JoNova

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


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

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



I feel sorry for ABC listeners, they have no idea what’s going on

Australia’s politics is boiling at the moment, but you’d barely know if you got all your news from the Love Media ABC.

Yesterday in a long press conference our Prime Minister was finally forced to address “questions” that have been burning across through the net.

I heard our Perth ABC drive time presenter Geoff Hutchison discussing this at length yesterday, and in that time I heard all the ad hominem answers the Prime Minister gave, and how well she gave them, and how powerful she sounded. I’m now full bottle on all the names she calls the malicious misogynist nut jobs and how they will not accept any answer or any evidence. I heard that The Australian has apologized. Apologized! And then I heard that again. Twice? It must be significant. I also now know that Larry Pickering is bankrupt (though I can’t quite see what that has to do with running our country).

I did not hear what The Australian apologized for, which was strange, because the tone of voice conveyed that it was an important and unusual event. (Apparently, it appears The Australian said it was a “Trust” which is, go figure… defamatory. Accurate reporters should have used her term: a slush fund.)

I did not hear what allegations were made online about the Prime Minister, or even what questions she was answering. But I heard that “some sections of the media” were running with these old claims (whatever they were).

Regular ABC listeners would have no idea what’s being discussed by a growing slab of the Australian population. Just like they were baffled when former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was “suddenly rolled”. Didn’t see that coming? Really.

Some ABC listeners wouldn’t have a clue why 65% of the population don’t vote Labor.

The worst thing is I get the feeling that some ABC listeners do “know” — they know that those who don’t agree with them are stupid.

“They’re misinformed by the Hate Media.”

Blind love breeds hate

The Love Media keep their listeners in the dark, and breed more hatred and contempt than the Hate Media could. They breed hatred from the ignorant towards a mythical beast, and they alienate those informed of both sides of the story by suppressing their views and by calling them names.

ABC listeners wouldn’t know there is a house-sized amount of money missing from a union of workers. Julia Gillard strenuously denies she did anything wrong, but once she realized something was wrong, what exactly did she do to right the wrongs, and recover the funds stolen from workers? If she’s the innocent victim — as a naive 30 something legal partner having an affair with a deceptive boyfriend — why won’t she call a Royal Commission, clear her name and track down that misused money? To say nothing of union corruption and the methods by which the money was obtained in the first place…

Let’s try to imagine what the ABC would say if opposition leader Tony Abbott had been involved directly in a situation where workers funds had gone missing, if he’d set up an account for “worker safety” for a union (but didn’t tell the union or the law firm he worked for),  and later described that same account as a “slush fund”.

Pickering is blistering today asking 24 questions you won’t hear on the ABC.

Bolt:  The AWU scandal – Brilliant, except for the bit about the real issue. “It’s a media masterpiece.”

Shane Dowling at Kangaroo Court has been drilling through this for a year.  A reader, Keith, suggests this link: http://www.kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/julia-gillard-bruce-wilson-awu-fraud-page/

Douglas sends in a link to watch Julia Gillard answers (ABC): http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-23/gillard-responds-to-false-defamatory-accusations/4218242

 

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (93 votes cast)
I feel sorry for ABC listeners, they have no idea what's going on, 9.1 out of 10 based on 93 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/d44u3or

245 comments to I feel sorry for ABC listeners, they have no idea what’s going on

  • #
    spangled drongo

    Thanks Jo. This corruption in unions that leads all the way to the top needs to be thoroughly investigated and dealt with at the highest level.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Paul Zanetti is not bankrupt and has some pertinent things to say on this topic (and bonus a good cartoon). He points out that the contacts and information have all come from the Labor Party:

    I can attest this is all coming from ALP sources. There’s not been one conservative piece of input into this. The likes of Nicola Roxon and Tanya Plibersek desperately turn their misguided pot shots at Tony Abbott for something he knows nothing about, except what he reads, and with which he has no connection.

    Perhaps this is what was meant by:

    “We need her to bleed out,” one Rudd backer rather gruesomely put it.

    The ALP seems not to be a happy camp right now. Amazing what one little carbon tax will do for a party.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Oh, the Party is happy enough, Qld coming back to Federal Labor, Ruddstoration completely gone, a gutsy performance by our magnificent PM putting to rest sleazy innuendo by that sleaze Pickering and Labor support trending up.

      I don’t tend to follow the ABC, to many creepy crawlies from the IPA, the CIS infest it these days. Have noticed tho a change in line at the smh/age—can even the national shit sheet be too far behind?


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Wow, maxine, your post reads like you haven’t had a bowel movement for three weeks. Its treatable you know. Better top up on the old bran, sweetie, and you’ll feel a whole lot better.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Jesus saves

    “A Cunning Stunt”? Of course no hints of misogyny there. It takes some gall for a serial scam artist to call the PM dodgy. He’s kidding right?

    Well if ABC listeners are ill informed I wonder how those who get their news from the commercial networks go?

    I have no idea why you would hitch your wagon to a character of Pickering’s dubious standing. In terms of credibility that’s about as smart as being allied with Monckton.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Sean McHugh

      A politically-correct Jesus said:

      “A Cunning Stunt”? Of course no hints of misogyny there.

      So, by your logic, this must have been misogyny too:

      RUDD PULLS CUNNING STUNT- Saturday17th April 2010

      And so must have this:

      Abbott’s cunning stunt is just a distraction by Mungo MacCallum

      Tony Abbott’s planned private member’s Bill to override Queensland’s Wild Rivers legislation may be, as his opponents claim, a political stunt.

      Sexist stuff, right, Jesus? No joking, mate, leftist rhetoric appears to have profoundly impaired your rationality. I suspect that it is too late to treat. You might as well stay with the name, ‘Jesus’ – just as an alert to others. You also said:

      Well if ABC listeners are ill informed I wonder how those who get their news from the commercial networks go?

      A bit better but not much. Their reporters there mostly come off the same politically-correct assembly line.

      I have no idea why you would hitch your wagon to a character of Pickering’s dubious standing.

      Hitched? Pickering isn’t the one needing to answer questions on this matter? It is Gillard’s “dubious standing” that matters here. Clearly you have hitched your wagon credibility to her credibility and yours is demonstrated to be of a harmonious defensive shrill.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      catamon

      Well if ABC listeners are ill informed I wonder how those who get their news from the commercial networks go?

      Wot a load of rot! I called bull-dust on the above as soon as i saw the reference to “news” on the commercial networks. :)


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Winston

        None of it is “news” and that is the problem- any time the media shape a story to conform to a predisposition, ideology or bias it is reprehensible, no matter where it comes from- and before you think I am absolving anyone in this it is across the board- however, that being said- the media running dead on this story is one of the most shameful exhibitions I’ve ever seen, and as every action has an equal and opposite reaction, those who have blown this story open have had to yell loudly from the roof tops for it to even be heard.

        It should NEVER have required Larry Pickering or anyone like him to be involved at all- it should have been free and open exchange from the get go- unfortunately, now nothing in the media can be trusted one iota-terrific state we have left ourselves in- if people just did their job objectively, none of this circus would have happened.

        The main culprits are the ABC and the Canberra press corps- a closed shop of like minded egotists too blind to realise the hacks and intellectual light weights they are.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          catamon

          It should NEVER have required Larry Pickering or anyone like him to be involved at all-

          It wasn’t, but the misogynist nutjob couldn’t help himself i suppose.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Winston

            So, Cat,
            You contend that the mainstream media didn’t “run dead”, hide under the covers with their fingers in their ears, or do everything possible to avoid investigating the evidence against our august and fearless leader?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            catamon

            You contend that the mainstream media didn’t “run dead”, hide under the covers with their fingers in their ears, or do everything possible to avoid investigating the evidence against our august and fearless leader?

            Winston, you obviously need to actually cruise the main stream media more before you make silly pronouncements on what they have or have not covered. And where did i contend anything?

            I do take the position that the commercial media does too little in the way of politics coverage and only really tackle it in the context of sleaze and scandal, rather than actual policy.

            ABC actually still does policy discussion on occasion, and actually have the capability (though not used enough) to put pollies on the spot and turn the screws. they are certainly the best of the networks for that at the moment.

            Actually, all of the networks had the chance to go at the PM yesterday for all they were worth which was good.

            In that context we are seeing a bit more scrutiny of the Libs which is good, but probably a big motivation is that they are not wanting to miss the LibSpill events in the offing, rather than any desire to inform.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Winston

            So, when Tony Jones sat next to Julia Gillard with a big smile on his face (only about 18 months ago after it had been announced that Carbon tax was definitely being introduced and instituted from 1/7/2012 @$23 a tonne), actually mute in utter admiration when Gillard stated that Coalition had launched a “scare campaign” prior to the election that she would be introducing a Carbon tax (which she then did) – that’s your idea of bipartisan holding to account is it? So, naturally the phrase that should have rolled effortlessly off the Cheshire Cat’s tongue should then have been- “But that is what you actually did PM, so how can you pretend that it was scaremongering when you did precisely what you were predicted to do by the Coalition”, don’t you reckon? I mean, if everything was as above board and even handed as you claim. You guys are only happy to play at the poker table, with all the chips to start and all the cards marked, and with your best mate dealing. And perhaps someone standing over the opponent kibbutzing the cards for good measure!


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Winston

            Sorry- poor proof reading- should say about 8 months ago on Q&A.


            Report this

            00

        • #

          You do realise this rubbish has been floating around and never come to anything? Why do you think it took the sleazy Pickering & Co to refloat it now for the last time?

          Have any of you thought what the Libs have done in getting Ashby to denigrate the Speaker? That is where the real, as against confected, stench is coming from.

          Similarly the FWA “investigation” into the HSU (really, against CraigThomson) so flawed it was “published” in the Senate.

          Libs have plenty to answer for!


          Report this

          00

          • #
            wes george

            That is where the real, as against confected, stench is coming from.

            The stench, Maxine is probably coming from behind your couch where cute lil’ Maxie pooped again…


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Sean McHugh

        Catamon said:

        I called bull-dust on the above as soon as i saw the reference to “news” on the commercial networks.

        To a large degree you are correct with that. Mark Riley from Channel 7 immediately comes to mind with his How-can-we-help-you-Julia question. There is also where he begged for a smack in the head when he deliberately twisted the context of Abbott’s “S–t happens” comment. Of course Riley isn’t the only one on commercial TV who plays Grand Inquisitor to the right and Dorothy Dix to the Left. They are still somewhat better than the Government’s very own propaganda trumpet, the ABC.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          catamon

          There is also where he begged for a smack in the head when he deliberately twisted the context of Abbott’s “S–t happens” comment.

