier” labeling was probably the first thing that had me questioning the whole AGW edifice, we had people critical of aspects of the science and the scientists responded with pejorative name calling.

    And every time this name calling comes up, from denier to contrarian, from fossil fuel shill to in the pay of big oil, even from skeptic to realist, I always think that we’ve had the perfect and even handed word for this for a very long time.

    That word is critic.

    A critic can be right or wrong, or somewhere inbetween. A criticism could be valid or unfounded. The word doesn’t make any judgement on the topic in question.

    The fact that this pejorative name calling has gone on for so many years demonstrates that the AGW advocates aren’t (and never will be) interested in engaging with their critics.


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Ally E.

      Thanks, Redc. “Critic” is exactly the right word and you have solved for me that small issue. Neither “Skeptic” or “Realist” was exactly right, yet I could think of no better and I owned up to being one or the other. From now on, though, I am a CAGW critic and that sits exactly right. Cheers! :)


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Interested

    I suspect Chris is trolling because I don’t think s/he actually believes what s/he appears to espouse. It doesn’t seem to matter what facts are placed before him/her, s/he continues to appeal to spurious authority regardless.

    Not that it will make any difference to someone like Chris but I’ll try to reason with him/her.
    The governing bodies of the scientific organisations Chris referred to (” ..the top 19 scientific organisations in the world …”), including the Royal Society and the American Geophysical Union, do not necessarily represent their members’ opinions. Many scientists join such societies and unions out of a sense of duty, or to achieve status and/or job security, or to maintain professional links with their colleagues. Many are not political creatures and have no particular interest in the kind of activism exhibited by their leadership.
    In fact the membership of the Royal Society recently protested against the climate activist statements made by their leadership, forcing amendments to those statements, and some of the most prominent and talented members of the AGU, sick to their stomachs of the outrageous climate-activist pronouncements of their leaders, made a public show of leaving the group in disgust.

    Chris: ” .. might be old tiresome and boring it was the fact , still is fact and he is still funded by vested interests Exxon amongst others .. Even the Koch guys involved.”

    I notice Ms. Nova has called Chris out on this continued carping about fossil-fuel industry funding of climate realists, yet Chris typically fails to respond.
    The reason is simply that Chris’s position, as usual, is all ‘sound and fury, signifying nothing’ because s/he has no figures to back his/her argument.
    I repeat Ms. Nova’s challenge, Chris. If you have any facts to back the hyperbole, let’s hear them right now.
    And if you do quote any numbers, we want to hear how they stack up against the money poured into the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change cause by big oil and various governments.
    Come on! If you have the goods, let’s see ‘em!

    Chris: “what to fund cleaner greener energy is bad thing .. nothing left to be wide open about .. vested interest versus changing habits to a cleaner way far cheaper then costs to health .. as the saying goes
    Climate Change is a Reality: Skeptics / Den##$$ argue the financial cost — Supporters argue the cost to the planet or to human life”

    A fine series of straw men. (If you don’t know what a ‘straw man’ is, Chris, go and Google it.)
    Clearly, all things being equal, cleaner greener energy is desirable. The problem is that all forms of such energy are either impractical and counter-productive (e.g. solar and wind) or, where they are practical and productive (e.g. hydro-electric and nuclear) they are opposed by the very same people Chris professes to admire.
    As for your “costs to health” argument, you might like to explain that to the hundreds of thousands of your fellow humans in the third world, who have been driven to starvation because up to a third of crops like corn have been diverted to the manufacture of biofuels, thus forcing up the cost of food on the world markets. You talk about health, Chris. What about large scale death in the third world? How healthy is that? Or doesn’t that bother you very much?

    “Climate Change is a Reality”, you say. You obviously can’t be serious if you’ve ever read anything at this website at all.
    How many times have you been told that no one in the ranks of climate realists disputes such a trivial statement? A dozen? A hundred? Yet you repeat it ad nauseam. Anyone with even half a brain knows full well that climate changes ceaselessly. It’s people on your side of the fence, Chris, who imagine the climate was perfect and unchanging until the first steam engine. The reason you personally, for example, believe in ‘unprecedented dangerous global warming’, is precisely because you have no knowledge of history and don’t believe in natural climate change yourself.