          Yeah, that was scary and funny at the same time. Abbott had only had a few hours notice of that one coming and he still went into shuddering brainlock and couldn’t answer.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Sean McHugh

            Let’s compare it to when, in relation to the Labor/Greens’ boat people deaths, Hanson Young commented that ‘accidents happen‘. Where was the outrage from your kind (and the MSM) then? She actually did mean it in the context (and worse) than what was falsely implied of Abbott’s comment. As far as the “few hours notice” goes, I submit that being told what matters are going to be raised and being told what specific questions will be asked (and in what context), are two different things.

            From the Australian:

            Did you explain to Mr Abbott’s office the context in which the story would be presented, ie, that he had been “caught on camera” making a disparaging remark about a fallen soldier?

            As above. But the word “disparaging” was never used in any context by me, Chris Bath or anyone else at Seven News.

            Seven was criticised for cutting the tape just seconds before a soldier nodded at Mr Abbott and said: “It certainly does” in response to his comment: “Shit happens.” Did Seven chop the footage? Why?

            The general’s remarks were not included in the original report, which was still being edited five minutes before air time. They were run on at least six occasions subsequently.

            Remember, this was Mark How-can-we-help-you-Julia Riley. Damaging Abbott is one effective way of helping her. Riley doesn’t need Finkelstein censorship to make him an obedient propagandist to our big-brother Government and neither do you comrade.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Catamon

            Sean, lets get a bit less selective about quoting the OO’s article you linked shall we?

            When did you request an interview with Mr Abbott’s office?

            I gave Mr Abbott’s press secretary a detailed briefing of the story around 3pm on Tuesday.

            We sat in my office in the press gallery and I took him through a transcript of the exchange, including Mr Abbott’s comment that “shit happens”.

            The press secretary said he would brief Mr Abbott and that he would probably want to explain his remarks in an interview.

            The press secretary suggested we meet around 5.10pm. I received a phone call from Mr Abbott’s office around 5pm asking us to come down to his office.

            Note “detailed briefing”.

            And so what if the Mad Monk was ambushed. Anyone who aspires to be PM should be able to think on his or her feet. Abbott is manifestly incapable of it.

            Any journo who helps point that out and publicise it is atually doing the country a public service, AS WELL as providing humorous Youtube fodder.

            Dont get me wrong. I actually dont think the “shit happens” comment was anything bad, in context. Abbott’s response to it though was pathetic and says much about his fitness for public office, none of it good.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Sean McHugh

            Catamon said:

            Sean, lets get a bit less selective about quoting the OO’s article you linked shall we?

            How about “we” stop with the smarminess? Taking the first bit of what you quoted from that page:

            When did you request an interview with Mr Abbott’s office?

            I gave Mr Abbott’s press secretary a detailed briefing of the story around 3pm on Tuesday.

            To which you said:

            Note “detailed briefing”.

            For a start, “detailed” is a self-serving evaluation and testimony and is somewhat vague. What it notably doesn’t say is that all the questions (or even any) were provided. Your quote continues:

            We sat in my office in the press gallery and I took him through a transcript of the exchange, including Mr Abbott’s comment that “shit happens”.

            Right there is the only mention of that, that it was part of the transcript of the video, one that would be later edited to remove the context of Abbott’s remark in a way to make him appear callous. Your quote continues:

            The press secretary said he would brief Mr Abbott and that he would probably want to explain his remarks in an interview.

            The press secretary was evidently assuming a volitional comment offered by Abbott, in the context of the transcription, not expecting a scurrilous attack by way of deliberate misrepresentation through editing and a manipulative accusation/question. The transcript was complete, the video was chopped to make it sensational. Your additional quotes don’t help your case. Just seeing that video again showed me how filthy Riley is (as is Channel 7). I can understand how it it would have been hard not to deck him. And it wasn’t only Riley, other news presentations gleefully made the out-of-context accusations. None of that for Hanson-Young though, when she made similar comments (regarding boat people deaths) in the very context that Abbott was falsely accused of doing. But that’s good and even-handed reporting, right?

            And so what if the Mad Monk was ambushed.

            By Mark How-can-we-help-you-Julia Riley?

            Anyone who aspires to be PM should be able to think on his or her feet. Abbott is manifestly incapable of it.

            Any journo who helps point that out and publicise it is atually doing the country a public service,

            How can we help you, Julia? Is that another service of Riley and his mates?

            AS WELL as providing humorous Youtube fodder.

            As long as it is against the Right, right?

            Dont get me wrong. I actually dont think the “shit happens” comment was anything bad, in context. Abbott’s response to it though was pathetic and says much about his fitness for public office, none of it good.

            But it was important that, in the TV media and elsewhere, it was spun in a way to have his ‘callousness’ caught out. Now Julia and the phony AWU Association that she helped set up, that is not very interesting or important, is it?


            Report this

            00

        • #

          Oh dear, rewriting history a bit there buddy!

          Riley told Abbott he would ask questions about his stupid “shit happens” comment two hours before that interview. When Riley did ask his question on air Tone said he “had been taken out of context” meaning Riley had to ask “well, what was the context” to get that 30 seconds of head juddering silence.

          Methinks Tone will shortly get the tap on the shoulder and his time as LOTO will be up.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Craig Thomas

            I certainly hope so. The Liberal Party is a joke when led by a bloke who takes his cue from the “nujobs on the internet”, which means more Labor governments until the Libs cleanse themselves of useless wannabe Republicans.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Sean McHugh

            Maxine said

            I only just found this:

            Oh dear, rewriting history a bit there buddy!

            No Maxine, I quoted the history. What have you got?

            Riley told Abbott he would ask questions about his stupid “shit happens” comment two hours before that interview.

            Why are you being obtuse, Maxine and presenting a point that I refuted the day before when Catamon presented it? My reply to the same challenge from him sits directly above yours and was posted the day before your regurgitation. Here is more evidence for what I have argued in this thread, that the ABC discipleship are willfully and proudly ignorant.

            From the account in the Australian (used by Catamon and me) there is no indication that Abbott was told of any particular question, only that the press secretary was given a transcript of the video. The transcript was presumably complete and carried the very obvious context for Abbott’s remark. When Riley presented the video to Abbott, it was cut and spliced, in the most nasty way, to make Abbott appear callous. Abbott knew he had been tricked but would have needed the full transcript in front of him and the time to juxtapose the two, in order to eloquently counter. Channel 7 knew that, and that is why they did it. It is why Abbott was left him speechless and furious – and like most of us, wanting to see filthy Riley decked. Clearly he didn’t know that was coming, not in that form.

            And as I reminded Catamon, there was none of that for Hanson-Young when she made similar comments (regarding boat people deaths) in the very context that Abbott was falsely accused of doing. But you would see no problem there, Maxine, because, like your friends, you are willfully ignorant, which means hypocrisy is no problem for you either.

            Methinks Tone will shortly get the tap on the shoulder and his time as LOTO will be up.

            The fact that you and your kind so badly want to see him replaced (by Turnbull, right?) is good enough for me – for his retention, that is. I, on the other hand, hope that Gillard is there to face the voters with their baseball ballots.

            And by the way, please note that I am no “buddy” of your kind, comrade.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark

            Maxiebaby says:

            Methinks Tone will shortly get the tap on the shoulder and his time as LOTO will be up.

            Two things:
            You wish, and
            Well, you would say that, wouldn’t you.

            Craigybaby says:

            which means more Labor governments until the Libs cleanse themselves of useless wannabe Republicans.

            Like what just happened in the NT. talk about removed from reality!


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Shaun Shaun Shaun, Riley did say he would be interviewing Tone about “shit happens.” Plain fact of the matter is that Tone cannot think on his feet, does not prepare for interviews (just learns a script and is helpless when an interview goes away from that script.)

            If he says the context was wrong he should be able to say what the right context was. He couldn’t. Imagine Tone as PM at some major conference—scary thought, isn’t it? Even for rightwingers? Howard prepared, Howard was cunning and skilled in weaselwords—that suburban solicitor he was trained to be.

            Turnbull won’t get the nod again: post Howard the Liberals are no longer liberals but conservatives. Labor are the true liberals.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Sean McHugh

            Maxine said:

            Shaun Shaun Shaun,

            Who’s he?

            Riley did say he would be interviewing Tone about “shit happens.”

            I asked to see your evidence. Where is it? And I don’t mean a link but a specific line (or lines) from a quote.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Jesus saves

        Yep, fair call Cat.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Sean McHugh

          Jesus speaketh unto a fellow believer:

          Yep, fair call Cat.

          Saith the politically-correct tragic that saw ‘misogyny’ in the proposal that Gillard used a “cunning plot“. Jesus, you have spent too much time in the cognitive wilderness of leftist rhetoric. You have become omni[un]scient. You wouldn’t know what is real, false, up, down or sideways, let alone what is fair. There is no salvation for you or your fellow minions. Your witnessing is in vain.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Nicely put Sean.

            Every time one of these political “scientists” comments here I have visions of past lives.

            For example I think of the late Craig Thompson, President Juliar (I was young and naive ; and the extra money wasn’t bad either),

            The late Professor Garnish ( we DID NOT pollute rivers in Australia – it was in New Guinea , so it doesn’t count, they are

            primitive ), the late Australian Education System – once one of the world’s largest and most promising ( a victim of lefty

            “equality”) and the late Australian Scientific Organisation, which like our education system was once one of the world’s best

            research bodies. And to anoint it all we have someone posing as The Son of God.

            The defenders of the Faith are indeed a weird, uneducated mob.

            KK :)


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I have no idea why you would hitch your wagon to a character of Pickering’s dubious standing.

      Dubious in what way? You cast an aspersion, and I am calling you to substantiate it.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Jesus saves

        Me thinks you play dumb RK. I think the whole blogosphere has read Michael Pascoe’s demolition job on Pickering. In his words, not a nice man.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Timdot

          Michael Pascoe of the Lefty-love-in FauxFact’s Silly? Riiiiiiight. Nice attempted deflection.

          Now, from someone born on Our Saviour’s birthday, who’s name has many Religious meanings, a now non-practicing Catholic who has performed 6 of the 7 Sacraments, who feels he has more right to anoint himself with a Holy name, I call on you in the name of our Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to answer Rereke’s question.

          Dubious in what way?


          Report this

          00

        • #
          The Black Adder

          RK maybe a Kiwi, but he aint dumb!! Jesus who needs saving.

          The mighty Monkton might be a Pom, but we love him too.

          Isn`t that what Jesus is all about knucklehead?

          Is your real name Tim or Julia by any chance?

          Next…


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Catamon

            The mighty Monkton might be a Pom, but we love him too.

            And you consider it a virtue to flaunt such poor taste?? Get help Ba mate, get help.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Timdot

            TBA, Timothy Haydn, born 25 December, 19xx (next birthday is 21+lots-of-tax). Been around Religion far too long to recognise cu.., er, cult-like behavior when I see it. Hence the challenge to ‘Hay-Zeus’.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            The Black Adder

            Not poor taste my little friend…

            … Extremely well bred and intellectual, he would kick your arse in any debate!

            Poor taste? WTF?

            We have a love/hate relationships with the Poms ever since they sent Capt. Cook over here!

            But we love people that tell the truth Catamongstmen… next!


            Report this

            00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          RW

          I think he means that you should “know” this “intuitively” about Pickering.

          You see, this technique of Knowing Intuitively works perfectly for him with Man Made Global Warming : someone told him, and it just “feels’ right inside.

          How can you deny this RW.

          When something is “just right” we don’t need science to confirm it.

          KK :)


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Yes, well I noticed that he slithered away when others pushed the point, and Timdot threatened to exorcise him.

            We seem to be getting more second and third rate trolls these days, I guess the more intelligent ones have seen the writing on the wall and slipped away to attend to their alfalfa sprouts.


            Report this

            00

      • #

        Read this racist crap from Pickering and you will see why he is called sleazebag, dubious etc:

        http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Wn8TQZ1gL8sJ:lpickering.net/item/6976


        Report this

        00

  • #

    Thanks to the Climategate global climate scandal, many different segments of society are finally awakening to a frightening reality: World leaders have been operating independently of constitutional limits on government since ~1945:

    http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-818

    The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by “nuclear fires” on 6,9 Aug 1945 convinced world leaders to establish the United Nations on 24 Oct 1945 and begin promoting misinformation on the energy (E) stored as mass (m) in the cores of heavy atoms, some planets, ordinary stars like the Sun, and galaxies ["Neutron repulsion," The APEIRON Journal 19, 123-150 (2012)]

    http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V19NO2pdf/V19N2MAN.pdf

    Recently high school students in San Diego, CA independently awakened to this same reality:

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

    Regretfully, I could not figure out why experimental observations and data were being hidden, ignored or manipulated until I had watched world leaders and leaders of the scientific community try to justify or excuse obvious evidence of fraud in the Climategate emails and documents that were released in Nov 2009.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/finally-the-new-revised-and-edited-climategate-timeline/

    With deep regrets,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo


    Report this

    00

    • #
      The Black Adder

      Well Oliver, good questions posed.

      What is our future then? Do we have any control over it?

      Is it all predetermined and I have to tell my 3 kids that they will be numbers in a big conglomerate called the United Nations??

      Can we fight back?

      Bloody Hell, I need a beer!


      Report this

      00

    • #

      What fraud? Spell it out, don’t just make baseless statements!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    recent ABC insanity.

    some weeks ago, i heard an ABC radio program in praise of non-C02-emitting bicycling. the hostesses were two high-schoolish female voices who seem to be de rigeur on ABC these days. the entire program was full of bicycle praise, but there were repeated derogatory remarks about how they were not talking about “the lycra-wearing cyclist” type. it was so odd, but it was obvious they were meaning not the tony abbott type of cyclist. i kept trying to imagine our PM on a bicycle, but couldn’t.

    two nights ago, i caught the end of an ABC newscast, with the newsreader finishing up with a reminder of our top headlines, which turned out to be one item – tony abbott has admitted he hadn’t read the BHP statement before commenting or whatever. the entire MSM got caught up in that frenzy i realised later but, at the time, i thought could that really be ABC’s top headline!

    at night, the ABC seems to spend much of its taxpayer-paid time talking to hollywood gossipers, or asking listeners to answer trivial questions about hollywood celebrities and the like, than discussing anything worth listening to.

    give thanx for the internet.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Pat

      The comment you made on the ABC going on about “tony abbott has admitted he hadn’t read the BHP statement before commenting or whatever” was true.

      I heard a comment on another more balanced station which followed it up with him or heard the full reply which explained why the carbon tax was important to that issue.

      True that tax did not apply to uranium mining directly but everything associated with the extraction was going to be more expensive because of the tax and the effect was significant.

      KK


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Annie

      Hello there Pat

      I had a wry smile at ‘the hostesses were two high-schoolish female voices who seem to be de rigeur on ABC these days’. We are similarly afflicted in the UK I’m afraid. We have little itsy-bitsy schoolgirl-voiced presenters,the owners wearing ill-shaped mini-dresses and heaps of plastered-on make-up, especially those reading inarticulately from weather-forecast prompts. They generally talk about ‘lumps of cloud’ and suchlike. Yuk, yuk and yuk again!

      Bicycles embody energy when they are made.

      Even with wearing helmets it is dangerous to cycle on many English roads as drivers seem to be blissfully unaware of cyclists’ presence more often than not.

      Back to the topic. I feel an impotent anger at the head-in-the-sand attitude of the MSM; a sort of ‘fingers in the ears’ “We can’t hear you…nyah, nyah, nyah”.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Bob Massey

      I agree with David Archibald when he recently stated on air with Alan Jones “that he couldn’t wait for the ABC to be shut down”. It has well and truly passed it’s expiration date.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      tony abbott has admitted he hadn’t read the BHP statement before commenting or whatever. the entire MSM got caught up in that frenzy i realised later but, at the time, i thought could that really be ABC’s top headline!

      When the coalition released it broadband policy, whatever it was, Tone went on the 7.30 Report and was asked about it by Kerry O’Brien as was to be expected. He didn’t know what was in it! Then the Rielly interview where a very natural question floored Tone.

      These things are important because Tone is the alternative PM! What if he was representing us at a high trade or diplomatic or whatever you KNOW he will not be up on the details! He would be a disaster as PM! By contrast, even the most vituperative rightwing internet nutjob has to admit our lovely PM is always across her brief.

      Wisen up boyos!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    24 Aug: Age: Taxes a drag on coal, Kloppers warns investors
    by Peter Ker and Paddy Manning
    BHP Billiton head Marius Kloppers has told European investors that Australia’s carbon and mining taxes have helped to render the nation’s coal industry unworthy of further investment at this time.
    Despite reassuring Australians that the taxes were not to blame for BHP’s mothballing of the $US30 billion Olympic Dam expansion, Mr Kloppers referred to both when telling British media that new investments in Australia’s coal sector would not be profitable…http://www.theage.com.au/business/taxes-a-drag-on-coal-kloppers-warns-investors-20120823-24oyp.html#ixzz24PSrzzIW

    perhaps Kloppers was too nervous about our govt thought police re mentioning the carbon dioxide tax in australia!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Exactly;

      he has to live here.

      KK


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        What kind of society do we live in if rich mining magnates have to lie to the public to keep themselves safe from government retribution?
        What chance do the rest of us have?

        I don’t want to be negative and fatalistic about it, but one has to admit there is problem if one is going to marshal the resources to solve it.
        The bigger the resources required by a solution the more certain one should be that there is a problem that demands it. (Sound familiar?)


        Report this

        00

        • #
          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Well if what I said wasn’t a reflection of what you meant then I’m gonna have to make a “Huh?” right back atcha.
            Actually, let’s just let this crossed wire go through to the keeper while we mix our metaphors and move on to greener pastures. :)


            Report this

            00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          OK Andrew

          I read it through twice more and now I pock up the meaning – getting old.

          I was at the Speers Point Local Council Sea level Rally this morning listening to Bob Carter and Stewart Franks.

          Also involved were the organisers from Gosford who, along with many locals, had seen the value of their properties crushed by adverse inclusion in the Flood Register concocted by local government.

          Getting out of that situation seemed almost impossible given the entrenched political mentality of the area.

          So I see your points.

          KK


          Report this

          00

        • #

          Kloppers statement here was made to the ASX and so had to be the unvarnished truth.

          What he says at other times does not have that constraint and you would expect him to engage in self–interested lobbying. Geez, a seconds thought would have told you that!


          Report this

          00

  • #
    pat

    LOL!

    23 Aug: Bloomberg: Matthew Carr: Retaliation on Airline Carbon May Breach Law: Researcher
    Nations that retaliate against the European Union’s decision to include airlines in its carbon market from this year may fall foul of international trade rules, according to a University of Cambridge researcher.
    “If a World Trade Organization member restricts EU flights over its territory, or landing slots for EU flights in its territory, it is likely to violate WTO obligations ensuring non- discriminatory treatment of trade in goods, as well as freedom of transit,” Lorand Bartels, a lecturer in WTO and international law at the U.K. university’s Trinity Hall, said Aug. 21 in a phone interview from Buenos Aires…
    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-23/retaliation-on-airline-co2-may-breach-law-researcher


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    23 Aug: ABC: Anna Vidot: More funding for carbon farming
    The Indigenous Carbon Farming Fund makes available $5.2 million over five years for research and development into methodologies that are also likely to create opportunities for Indigenous Australians.
    The Carbon Farming Futures Methodology Development Program will allocate $7.2 million over five years for projects to develop CFI methodologies such as emissions measurement techniques.
    The Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change, Mark Dreyfus, says applications for both programs are now open and will close on October 4…
    http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201208/s3574598.htm

    yesterday someone told me of a cattle farmer friend in western queensland who is getting out of farming altogether because of the ban on kangaroo culling. apparently over the last 3 years, it has cost the farmer $150 per acre in losses of livestock/cost of feed etc. doesn’t sound much til u realise the farmer has 185,000 acres. ouch.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    The ABC costs over $1 Billion PA and demonstrates the modern malaise infecting the media; which is confusing opinion with reporting of the news.

    The ABC takes a firm pro-AGW line and censors alternative viewpoints by either keeping them on a drip or not allowing them at all.

    On all other issues the ABC is completely in the Green camp. This unreasonable for a publically funded broadcaster.