    “Supporters [of climate alarmism] argue the cost to the planet or to human life”, you say.
    There is not a trace of evidence – I repeat, NOT A TRACE OF EVIDENCE – that any warming which has occurred in the last 150 years has caused the slightest damage to this planet.
    (If you have any such evidence, please add it to your reply about climate realists’ funding.)
    In fact, the number of severe tornadoes in the U.S.A. since 1950, and the total worlwide accumulated cyclone energy since 1979, show no upward trend whatsoever. In other words, the ‘increasing dangerous weather events’ myth has been comprehensively busted (as you probably know but refuse to acknowledge).
    Earth’s biomass (mass of vegetation), as measured by satellite, has increased at least 6% over the last 20 years.
    So you see, Chris, the modest increase in CO2 in our atmosphere since 1850 (mostly natural oceanic outgassing) is actually beneficial – the plants love it!

    No, the only real danger to health is presented by people like yourself, Chris. People who would deprive the sick and undernourished in the third world of the chance to escape grinding poverty by keeping them energy-poor and hungry.
    Not that you really give a damn, I suspect. Eh Chris?
    Well Chris? Do you?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Myrrh

      Perhaps the reason he doesn’t respond to the facts contradicting him, but keeps repeating them ad nauseum, is that this is the intention, to keep the slurs going in order to keep promoting the lie that ‘skeptics’ are big oil funded so not to lose this as a rallying cry for the Greens who would in general be horrified to find that it is instead their own side who are heavily funded “by big oil”, such as set up CRU. “Big oil” are making a lot of money out of renewables, and it was their intention from the beginning to demonise the cheap and abundant coal supply and the naive emotional energy of green behind the ears greenies useful to harness..

      It could be as I’ve read suggested, that these kind of churned out posts are netting their authors monetary rewards per item, would explain why they show no knowledge of the subject.

      Perhaps a counter meme collection and a permanent link to it?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Mark Hladik

    Aha!

    A new troll to refuse my challenge:

    Chris (along with MattB, Ross James, Maxine, Johnny-boy Brooksie, Tristan … ad infinitum ad nauseum … …):

    Tell me your correlation coefficient for the Berner & Kothavala GEOCARB III vs. Veizer’s (now) well-vetted paleotemperature curve.

    I can’t stand the suspense any longer … … …

    Sad that you cannot (or will not) answer Jo’s simple request to provide the documentation for all that oil money flowing to “deniers”. I’d sure like to get just a small piece of it.

    And the sooner the better!

    Regards to all (except the “Refusers”),

    Mark H.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      BobC

      Hi Mark.

      …Berner & Kothavala GEOCARB III vs. Veizer’s (now) well-vetted paleotemperature curve.

      Could you put a link in? It sounds interesting.

      Thanks.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Mark Hladik

        Hi Bob,

        My apologies to you and others; I had thought the repository of the data was well known.

        You will have to digitize it yourself (i.e., you get to select your sampling interval) which is part of the reason I make the repeated request for the verification of the coefficient I determined.

        After all, I make mistakes like everyone else, so an independent confirmation would be helpful in disputing the claims of the MSM, IPCC, Hansen, Trenberth, (you know, the usual gang of suspects …).

        On the website , they have archives of many data sets; with a little searching, you will find the paleo-CO2 data (it is a multi curve, containing about a dozen models; B & K is the most widely accepted at this time), along with the Veizer delta-O-18 curve.

        At one time, I was going to make a request of the WUWT crowd that we do our best to archive the data on globalwarmingart, because once they figure out that a majority of their data contradicts their belief in CAGW, they are likely to ‘hide’ or delete their data. Just FYI, globalwarmingart is a branch of Wiki, no friend to us “deniers” (yes, I call myself that proudly; see Minnesotans for Global Warming, M4GW; “I’m A Denier”).