    Do we need the ABC at all, or in its current form? The ABC infrastructure is worth $billions; it could be sold or leased to other media outlets.

    Would doing this to the ABC be similar to what Finkelstein is proposing for all the MSM, EXCEPT the ABC?

    The answer is no because what Finkelstein is proposing is nothing more than censorship as the ABC has permitted to be published.

    The difference is that Finkelstein is proposing that private media outlets, big and small would be subject to much tighter control. The ABC is NOT a private media outlet; it is publically funded. Should the ABC have an editorial position on much issues?

    The answer muct be no because it is funded by ALL of the community not just the section of the community which it demonstrably favours, the Greens.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      wes george

      State owned and operated media is only a step away from a ministry for information control.

      Once long ago in the analog age a reasonable argument could be made for Australian taxpayers to fund a national broadcaster. Not so in the age of broadband handheld devices where global content is accessible in even the most remote corner of our nation.

      The Australian government has no mandate to be a major content producer and “news” distributor in competition with private media outlets. The ABC is an example of the government nationalising a market that ought to be open to private free competition.

      In fact, media pundits have noted that the ABC’s taxpayer-funded billions has sucked all the profit potential out of the media space that could be occupied by legitimate private left-of-center media business, such as Fairfax. Thus the ABC displaces almost as much hot air from its intellectual comrades-in-arms as it produces.

      *

      On the topic of media ethics: The ABC has no right to a corporate editorial opinion on anything! Why?

      Because, the ABC is a taxpayer-funded agency whose charter demands that it serve ALL Australians equally and fairly. Therefore, the ABC literally has no right for an editorial bias like a private media corporate. The difference being you can chose not to buy Fairfax or News Limited products, but if you pay taxes, mate, you’ve already paid for Leigh Sales to savage Tony Abbott on the 7:30 report. And that’s a violation of your right to free expression and a bloody rip-off to boot.

      Of course, in individual opinion pieces the ABC can hire left and right and Green commenters to opine clearly their positions. But each opinion piece must be balanced with an oppositional voice if not that day then the next. This isn’t the case. The ABC is massive weighted to the left. The 7:30 Report will never have Tim Blair on to snark at Gillard to balance Leigh Sales’ petulance towards Abbott. The ABC culture of invidious editorial bias trickles down to infect even the most fundamental ethical value of journalism, which is to report ALL the news and to report that news without spin. The ABC has cynically turned every story, no matter how dry, into another set piece in the “narrative.”

      Conclusion:

      The government has no more business producing media content than operating a white goods retail outlet chain. Both can be done better, with higher production standards and more efficiently by the private sector.

      The ABC is an unjust government-enforced monopoly on bandwidth that private enterprise would be happy to pay for. Instead of the taxpayers forking out a billion bucks a year for the ABC. That media market space could be generating a billion bucks a year in taxes from private media businesses! As Obama says, we should “spread the wealth around.”

      The culture of the ABC has proven itself corrupted beyond reform. It blatantly violates its own charter every hour of every day with subtle propaganda techniques to achieve bias, all the while pretending to be objective and fair. The “mal aire” of constant deceit, manipulation and chicanery has corroded the once proud brand.

      Solution:

      Sell the ABC and SBS off to the highest bidder. The let the new privatized networks make their own way in the private market of media content. The Coalition, once elected, should propose an inquiry into government-funded media looking towards the end game of divestiture.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Well put, Wes,


        Report this

        00

        • #
          wes george

          Thanks, Rereke,

          Ironically, Government divestiture of Auntie would in the long run benefit Labor and the Greens in getting their political act together.

          So I don’t suggest divestiture as a means to silence those on politically Left side of politics, but to liberate political content space from government control in the interest of lifting the quality of Australian political discourse for ALL opinions and voices to be heard.

          *

          The great mystery of Australia is why with the national media dominated by left-of-centre voices, why is the left so bad at dominating the political landscape? Why is every state and Canberra about to elect coalition governments?

          You’d think that by now after years of media indoctrination most Aussies would be little MattB’s in their starched Greenshirts and jackboots welcoming the UN occupying forces with garlands….You’d think that with the ABC tidying up 24/7 after Gillard on broad spectrum of channels that Julia would be more popular than Eva Peron. And how did that hated Nazi turd Howard win FOUR elections with ten thousand ABC daggers in his back?

          Imagine the literally 100′s of millions of our tax dollars the ABC wasted trying to defeat little John Howard over more than a decade! Alas, for nought. T’was John in the end who undid himself with little help from the left.

          The failure of the left is largely due to leftist media which tells its masters what they want to hear, while at the same time failing to do investigative reporting into lefty politicians and policy, thus allowing creeps with murky backgrounds rise to high office armed with dreadful policies before being exposed in national-level scandals that can’t be hidden by mere media bias. Gillard, Thompson, Roxon, Rudd, Wong, et al are failures of the ABC, as much as they are as they are as leaders.

          This media phenomenon is called the Taranto Principle after James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal who first noticed that fawning media coverage of Democrats in the US left the Democrats ill prepared for the rigours of public office.

          By flattering Labor and Greens the “love media” inflates their sense of entitlement and self-righteousness, while never daring to test their political assumptions and half-baked policies. The results is a whole generation of left-wing politicians unfit for office resulting in chronic policy failures, which are then further exacerbate because the Love Media buries the policy failures until the situation gets catastrophic. For example, more than a thousand people had to die at sea, one boatload at a time, before it is brought to Gillard’s attention the failure of her border control policies.

          Meanwhile, at the political philosophy level, which is where the long term agendas and narratives are form, media pandering and selective attention to only a narrow subset of the facts creates a culture of delusional disconnection from real people with their real problem, thus leading to the intellectual bankruptcy of the left that we witness everywhere today.

          Conversely, the Leftist bias in the media whets and polishes the Right and their libertarian ideas, because the Right are quite literally subjected to a fierce natural selection process by the deeply hostile media environment which competes to pick off the weak for breakfast.

          As each year goes by the conservatives sharpen their intellectual narratives and policy programs against the hard inquiries of the media while the left get flabbier, more indolent and delusional, until they simply allow the “JournoList” to write their press releases and policy talking points for them!

          The pathetic truth of the Taranto Principle is easily illustrated by imagining where Tony Abbott would be today if 17 years ago he had made the same sort of “life-choice errors” that Julia Gillard made…. He’d be a dishwasher at the Fingal Bay sports club sharing his smoko with Bruce.

          Or compare the endless media outrage over the Tampa with the deathly sick media silence over the thousand of asylum seekers recently drowned at sea.

          In a very real sense, the ABC is the root cause of the cultural dementia on the Left, while at the same time the ABC’s bias helps the conservatives by culling the infirm on intellectual Right, leaving only the best and brightest to propagate their memes.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            cohenite

            All true wes; then there is the additional reason why the left and Greens are so ill equipped for office and rule in a fucntioning democracy: their policies, ideology and methods suck.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      manalive

      The ABC boasts over 1000 journalists around the country out of a full-time staff of 4500 (Annual Report 2010-2011), all with an extraordinary unanimity of outlook.
      Have a heart, without our ABC, what would they do? Fairfax is out of the question.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      How can that be when the odious Peter Reith and IPA/CIS creepy crawlies are all over the ABC? Try sticking to reality.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    20 Aug: Orange Country Register, California: New carbon emissions rule could cost UC, CSU millions
    by Brian Joseph
    Large campuses in the University of California and California State University systems are bracing for the implementation of new state rules that will force them to cut carbon emissions or pay as much as $28 million a year to offset their greenhouse gases…
    For years, businesspeople have been complaining that the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also known as Assembly Bill 32, will decimate California’s economy and force companies to move out of state…
    Officials for both the UC and CSU systems say their institutions support reducing greenhouse gas emissions — but they have also pushed for legislative or regulatory changes that would relieve some of the financial burden of complying with the law.
    “The University supports the creation of a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program, but is concerned that it is being disproportionately impacted by the proposed cap-and-trade rule and that its compliance costs will ultimately be borne by students, researchers, and patients to the detriment of teaching, research, and healthcare activities,” wrote Anthony Garvin of the UC Office of the president in a 2010 letter to the California Air Resources Board, the entity responsible for implementing AB 32.
    “Since 2008-09, the University has lost over $1 billion in State funding,” said UC spokeswoman Brooke Converse in an email. “On top of these absolute cuts, the University has had to address significant rising costs to the tune of about $350 million a year that the State would normally have funded. No amount of preparation for the AB 32 obligations could be adequate under these circumstances.”…
    COMMENT BY CHUCK JONES: Many college professors and students have been ardent supporters of caps on greenhouse gasses. Now they get to feel the effects of their activism – professors will lose there jobs, fewer students will be admitted to college and the ones that are admitted don’t have a prayer of graduating in four years because they can’t get the classes they need. Consider this your first lesson in real life – actions have consequences.
    http://www.ocregister.com/news/million-369041-state-cap.html


    Report this

    00

    • #
      elva

      The last I heard was California planned to pull a ‘swiftie’. That is, they will decrease emissions but increase power supplies via having coal stations built in neighboring states to send electricity to sunny California. Clever.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Glenn Darlington

    Jo, I suugest you contact Hutchison’s producer and make an appontment to go on air to to discuss. The ABC has obligatios under their editorial policy to provide fairness and equity in its coverage. Perhaps an on air debate on the science. Glenn


    Report this

    00

  • #
    RoHa

    Nothing unusual about people not knowing what is going on. The main stream media are in the hands of the power brokers, so they tell the story the p-bs want told. Most of us do not have the time to dig up the truth about the issues we are interested in, let alone view every web-site on every issue.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andre Lewis

    I have not redad anything Pickering has written on this so tried to go to his website but it seems to be off-line. Either he is over it or ther is an attempt to stop people checking out what he is blogging on the Gillard/AWU scandal.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    OT _ On today’s country hour (NSW) a rep from The Republic of Everyone, Ben Peacock, was telling listeners that 97% of scientists agree that global warming is occurring and it’s man made.!

    http://www.republicofeveryone.com/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Off topic but newsworthy:

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in a 2 to 1 decision has overturned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). The Aug. 21 ruling determined the U.S. regulator exceeded its legal authority under the Clean Air Act.

    http://www.pennenergy.com/index/power/display/6388954999/articles/pennenergy/power/coal/2012/august/epa_s-cross_state.html

    Good news I think.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mattb

    I’m glad I don’t have to rely on the ABC but have the CEC send me gems like this:
    “The media storm around the Russian punk rock protest group Pussy Riot is a new front in Britain’s disinformation campaign against Russia. Oxford University’s Project Democracy is remote-controlling the Pussy Riot circus in Russia, to foment public anarchy in Russia aimed at destroying the main obstacle to Britain’s drive to expunge the principle of national sovereignty from international relations—Vladimir Putin. “


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ColdinOz

    Before this totally orchestrated press conference I was prepared to give JG the benefit of the doubt. That conference totally dispelled any doubt that I had.
    A question for the PM: How can anyone talk for so long, use so much circumelecution and actually say almost nothing.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      muwahahahahahaha orchestrated! Geez you are so prejudiced you can’t see straight! She talked a bunch of reporters to a standstill and the S&G history is no longer a factor except to “rightwing mysogynistic nutjobs!”

      You one of those or can you see you are being ridiculous and maybe start thinking, or will you stay hunting with the pack here, oblivious to the fact your quarry isn’t here and doesn’t know you exist?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        ColdinOz

        muwahahahahahaha orchestrated! Ge

        Maxine, go back and read the transcript with an open mind; assuming you know what a mind is.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Sean McHugh

        Maxine said:

        What is all this stuff about misogynism? What has that got to do with us not liking the Labor party and its leaders or with calling them to account when they are dodgy, deceitful, evasive, incompetent, stupid, dangerous, authoritarian and arrogant?

        BTW, nice hairdo.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      John Brookes

      I’m pretty sure you are right, ColdinOz. She is a witch, and nothing she said managed to convince me otherwise!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    turnrdoutnice

    When did Australia become a Republic and start exporting banana?

    Must have missed it….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    I feel sorry for ABC listeners, they have no idea what’s going on

    Hi Jo,

    Probably better to feel sorry for those listening to commercial news, where the politically-correct filter is being applied against their will. ABC listeners are likely to relish ignorance. Take Catamon for instance.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ColdinOz

    “Once long ago in the analog age”
    Easy there Wes, I cut my teeth on that analog stuff.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    .
    May I just take a minute to correct a couple of things regarding BHPB’s decision not to proceed with the Olympic Dam (OD) expansion.

    Contrary to the comments of just everybody, from the Prime Minister, to the Treasurer, to the SA Premier, all the way down to Bolt and the talking heads at the ABC, the cost, availability, and guarantee of supply of electricity have had a profound effect on the final decision not to proceed with the OD expansion.

    The process used for the final recovery and purification of copper at OD is “electrowinning” – a form of low voltage high amperage electrolysis that uses massive amounts of electricity. OD is the largest consumer of electricity in SA, using more, in fact, than the entire city of Adelaide – or about 30% of SA’s entire output. Bringing the electrowinning tables online and taking them offline has to be done in cooperation with SA’s power supply providers, otherwise the resultant spikes would black out most of the state.

    Part of the planned expansion included BHPB building their very own, very large power station out at OD, to supply their own needs independent of the SA grid, which is becoming increasingly erratic and unreliable, due to its increasing quasi-reliance on windmills.

    But the SA government saw an opportunity to hide some of the growing problems caused by their own ongoing incompetence in the promotion of windmills, and insisted BHPB’s humungous new power station be connected to the grid, and its reserve spinning capacity be made available to cover the shortfall created by the state’s reliance on windmills. BHPB reluctantly agreed to this.

    So far, so good. But then the Federal government stepped in and decreed that this arrangement meant that BHPB was, in fact, an “energy provider”, and as such, had to source a specific, and ever increasing amount of the TOTAL supply (OD AND SA in general) from “renewable energy sources” – eg – windmills, in accordance with existing legislation covering all other “energy providers”.

    Since this defeated the entire purpose of the exercise, it was at this point BHPB Management threw up their arms in disgust and relegated the whole project into the “too hard” basket until some sanity returns to Australian politics, which isn’t likely to happen any time soon. That decision was taken over three months ago now, and BHPB have simply been waiting for an opportune time to announce it.

    Contrary to what is being said and speculated, falling commodity prices have absolutely NOTHING to do with BHPB’s decisions to mothball the OD expansion, and the Finucane Island Outer Harbour development. Both projects were costed at commodity prices being 50% what they were at their high points a few months ago. These people are not stupid.

    .
    The Australian government, INCLUDING the opposition, are actually in the process of getting a damned-good spanking. Unfortunately it is the Australian people who will ultimately pay the price.

    Rio Tinto will be announcing their own version of corporal punishment in the next few weeks.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Intertesting post MV, you got my attention.
      Any chance of some links (or any other evidence) to verify the above? Much appreciated.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        memoryvault

        .
        Sorry Baa,

        But apart from google being your friend, this is one time you are going to have to wait for the proof to be in the pudding, so to speak.

        Mind you, the fact that these projects were costed at 50% of peak commodity prices is very much in the public domain. Try searching in the business type articles, rather than the NSM headlines.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          JMD

          Not to debunk your entire thesis MV but in light of the lack of evidence I’m inclined to think that your statement falling commodity prices have absolutely NOTHING to do with BHPB’s decisions to mothball the OD expansion is not accurate.

          The RBA’s base metals index is showing prices near 2008 lows. In fact, base metals have been in a solid ‘bear market’ for several years. Base metals are now trading at 50% of their high point, not of a few months ago, but of a few years ago. Personally, I’ve had a hard time believing this ‘mining boom’ hype for some time now.

          I think it is more likely that the scenario you describe was the straw that broke the camels back of already narrow profit margins. Much lower than when the project was first mooted. Surely the carbon tax has not helped either.

          As an aside, there was a recent story on this Nathan Tinkler, supposedly some kind of business genius, a multimillionaire at 30. Turns out, as if it’s any surprise, that the guy is hocked to the eyeballs & is about to lose his shirt.


          Report this

          00

        • #

          memorvault,

          I’ve been busy here, and I’ve only just come back to read through the Comments, and wow, I only need to be away for half a day, and I miss more than a hundred comments.

          This is just amazing stuff.

          My jaw dropped, as my brain screamed WTF.

          Typical of federal (and State too I suppose) Labor though. When an operation of this size falls over, it’s a case of “Hey look over there. Isn’t that Britney Spears?”

          South Australia is in serious trouble with respect to electricity supply.

          Tony.


          Report this

          00

          • #

            Now I see why Mar’n Ferguson was so quick to come out and mention ‘economic’ reasons, which by drawing a shortish long bow is actually close to the truth.

            Say something fast to deflect away from the real reasons, which, even if published, would probably go right over the average person’s head ….. and at some altitude.

            Thanks again memoryvault. This is astounding.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      In other words the carbon tax does have a significant effect through the power station. I wonder if Leigh Sales will correct her comments about Tony Abbott?

      Perhaps the ABC should be subscription service. I’m sure the left would be happy to pay Ms Sales’ salary out of their public service salaries.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Dave

      .
      This is astounding MV!!!!

      I’ve read your comment numerous times and can’t believe it!

      I’ve gone down to BWS for 3 Tallies of XXXX draught!

      Great post!

      Dave


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Bob Malloy

      MV:

      I can find reference to two possible power generators for the Olimpic Dam project, both date back to 2005/2006.
      These are both geothermal plants.

      Olympic Dam mine to run on geothermal energy?
      BHP Billiton is considering a geothermal power plant for the Olympic Dam mine expansion. The A$1 billion power plant would be built 400 km north of the Olympic Dam mine in South Australia. Pacific Hydro Ltd external link believes it could have a 400-Megawatt plant up and running within three or four years. (Sunday Mail June 16, 2006)

      Olympic Dam in northern South Australia is showing promise as another site for a hot rocks energy project. Initial exploration of the site by Western Australian firm Green Rock Energy has found a potential 1,000 Megawatt resource. (ABC Nov. 9, 2005)

      Are these the plans you refer to, with flim flams success in the geothermal field would either of these plants be any more successful. Pacific Hydro in 2006 were predicting their plant to be up and running in three to four years, is it or is this just another green myth.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        memoryvault

        .
        No.

        The OD Expansion Project was centred around a 650MW gas-fired power plant with gas from the Moomba field. Claims (such as the ones you quote) that it could ever be met by geothermal (or any other “sustainable” source) were just wafflings by interested third parties. Here is a link to a typical article:

        http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=528

        As an interesting aside, “hot-rock” geothermal as a viable energy concept is dead. It died at Innamincka a couple of years ago. I know, I was involved at the time.


        Report this

        00

        • #

          “Hot rocks” was doomed from the outset. The technology simply isn’t viable (materials and the environment in which they have to work including very hot H2SO4) for reliable production and it doesn’t scale well.

          Scaling requires the ability to push water through rock fissures throughout larger and larger volumes or rock as the heat (enthalphy) is extracted from the rocks. Thermal resistance between where the heat is extracted and the “source” is finite. It takes time for much of the heat to reach those rocks unless you get lucky and strike a latter-day Oklo where intense heat is developed within the rocks at the drilling depth.

          If you’re going to be utilising heat from natural sources (such as geothermal), you may as well put it in a technologically-managed container for high thermodynamic efficiency and supply reliability; and call it a nuclear power station. Geothermal energy is from nuclear decay of e.g. Thorium that’s been part of the planet since its formation.

          The main reason for all the radiation signs around the geothermal sites.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Bob Malloy

          Thanks MV, I didn’t think you meant the Geothermal, just couldn’t find links to any other sources.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Thanks for that MV

      A real reality check is always appreciated.

      KK


      Report this

      00

  • #
    catamon

    Hmmmm…. i may have to take back some of my earlier comments about the commercial media and their politics coverage??


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Oh I’m sorry,

    Was someone actually listening to what that Liar was saying?

    I don’t believe what lyers have to say. i really don’t have the time for it.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Sonny

      The great big lie.
      “There will be no Carbon Tax under a government I lead”.
      I can only imagine what other lies we have been told…


      Report this

      00

      • #
        ColdinOz

        How about “I will scrap the GST” and “I haven’t talked to Bob Carr about the position of Foreign Minister” and “I didn’t know about the 1700 foreign workers that labour had agreed with Gina R to bring in”. That’s just off the top of my head.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Sonny

    I don’t pay much attention to mainstream news at all.
    Better to acknowledge your own ignorance than profess underatanding based on misonformation. I don’t know and I don’t want to think I know.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Sonny

      Case in point.
      Some chap named “Memory Vault” on a climate change conspiracy website provides the real scoop on BHP.
      What a fantasy world we live in!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Dave

    .
    Here’s news!
    ABC looks tame!