        It is not that the original sources might “disappear”, but on the globalwarmingart website, they have myriads of datasets, all in one place, easy to locate, and easy to digitize and process. The chart entitled “65 Million Years of Climate Change” is especially interesting.

        Best of luck; hope you find things before Brooksie can alert them to wipe their website.

        My regards to all (especially Jo and her ceaseless work in the cause of science), and H/T to the wonderful mods,

        Mark H.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          Mark, Perhaps your conspiratorial prediction has come true:

          While trying to retrieve the URL: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/
          The following error was encountered:
          Connection to 184.73.169.239 Failed
          The system returned:
          (111) Connection refused
          The remote host or network may be down. Please try the request again.

          The original sources have been used elsewhere, so all is not lost.
          I found a combined graph of Vezier’s temperature, Berner’s CO2, and Haq’s sea level here via WUWT.

          Not much of a close correlation there, just by eyeballing it.
          Some of the sections seem to be physically impossible: large temperature rises followed by no rise in CO2 and even a continued fall in CO2 around the 100Ma point. I was going to question whether the CO2 proxy was a dud when I realised there was a different explanation for how CO2 could possibly fall while temperature had risen. After the 200Ma point you are looking at the era of land plants, and by 100Ma you are getting to the era of enormous trees. Vegetation can respond to CO2 very quickly by eating more of it, even in the lifetime of an individual plant, so certainly a huge jungle can respond quicker than the million-year time resolution of that graph. Perhaps that graph is showing us rapid sequestration (within a few thousand years) of the CO2 released from the oceans in the temperature upswings. So the CO2 released never even shows up on that graph.
          I can’t be the first person to think of this so I wonder if there is any research showing a breakdown in T-CO2 correlation over time as estimated plant biomass rose?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Mark Hladik

            Hi Andrew,

            Sadly I have confirmed your experience. It is 0657 hours local time (1257 UTC) on 11 August; perhaps it is temporary, or maybe WUWT’ers and JoNova’ers are overwhelming the servers, trying to archive what they can.

            As you point out, Anthony did save a few things. I tend to think Haq’s SL curve is a better representation of eustatic changes, while some of the others tend towards isostatic changes, but it is an area that research will need to continue.

            Let us try again in a few days; otherwise we will have to dig out their data from diverse places (a long and arduous process).

            Regards,

            Mark H.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            gai

            Mark, Perhaps your conspiratorial prediction has come true:

            While trying to retrieve the URL: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/
            The following error was encountered:…
            Mark, Perhaps your conspiratorial prediction has come true:

            While trying to retrieve the URL: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/
            The following error was encountered:

            It has been gone for about a month. I have been using http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/atmospheric_transmission.png?w=640 From Steven Goddard’s site instead.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Mark Hladik

        Appears the list of the website did not show up:

        www dot globalwarmingart dot com

        Sorry about that,

        MH


        Report this

        00

      • #

        BobC,

        Here is the PDF to Berner and Kothavala GEOCARB III paper with their charts that are similar with Veizer’s paleotemperature curve:

        Berner and Kothavala GEOCARB III PDF

        Charts I have collected for my Charts subforum with these:

        Post #131

        Post #102

        Post #89

        Post #90

        C3 Headlines is the place to go to see his many charts such as this HISTORICAL charts/Images page

        That is where I got many charts from.


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Added this one from Wikipedia Commons:

          File:Phanerozoic Climate Change.png

          “This figure shows the long-term evolution of oxygen isotope ratios during the Phanerozoic eon as measured in fossils, reported by Veizer et al. (1999), and updated online in 2004.”


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Mark Hladik

            Excellent work! Peace be upon you and your house!

            As I stated, Global-Warming-Art had a lot of stuff in one, easy-to-find place, which made it so convenient. It has been a while, but I think they had some 30 – 40 paleotemperature charts, along with a wonderful selection of other information (all of which THEY thought proved CAGW).

            In order to do any processing, one will have to do one’s own sampling (which I did; not difficult, just a lengthy process, unless you own an automated algorithm).