    Hydro Tasmania have numerous videos out on the beautiful advantages of wind energy!
    They even educate the children of this (in Tasmania, near Musselroe) – but watch the Mussleroe Wind Farm Video – they’re teaching hydro!

    They teach WIND and explain HYDRO! Is Tim Flannery involved?

    Sickening along the lines of GE friendly, lots of fun, hope, wind, sustainable, future bullsh%t that this crawling company is adhering to the money fund train that our government is handing out!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Juliar

    Some people on twitter are now trying to say the Liberal Party started all of this. Some Labor supporters are rather desperate.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Catamon

    Had a read of the link to daH Bolta in the OP.

    Fairly humorous and certainly not his finest example of froth an bubble. But does show up some of his classic silliness.

    He says:

    And it was a masterstroke to spring the press conference on journalists who thought they were there for an announcement on the new refugee intake, and then stand there until the questions from the largely unprepared petered out in the only opportunity Gillard says she’ll ever give them.

    I salute John McTernan, Gillard media director. A masterpiece.

    I’ll bet he felt really smart writing such a cutting paragraph?

    But then he goes on to bits of the transcript of the presser. From one of the “largely unprepared”:

    JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, one of the issues that’s been raised in recent days is the disparity between the creation of this association and what you said in 1995. The former being that it was the creation of a workplace safety association and then three and a half years later, you said it was a slush fund.

    Now, going back to the documents that have been released under FOI, with relation to the Officer of the Commissioner of Corporate Affairs, listed the 23 April 1992, is it your contention that in when Ralph Blewitt signed this document with nine pages attached which you, I believe, prepared and it says the objects of the association are, and there is like (a) to (h), and include things like promoting within unions the adoption of the association’s policies, supporting union officials. Is your contention that those objectives of the association are consistent with being a slush fund?

    Yup, that sounds like a question from a really unprepared journo. Dogs but Bolt is a tosser. Hey, maybe he only gets his politics coverage from the ABC and so knows nufink??


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Sean McHugh

      Catamon said:

      Catamon quotes Andrew Bolt (without a link):

      And it was a masterstroke to spring the press conference on journalists who thought they were there for an announcement on the new refugee intake, and then stand there until the questions from the largely unprepared petered out in the only opportunity Gillard says she’ll ever give them.[emphasis S.M.]

      Snipping to point, he follows that by this statement followed by more quoting from one of the “largely unprepared”:

      JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, one of the issues that’s been raised in recent days is the disparity between the creation of this association and what you said in 1995. The former being that it was the creation of a workplace safety association and then three and a half years later, you said it was a slush fund. . . . . [good knowledgeable question continues]

      Catamon follows that with:

      Yup, that sounds like a question from a really unprepared journo. Dogs but Bolt is a tosser.

      But not even in the part he quoted did Bolt say that no one there was eruditely prepared to challenge the PM on the matter. Also the fact that Bolt quoted one reporter at length, with his question that the PM could not answer adequately, shows he thought that to be an important question. Hell, didn’t Catamon even read the title of the article: The AWU scandal – Brilliant, except for the bit about the real issue? The bit he was referring to was the question from a reporter who did bring along a hard question, the bit he quoted at length.

      The word ‘unprepared’ could also apply to the fact that the journalists thought it was going to be about refugee intakes. But to really complete the argument that Catamon is dancing the leftist twist, lets look at another article that Bolt wrote on the matter:

      She stared down the journalists over nearly an hour of questioning, saying it was their one chance. If any came in unprepared, and many no doubt did, they’ve missed their opportunity.

      Ergo, some DID come prepared. Is that to hard for you to understand, Catamon? Of course that is a rhetorical question. We know it is too hard.

      Catamon’s leftist delusional constructions, not only have him wearing the crude label he assigns but hugging himself as well. As evidenced in this blog, the leftists don’t know how hopelessly biased and ridiculous they sound with their wild, vitriolic and vacuous rants. If they haven’t got something on the detractors to their cause, they will certainly make it up.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        elva

        I can’t understand why Julia Gillard was so upset about the SMH (The Australian) using the word ‘trust’ fund instead of ‘slush’. In my mind the term ‘slush’ has dark meanings of secrecy and passing money underneath the table. A trust fund on the other hand gives, to me, connotations of something being above board and far more ‘legal’.

        Have we become so inured to nepotism and “I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine” approach to life that we now expect it as a matter of normalcy? To a layman watching the press conference I was amazed that this ‘mixture’ of terminology was not questioned.

        I am sure missing something. I admit I can’t be as smart as Gillard, the politicians nor the reporters. I just used to believe in calling a spade a spade rather than ‘a digging implement for the use of’.

        [The paper concerned was The Australian. Gillard had to find an error, any error to shift the focus to her defence i.e. media and blogosphere beat up of an old story. Mod oggi]


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Catamon

        Ok, so answer me this. with all the vast body of “evidence” that Julia Gillard did something wrong 17 years ago, and all the people who have pushed this line in the public arena, where are the actual accusations of wrong doing, by anyone remotely credible or in fact anyone at all? What, exactly, is Julia Gillard supposed to have done. Come on, someone, publicly, make a specific and definitive allegation as to the Wot, Where, and When.

        Had to have a laugh at Bolts pathetic attempt at keeping this going.

        Most likely, the only people who actually saw the cheque were the secretaries and finance bods in the back office. In fact, as happens in most big firms but he seems to assume his readership are to stupid to know that and will get all excited about it. He really is a tosspot.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Sean McHugh

          Catamon said:

          Ok, so answer me this. with all the vast body of “evidence” that Julia Gillard did something wrong 17 years ago, and all the people who have pushed this line in the public arena, where are the actual accusations of wrong doing, by anyone remotely credible or in fact anyone at all? What, exactly, is Julia Gillard supposed to have done.

          If she did nothing wrong, why did Slater and Gordon tape an interview with her (an employee!) and then get rid of her? Why did she have to take up unemployment? Why did she never work in law again? Why was there a six-month discrepancy with her work history?

          In any case, I call starting an ‘association’ knowing it to be nothing of the sort, wrong. I call doing the whole thing in secret, wrong.

          She set up the phony fund that allowed her boyfriend to defraud money from the union for his personal use. She attended the auction when he bought a house with that money. At the very least, one can be known by the company one keeps; and she kept that dodgy company in a very active way.

          We know of no action by her to remedy the matter, other than to distance herself from it when the proverbial hit the fan. When someone in their thirties and a partner in a major law firm, says they were “young and naive”, do you actually buy it? We already knew that Gillard is a sneak and that she rewrites her history.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            elva

            On closer listening to Gillard’s remarks about the house she said “It was paid for.” Indeed. But she never expanded upon who paid for it and what source of money was used. It’s all semantics.

            You could take out a loan for a new car and say to everyone that you paid for it. That’s true, but so far, very little money has been paid by you with most of it coming from the loan company. Meantime friends think you must be very wealthy to have ‘paid for it’.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      John Brookes

      Bolt. Jones. blah blah blah. What a mob of tossers.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    The Black Adder

    There has been a lot said, but the question remains…

    Where the hell is the corrupted money?

    How can anyone trust this PM?

    Why did she call this press conference?

    A cornered Cat will bite back viciously…

    This still stinks, and Jo and Larry are right!

    Keep the pressure on and the truth will come out in the end…

    We need Julia to produce a Hockey Stick…

    … and it will be all OK !!! :)


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Catamon

      Some polling to warm the cockles of your heart BA. :)

      GhostWhoVotes ‏@GhostWhoVotes
      #Galaxy Poll QLD Effect of #CarbonTax on household budget: Major 15 Minor 27 Little or none 52 #auspol
      10:46 PM – 24 Aug 12


      Report this

      00

      • #
        The Black Adder

        I have just looked into the future as well…

        ALP 25 seats.

        LNP 125 seats.

        That warms my heart too!


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Catamon

          I have just looked into the future as well…

          ALP 25 seats.

          LNP 125 seats.

          That warms my heart too!

          LOL! In your dreams BA.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          Why? The anti-science carbon-hating greenwashed pork-barrelling Liberals will still shaft us with a carbon price ETS. That is not progress.

          Independents and 3rd parties are the only partial remedy in sight, unless the Rabbit changes his Spots quicker than the Sun.


          Report this

          00

        • #

          Pity the latest Nielsen, following on the latest Newspoll, shows increasing support for the govt and the PM.

          But keep dreaming of 125:25 LOL!


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Gowest

    Getting back to Julia’s conference, did the ABC run Barnett’s comment in the WestAustralian?

    A lot of the money stolen by the unionists and spent on housing and the union slush (re-election) fund actually came from WA taxpayer’s. – The union was given taxpayers money by the govt to carry out training. Barnett has finally noticed this and wants it back. Julia seems to think WA taxpayers should cop it sweet – not surprising really, she see’s WA taxpayers as walking wallets to fund her spending addiction.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      This govt is spending less, much less, than the Howard govt as % of GDP. They are taxing less too.

      I don’t think it is just ABC viewers/listeners not getting the full story LOL!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Paul R

    It’s over now and Julia has shown that she is above reproach, the “press conference” worked double good on me. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Michael Larkin

    I have to admit, Jo, that as a Brit, I certainly have only the vaguest idea what is going on re: Julia Gillard. I tracked down an earlier post of yours: “Allegations about our PM raging across the internet around Australia”, and tried to follow up the links there – all the stuff by Larry Pickering seems to have disappeared, and I didn’t get much joy from other links.

    I’ve googled and don’t seem to be able to find a coherent story anywhere. The odd stories that pop up don’t seem to be well contextualised. Is there anywhere you or anyone else could point me to for an overview?

    Of course, as I’m a Brit, one wouldn’t expect me to be quite as aware of the situation as Australians are, but the flavour I’m getting from this current post of yours is that they might not be much better off than I am.

    You do such a wonderful job on the science side of things in making things understandable, and one wishes you could do the same with this story, but I do understand that doing so might well be legally inadvisable.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Shane Dowling covered this from the beginning. Start here, then read latest.
      If you search you can probably also find the PDF scan of the affidavit sworn by Robert Kernohan about how this all started.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Michael Larkin

        Many thanks, Andrew. I look forward to reading that–should be able to do so in a few hours.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        LevelGaze

        Dowling at kangaroocourtofaustralia.com has had a pretty vicious spray at Pickering in the last few days. They’re squabbling over the same carcass so it must be a case of professional jealousy. :)


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Speedy

    If the ABC was relevant.
    (As if.)

    [Scene: A taxi booking office. The phone rings. BRYAN picks it up.]

    Bryan : (Sing song receptionist’s voice) Naive and Young Taxis – are you waiting for your taxi now? [Screen splits to reveal JOHN on other end of the phone.]

    John: Nah, want to make a booking.

    Bryan: And what time will that be sir?

    John: Tomorrow. Nine – forty five sharp.

    Bryan: And the destination?

    John: The bank. Arriving no later than nine fifty six. Wait for us with the motor running for five and a half minutes, then decamp at a rate of knots to an undisclosed destination.

    Bryan: Do you have any special requirements sir?

    John: Yeah. Lose the numberplates on the taxi. Wear a balaklava. Don’t file this job.

    Bryan: This is rather irregular sir. I don’t think Naive and Young are in this line of work…

    John: Know anyone who can help?

    Bryan: You could ask “Bent and Stupid” Taxi Services, sir. They’re in the Yellow Pages.

    John: Bent and Stupid.

    Bryan: Yes sir. Ask for Julia.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Bob Malloy

      priceless again speedy, :-)


      Report this

      00

    • #
      John Brookes

      Did you see their latest Speedy?

      Bryan: But why are they persecuting her?
      John: Because she’s a witch.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Speedy

        John

        Yep, I saw that skit. They can do a snow job when they put their mind to it – I wonder if Tony Abbott would get the same kid gloves if the tables were turned?

        That’s what gives me the craps with the ABC – it seems to be a personal propaganda service for the green/labor crowd.

        Cheers,

        Speedy


        Report this

        00

  • #
  • #
    dennisk

    Thanks Jo,
    Why the heck don’t they privatise the ABC.. Is it because they wouldn’t get 20c for it ???
    China might be interested in buying another state run media org.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      I seem to recall that when the government tender went out last year for a company to operate the Australia Network TV channel that was explicitly and openly created for the purpose of sending Australian government propaganda into China and south-east Asia, the ABC romped it in …
      SkyTV didn’t stand a chance. Mainly because SkyTV didn’t get a chance.
      Clearly a sensible outcome though, I mean with the ABC having all the relevant experience… ;)


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Keith H

    Jo. The ABC and all the leftist luvvies seem to be living in a parallel universe. Events are moving so fast now it’s difficult to keep up. Good to see Pickering has dropped all the nonsense and asked some incisive questions. Pity he muddied the water so much initially.

    For an excellent background to all events may I recommend a site which, “at the request of the National Library and in recognition of this sites value for future generations and research, this site is now archived on a regular basis on their Pandora website”.

    Kangaroo Court of Australia. Shane Dowling first raised these matters over a year ago on August 7th 2011 and has doggedly pursued it ever since against heavy pressure.

    See his valuable one-page resource Post at:

    http://www.kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/julia-gillard-bruce-wilson-awu-fraud-page/

    which documents all his posts on the matter and provides many links.

    The next Post contains many informative up-to-date comments: and can be accessed from the previous link as the actual site won’t come up as a link here. site name probably too long.

    Julia Gillard caught lying on the public record in 2007 about the bruce wilson AWU fraud scandal

    IMHO, the Affidavit of Ian Cambridge, who fully investigated and documented the frauds and became probably the only Union offiial ever to call for a Royal Commission into his own Union, has always been the document that would spell the end for many.
    Those Union matters will be the next to be fully investigated especially as many past and present Labor M.P’s are heavily involved.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Keith, thanks I’ll add that link to the post. – Jo


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Keith H

        Thanks Jo. His style may not be to everyone’s taste but he certainly is not frighened to say what he believes and he researches very carefully. Like your own site, he allows free discussion and in general he’s attracting more of a great class of bloggers, genuinely concerned ordinary people. It’s been especially terrific the last few days as we try to unravel the massive coverups in the Gillard/Wilson/AWU scandal. We should all support every such site as this Government continues to try to restrict freedom of speech and stifle justified criticism!


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Jack Jones

    I find it fascinating the extend to which ideology clouds minds. The inability for various posters to critically assess their motivations when they are clearly capable of at least forming a coherent thought is perplexing. Just because your mum or dad told you something (what political party to follow or which god to follow) doesn’t make it true.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jack Jones

    Dear Ms Nova,

    I must admit to a preference against conversing publicly (although clearly that is the purpose of a blog such as yours) however I am very interested in what drives a person such as yourself to endeavour to influence the world you live in because of beliefs which (although I am sure they are genuinely held) have in some instances clearly (and I am not sure how to express this without appearing patronising which is not my intent) been developed without an objective mindset – that is, without fully informing yourself of the various arguments and, most importantly, the available evidence and making a decision on the strength of this alone. For example, ever since the Hawke/Keating Govt, mainstream left and right politics in Australia are (at most) marginally different (other than in regard to a few social issues which frankly will not impact the vast majority of people’s lives). However, to read much of what is on your blog would lead one to believe that one side is inherently evil and the other saintly. Regardless, what galls/confuses me the most is people transfering their political biases to subjects (such as climate change) which in developed secular countries should not be political decisions. Influential people such as yourself do however appear to make this tranfer and I wonder whether in your moments of reflection you really believe that climate scientists (or at least a significant proportion of them) and the organisations that support their work are mendacious and self serving and only hold and promote their beliefs because of career or financial incentives? Surely if you believe this, then it is equally as likely that contrarians to the mainstream science are also driven by these motivations?

    I like to think that I am reasonably capable of assessing people’s (including my own) motivations or at least the basis for their position however I genuinely struggle when idealogues (other than cretins) are incapable of critically assessing the motivations or biases of their position. Is it a paucity of logic, a lack of access to information or evidence or because they are happy to go with just what ‘feels right’? When I read some of your posts and more relevantly the responses of various bloggers which you appear to give some credence to I am flabbergasted by the lack of introspection, the venom and the strength of views on subject that are clearly capable of different positions by informed and intelligent people. I consider that I am a reasonably intelligent, educated and well informed person however there are few contentious issues that I feel competent to have a strong opinion in regard to because by definition these issues are complex and nuanced.

    I believe that the basic human condition is a positive one and that most people with offensive or erroneous beliefs hold them because either the conditions they were exposed to during their formative years gave then no choice and/or because of a lack of exposure to rational and informed thought and information. Your are clearly not one of those and I am sure your positions are genuinely held but I still can’t understand why? Do you ever analyse this on a personal level – is it based on religion, a belief in market superiority over govt/regulation in all circumstance or some other argument – can you really support all the positions you advocate with evidence and logic? I am not trying to be a smartarse, I am genuinely interested?

    Regards,

    JJ


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      The strategy of this JJ character is explicitly to attack probe the character of Jo, and judge Jo, and even judge Jo by the attendees of her blog (regardless of whether they are invited or endorsed).

      Who else do we know who prefers to analyse the psychology of “climate contrarians” instead of analysing the physics of the climate? A certain Dr “L”, perhaps? Or possibly a Dr “B”? (Stefan, Paul, is that you?)

      And this coming the day after the PM in her impromptu press conference also chose to respond to criticism mainly by deriding her critic’s character, dodging the awkward questions, and finished by declaring the matter to be over and thereby exonerating herself.

      JJ modestly confesses to being a “reasonably intelligent, educated and well informed person” who is nonetheless flabbergasted by the prospect that someone who isn’t an idiot could hold an opinion he disagrees with. And oddly enough he disagrees with every issue that Jo has ever advocated. Can’t see the logic of any of it. I guess there is no chance that it is JJ that is the idiot, is there? No of course not, he had already exonerated himself! Truly a master stroke there. (Well a stroke of some sort.)

      But praise Sagan, it turns out JJ thinks climate change should not be a “political decision”. Finally some common ground! Well if Action On Climate Change shouldn’t be a political decision, why is it that politicians have made a decision instead of, you know, refraining from intervening politically? Surely the free market would have lept into action to solve this real problem of heat waves, rising seas, and numerous other impacts. I cannot wait to see where that discussion leads.

      JJ is going to be very interesting – and highly erudite for a change. Personally I hope he stays around for a thrashing and that this isn’t a once-off drive-by shooting spree.

      Hey JJ, you’ll have to stop your passive-aggressive barbs at our generous hostess if you are “genuinely interested” in staying long enough to “understand” us! But since you’re so “educated and well informed” you undoubtedly knew that already. NOT applying your education to the task at hand was of course the “reasonably intelligent” thing to do. heh.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Was very interesting AM..

        So interesting and incisive, in fact, I will come back and go through it at leisure to get every last drop of venom from it.

        :) KK


        Report this

        00

    • #

      Jack Jones says…

      Regardless, what galls/confuses me the most is people transfering their political biases to subjects (such as climate change) which in developed secular countries should not be political decisions.

      And he also claims…

      I like to think that I am reasonably capable of assessing people’s (including my own) motivations or at least the basis for their position however I genuinely struggle when idealogues (other than cretins) are incapable of critically assessing the motivations or biases of their position….. I consider that I am a reasonably intelligent, educated and well informed person

      Jack you have a problem, let me point it out to you.

      Climate Change is a political beast. The gold standard publication (ROFLMAO) on the subject is the IPCC. It’s a frigging UN organisation, it is political from head to toe. How is it that a “reasonably intelligent, educated and well informed person” is not aware of this? Just lazy or fingers in the ears lala lala?

      Not to mention the scientists involved, many of whom are either members of environmental organisations or supporters and sympathisers of such. Again, a “reasonably intelligent, educated and well informed” person would have known this. Try the following link, spend a couple of hours reading the many and various investigative articles to inform yourself about the motivations and who’s who of the ‘scientists’ involved in the CAGW scare campaign (lest you be known as a cretin).

      http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/06/26/ipcc-admits-it-isnt-a-gold-standard-body/

      And try THIS TOO to inform yourself how the AGW team play politics.

      There is much more I could write Jack, but when a person comes on this blog claiming to be “reasonably intelligent, educated and well informed” but from their very first comment demonstrate the fact that they are not well informed at all, and even if intelligent and educated, obviously too lazy to actually inform themselves, well….all I can say is (and this from a high school drop-out), MATE, YOU’RE A F#@KWIT.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Craig Thomas

        Baa Humbug says,
        “The gold standard publication … on the subject [of Climate Change] is the IPCC”

        Where do you get this from?