            Also, be aware that I did both time-domain and frequency-domain analysis; the latter produced some, … er, … … shall I say, “interesting” results.

            Will be watching for any results that Chris comes up with.

            Again, my hat is off to you for finding the originals, buried as they might be.

            Mark


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Mark Hladik

        Bob, sunsett, Andrew:

        Per a request I posted on WUWT, in the “Tips & Notes” section, someone knows how to use the WayBac Machine, and found a complete archive of the original Global Warming Art website.

        The link is posted there (scroll to the bottom of “Tips $ Notes”)

        Should we start our own archive of their archive?

        MH


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Navy Bob

    As you point out, he still calls us deniers, so he still considers us the moral and intellectual equivalent of those who deny the holocaust. He’s only sorry he used the term “in the above letter.” I don’t see where he deserves even the limited exoneration you’ve granted him.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    I watched a stunning lecture by Murry Salby at the Sydney Institute the other day on A-PAC. Too bad that channel isn’t a little more popular. A-Pac also ran a lecture by Jeff Bennett, author of the book “Little Green Lies”. Salby is an Atmospheric Physicist at McQarrie and Bennett is actually a prof at ANU. I often think that the natural world is eventually alerting people to the fraud. It snowed last week in Joburg S.Africa. First snow in 44 years. Joburg is 26 degrees South and Brisbane is 27 degrees South. I reckon a good blizzard in Brisbane would set the cat among the pigeons. A snow flurry in Darwin some day might really make a statement!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    More on the Gillard AWU scandal from the Bolter.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/law_firm_wants_permission_to_release_its_wilson_files/

    See interview between Alan Jones and Michael Smith as well.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Chris

    John Christy ( Heartland Institute ) http://heartland.org/john-christy

    He is even listed on their own website as a Expert and it is very well known the funding for Heartland and from where it comes .. The MOD says cant list certain websites but the fact is Christy is paid by the vested interest so would be bias at the least

    [Your claim was precisely this:

    That is the same Dr. John Christy who is heavily funded by ExxonMobil and other vested interests ..

    Provide proof to back up that claim or retract. Otherwise admit that you haven't a clue and you are simply repeating some other conspiracy theory. ] ED


    Report this

    00

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      ED and other MODS:

      Why bother with this turkey?

      Chris summed up his position very early in the thread when he told us, in no uncertain terms, that mathematicians, physicists, engineers and computer programmers capable of building, programming and navigating an unmanned vehicle from here to Mars, were nonetheless too dumb to spot the failings in a “climastrology” model that can’t even account for water vapour, and “disappears” the MWP and LIA. Not to mention consistently getting the wrong results.
      .
      You can’t argue with that level of stupid.

      ["Why bother with this turkey?" Because every false smear has to be met head on with the truth.

      "You can't argue with that level of stupid" right you are, that is why he will remain in the "sin bin".

      Thank you for your patience. We now return to our regularly scheduled program] ED


      Report this

      00

    • #
      KeithH

      “the fact is Christy is paid by the vested interest so would be bias at the least”

      So Chris, I assume this would also apply to one of Australia’s chief alarmists too?

      “Disclosure Statement

      David Karoly is an ARC Federation Fellow in the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne. He receives funding through research grants from the Australian Research Council and the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. In the past, he has received significant funding from the Williams Company, an energy company in Tulsa Oklahoma, and a Shell Australia Postgraduate Scholarship. He is a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists and a member of the Science Advisory Panel to the Australian Climate Commission.”

      Google ‘David Karoly and Shell funding’ for links.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Good point Keith

        Shell is not in the oil business nor the environment business.

        It’s in the MONEY business and will go where ever that is.

        Look at GE which finds itself making money out of inefficent Wind Turbines.

        In a technological sense this is like going back to the 1800s but it is a wave they are happy to ride.

        Surfing alongside are Juliar and Kev The Sequestrator on one side and Simon Sheik, Naomi and all the other Green Enviro-scammers from the Actors Guild.

        What a great wave to be on.

        Fueled by our tax money.

        Are there shoals ahead??

        KK


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Chris

      Provide proof to back up that claim or retract. Otherwise admit that you haven’t a clue and you are simply repeating some other conspiracy theory. ] ED

      If you can actually read what i typed i said Exxon amongst others .. Heartland is funded by Exxon and m,any others all with vested interests Christy is listed on Heartland website as a expert .. Heartland has used Christy many times and we all know what / who Heartland is ands what they stand for as far as climate science goes..

      [What you proffered here is not proof that backs up your claim. It is a snarky demonstration that you don't realize that Christy IS an expert. Prove your claim about Christy or retract and apologise for your false conspiracy claims. While you are at it declare where you are called upon for expert consultation and declare from where you get your funding. ] ED


      Report this

      00

      • #
        AndyG55

        If you actually do some research, you should be able to find that the Heartland payment to Christy was very small, and was mainly to cover document processing and flights.

        You should also find that the payments from Exxon to Heartland were also very, very small in comparison to CAGW funding, and was specifically for a NON-climate related study.

        This stuff was all out in the open, quite recently, and .. YOU’VE GOT NOTHING !!!!


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Chris

          [It is now pretty clear that the anonymous troll Chris is simply quoting from some well worn instruction sheet. Obviously he doesn't know who or what he is talking about. He isn't interested in anything but spreading misinformation.

          To "Chris"; anonymity at a blog site does not excuse you from responsibility. You have repeatedly smeared Dr. Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Dr. Christy has publicly stated that he does NOT receive funds from Oil, Coal or gas industry. I trust his own statements over your smear and you have not offered proof to the contrary or a retraction. You have now been permanently moderated.]

          ED even AndyG55 knows of the payments going by his very own admission even though he is misrepresenting them or brushing over the amounts involved or the main question why?

          You or that side can have him as a expert it does not change the fact who is funding if him or that he only represents the 3% of people who say global warming is not real and not human induced.. The clear majority believe in NASA , NOAA , MET , CSIRO etc… as the vast amount of evidence that is published in scientific journals supports it…

          If the skeptics even had a REAL case why in the would sites like this exist .. They can get published and prove once and for all what is the truth but they haven’t and they wont .. has been 20 years same thing yet all opportunities exist for them to prove their case after all science is about falsification proving something is actually false and publishing in scientific journals for peer review


          Report this

          00

          • #

            LOL,

            You are that dumb?

            Dr. Christy is NOT employed by Heartland thus gets no salary for his time.What Andy was referring to was expenses covering his visit and that is all.

            YOU wrote this emphasizing the key words:

            That is the same Dr. John Christy who is heavily funded by ExxonMobil and other vested interests ..

            You say he is HEAVILY funded by oil and other vested interests and all you can crow about is Andy’s honest comment which is simply about covering expenses for the talk he gave there.

            Still you offer NO evidence to back up your claim that he is HEAVILY funded.

            You sir are an idiot!


            Report this

            00

      • #

        In reply to 24.3,

        Ha ha ha still no evidence of being HEAVILY funded or even getting a salary of any kind from Heartland at all.

        Really what you have put on table is puce and stupidity for your abject failure to answer a simple Moderators challenge to back up your wild claims.So far all you have is pure disconnected babble and bullshit!

        This the best you can offer?

        Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Mike W

    Sigh..Al Gores $CAGW$ trained propaganda kids..ya got to love em.. :)
    Use Plan A propaganda tricks below.
    More appeals to authority..more smears with nothing behind them..correlations confused with causation..ignore the papers which hide the data..ignore the tricks..ignore papers that refute the original premises..muddy water..blah blah blah because “the science is settled”.
    You got your tax and will get your CO2 trading..you won.. :)
    It will do nothing to the climate..ignore that..go to plan A..and act righteous..
    I am always amazed when some pretend green starts to lecture me about “climate change” with those crazy eyes..not blinking.
    They often appear to be in a semi trance state when doing this..
    The first thing they do when you ask a few questions is..they announce they know very little about it but we should all worry.
    Then..if they are trained..they fall back to plan A..see trolls above do this repeatedly..case closed..
    They use their own ignorance as a trick to not have to engage on the science behind it….
    Thats the way the propaganda has been very useful at supplying useful idiots to keep using it..in the belief they are fighting the good fight..for the higher moral ground.
    I would respect many of the CAGW supporters if they had shown some integrity when some of their gods were shown playing games..Gleick,Mann, Jones etc.
    The fact that the majority ignored any problems and remained mute..convinced me the propaganda has done its job well.
    Final example..
    A $CAGW$ science teacher friend once said “mike,dont you believe in climate change“..when I tried to explain to him that his question was nonsensical..and then tried to ask him questions about what he taught kids..he became defensive..admitted he knew little about the science…
    I mailed him a copy of “The hockey stick Illusion” and my friend..the man of science said to me “I cannot read that book..it scares me“.
    Thats how good the propaganda has worked. :)
    Rivero summed it up..
    “Most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker, but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.” – Michael Rivero


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike W

    And if “vested interests” is such a problem..then out go all the NGO`s, govt depts that require funding..scientists that require govt funding..green groups that require funding and donations..UN linked groups that require funding..scientists that have money in Alternative energy systems..whilst promoting CAGW..and on and on..
    They all have vested interests..to the tune of billions of $$$.
    Out they all go from both sides..
    So…yep,,I agree with the $CAGW$ propaganda trainee`s mistake…. :)
    —ps..didn`t they teach you the logical fallacy to never bring up vested interests angle.. LOL
    That you will just get butchered,,stick to Plan A man for god`s sake. :)
    I found it..page 10 of the secret Al Gore manual..
    If you accidently bring up the “vested interests”..see Plan B below.
    PLan B=ignore the blatant hypocrisy of the “vested interest” mantra and carry on regardless..obfsucate/attack and ignore..and use Plan A..then vanish for awhile and savour the victory with fellow $CAGW$ fans..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bite Back

    In the above Letter, we used the term ‘denier’ to describe people who are not convinced that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. The denier label refers to an image held by some in the mainstream climate science community that such people are contrarian, which other terms like ‘sceptic’ do not capture. We hoped our findings would suggest to mainstream climate scientists the benefit of looking beyond this contrarian image, by showing that deniers were more supportive of actions to address climate change where these actions produced beneficial social outcomes. However, since publication we were contacted by people offended by the label denier to describe their group due to its broader negative connotations. We acknowledge this point and regret any offence caused.

    Am I the only one who sees this as just a feeble try to excuse away their intent in using the term denier? These people don’t grant us any legitimacy. They never have. And they still don’t. It’s intended as a put down. It’s a code-word for illegitimate and they all know it. He can weasel his way around any way he wants to but the fact is that he’s now embarrassed because Joanne put a big bright spotlight on his nonsense and he’d like to save face. So make him stand up and admit what they’ve always intended with their putdown and do an honest apology.

    His whole lame excuse is an admission that they simply don’t like it because we don’t kiss their behind.

    We hoped our findings would suggest to mainstream climate scientists the benefit of looking beyond this contrarian image, by showing that deniers were more supportive of actions to address climate change where these actions produced beneficial social outcomes.

    And any self respecting thinker would know that social policy hasn’t a damned thing to do with climate science.

    Joanne, you’re being too generous!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    gai

    Speaking of Vested interests what about the “Father of CAGW and the Environmental Movement” Maurice Strong? He has been up to his eye balls in oil since he started work for the Rockefellers in Saudi
    Arabia in the 1950′s

    That is what is so hysterical about the greenie smear jobs. Oil and Central Banks like the World Bank have been front and center from the get go. Strong is a senior advisor to the World Bank and a Rockefeller Foundation trustee (Standard Oil) The Rockefeller/Standard oil money funds Greenpeace, Sierra Club and WWF.

    WWF president was HRH Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. Guess who at one time owned ~ 25% of ROYAL DUTCH Shell, the Dutch Royals of course and the Rothschilds. The Royals are still reportedly the biggest shareholder in the Dutch part of the group.


    Report this

    00