        The IPCC publishes reports which are essentially reviews for non-scientists drawn from the published scientific research. As such, it is obviously a secondary source.

        Being inaccurate about something because you disagree with it doesn’t do much for any argument you might have.

        It is now an inarguable fact that
        – human activity emits CO2,
        – CO2 in our atmosphere has been rising,
        – CO2 in the atmosphere (along with H2O, CH4, and various CFCs) traps heat, thus heating the planet.

        If you are trying to argue than any one or more of these statements are not true, then,
        a/ the owner of this blog disagrees with you – (her current focus seems to be on asserting the forcing is <1 degree, as opposed to the IPCCs 3+ degrees)
        and
        b/ you are one of these "nutjobs on the internet".


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Mark D.

          It is now an inarguable fact that
          – human activity emits CO2,
          – CO2 in our atmosphere has been rising,
          – CO2 in the atmosphere (along with H2O, CH4, and various CFCs) traps heat, thus heating the planet.

          I guess I have to pick up my marbles and go home……..Cause Craig Thomas has ruined my denial. He’s exposed the real simple truth for me……..
          Sarc off.

          Hey Craig, do you suppose this has been tried here before? Do you think it will work this time?

          Now with the last of your three “inarguable truths” do you suppose one teensy little error in estimating feedback of say little old water vapor might turn your confidence upside down?


          Report this

          00

        • #

          A johnny come lately lemming addresses me thus..

          Baa Humbug says,
          “The gold standard publication … on the subject [of Climate Change] is the IPCC”

          Where do you get this from?

          The IPCC publishes reports which are essentially reviews for non-scientists drawn from the published scientific research. As such, it is obviously a secondary source.

          Being inaccurate about something because you disagree with it doesn’t do much for any argument you might have.

          Now, before I tell this lemming “where I get this from”, I’ll give him a little piece of advice…“Don’t bring naivette to a gun fight”.

          To claim that I am inaccurate, when it’s plain to see (and you will in a minute) that you are well out of your depth in this subject leaves you well and truly exposed and gives me a good excuse to kick your ass for insulting me by assuming my argument is weak.

          Furthermore, trying to tell me what the IPCC is all about presumes I don’t know enough about the IPCC. That’s another insult and gives me grounds to further kick your sorry ignorant ass.

          So now to your question “where do you get this from?”

          First I get it from a Nature Magazine Editorial where they say…

          Provided it smartens up in response to recent hiccups, the IPCC remains the gold standard for independent scientific assessment on an international level.

          To that you’d probably respond with a hand wave such as “that’s just an opinion by a science mag.”

          Then I’d refer you to the IPCC Chairman Rajandra Pachauri who said the following in an interview with The Hindu

          “Everybody thought that what the IPCC brought out was the gold standard and nothing could go wrong.”

          See the critical parts in the above? IPCC Chairman and Everybody.

          To that you’d probably still hand wave with “That’s just the opinion of an individual” whilst rubbing your increasingly sore ass with the other hand.

          Then I’d refer you to THE FRIGGING IPCC ITSELF which said the following in its Statement on IPCC Principles and Procedures in February 2010.

          The IPCC relies on a combination of broad participation, rigorous oversight, and transparent, thorough adherence to carefully designed procedures to produce assessment reports that have become, over the last 20 years, the international gold standard in the scientific assessment of climate change.

          By this stage, you’d have realised that the commentors here at Jo Novas aren’t a bunch of redneck contrarian deniers fooled by politics or big oil, and you’d have realised that we have a fair bit of knowledge about the subject of AGW and climate in general. Pissy little pinko leftard wankers like you come here thinking you can insult us by presuming we don’t know much and assuming we wouldn’t catch onto veiled insults like those of that f%$&wit Jack Jones.

          So, you want to debate me about AGW and climate in general? First apologise for insulting me, then KISS THIS NUTJOBS ASS you dipshit.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Craig Thomas

            Baa Humbug, in amongst the intemperacy and insults, I fail to detect much substance. It is true that fundamentalists dislike being challenged in their assertions.

            The IPCC is NOT the “gold standard publication on the subject of climate change”.

            The IPCC is VERY CLEARLY a secondary source.

            It may claim to provide a “gold standard assessment” on climate change, which could be correct, but as a non-primary source, it can’t possibly be a gold standard publication in the field.

            I have no interest in debating any science with you – the science is not up for debate.
            What I’m interested in exploring is why certain people choose to hold views which run contrary to the science and why they froth at the mouth and hurl insults when challenged.

            [Craig, the science is always "up for debate" you sound a bit foolish saying otherwise. I'm going to suggest that we aren't interested in your "exploration" so maybe it's time you go somewhere else to get your kicks.] ED


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Craig Thomas

            I’m sorry, ED, but when Bah Humbug shares the following with us,
            ““Don’t bring naivette to a gun fight”.”
            It’s pretty obvious there is no debate to be had.

            Personally, I’d be very worried if my Blog was attracting people who believe they are engaged in a “gun fight”.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Craig Thomas

          If you think science is “up for debate”, then perhaps we have discovered the problem.

          If you want to do science, you can hypothesise, collect data, test, and prove others wrong.

          “Debate” amongst the ignorant and untrained (like me) has nothing to do with either analysing nor advancing science.
          All *we* can do is judge the credibility of those who are telling us about the science.

          As an intensely sceptical person, it didn’t take me very long at all to realise that if people were using the likes of Christopher Monckton and the tobacco-company stooges to support their ideas through “debates”, then their ideas were entirely without merit.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Mark

            Oh for heaven’s sakes Craig, cease and desist in being so disingenuous.

            You know only too well that in recent decades the medical dogma about stomach ulcers was set in concrete. Barry Marshall and Robin Warren proved the dogma absolutely wrong.

            There is video on the web of Monckton where he clearly states that people should do their own research and not trust anyone to do it for them. I’ve never heard that from the warmista. Nosiree! they demand that their dictates be strictly adhered to. You surely aren’t unaware that some of them have demanded tattooing of “unbelievers”.

            Your mindset condemns you to live forever in the past and never to learn from your mistakes.

            But for now, as the Germans say.
            “Geh’ mit Gott, aber geh’”.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            A number of my friends had a go at me for being aggressive with a couple of these new arrivals.

            I present exhibits A, B and C (#37.2.1.2.1- 37.2.1.2.2 and 37.2.1.3)

            I don’t post without thinking nor do I “swing punches like a drunk”. Jones and Thomas truly are F%$&WITS


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Craig Thomas

            Bah, [snip]

            It happens to be my opinion, [snip]

            [Your opinion is wrong on too many accounts. Move on to what you can actually support with data.] ED


            Report this

            00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi jack

      You may not be equipped to deal with this so hang in there.

      You say you want to assess “the motivations or biases’ in things; well Jack, the Real World can be put off track for while by weirdos

      such as the greenies and looney left but eventually you need to be able to function in the Real World, the one you can touch and feel

      and breathe.

      KK


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Winston

      Since you ask, albeit in a high-handed and passive-aggressive way, most people on this blog are highly educated (either in the school of life or in technical, scientific or engineering specialties) who are motivated to counter a propaganda war, launched by people such as yourself with minimal technical knowledge, little practical or pragmatic understanding, and a Utopian mindset that believes that wide ranging, non-democratic, supranational totalitarian political control is the way forward for humanity. The fact is that people such as you are so caught up in a hive mind mentality, products of over 30 years of indoctrination through a stilted education system that values feelings over knowledge, seeming over doing, message over facts. As evidence of this is the utter immunity you and your kind have to rational argument, particularly in such areas as the practicality (or lack of it) of renewables and the human costs of biofuels and carbon trading in propelling the poorest and most marginalised over the economic precipice. But why should you care about that? It’s not like it’s on the news so it’s not happening, right. You gloss over the fact that in the 20th century Utopian thinking was directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, and the economic death spiral we are on the verge of entering is a perfect storm likely to lead to massive societal breakdown if we become fuel and energy impoverished with it. Is it any wonder some of us are passionate? The blind leading the blind cannot end well, and if you are not prepared to listen to people who have a broader perspective than you then that is a cognitive flaw in YOUR character. Now, will you have the courage to admit it? I wish I could be optimistic, but your commitment to your ideology is likely to be the downfall of both your children and mine.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Sean McHugh

      Jack Jones said:

      Your last sentence, which was uncharacteristically brief, said:

      I am not trying to be a smartarse, I am genuinely interested?

      I think that your post was too long-winded (1st sentence, 110 words), self-gratifying and scolding to be a genuine query. It sounded like a speech – and yes, it did sound ‘smartarsed’ – the reason for your preemptive denial. Try talking to us instead of at us.

      By the way,

      Influential people such as yourself. . .

      The word there – and it isn’t a one-off mistake – is ‘you’. The ‘self’ bit is NOT optional. Its favoured inclusion has come about in ‘sophisticated’ speech by way of ignorance and wank.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      wes george

      Jack,

      Please, excuse, Humbug.

      He’s the kind of hothead that provide GOTTA! moments to our Climatist friends… Jo’s comment section would better represent the true spirit of skepticism if we all channelled our passions into animating our analytical reasoning, rather than just humbug someone who has come here with what they believe is a reasonable list of complaints…but human nature is what it is.

      Jack makes the legitimate point that alternative positions on every topic in the universe of ideas exist.

      True skeptics believe in an open debate where all POVs (no matter how “offensive”) are worthy of hearing out, without the proponent of said POV being verbally abused.

      Humbug’s f-wit line is the kind of irrational response we skeptics receive on Warmist blogs. We would be hypocrites to condone here what we condemn when used against us.

      Mr. Jones is a forthcoming person who disagrees with the some of the basic premises of Jo Nova’s blog. If we can show his argument is flawed and his logic full of unexamined assumptions, then fine. But simply bashing him makes us little better than Robert Mannes or Oreskes.

      *

      First let’s dispense with the biggest of your (Jack’s) failures of reason in your argument:

      I am sure your positions are genuinely held but I still can’t understand why? Do you ever analyse this on a personal level – is it based on religion, a belief in market superiority over govt/regulation in all circumstance or some other argument – can you really support all the positions you advocate with evidence and logic? I am not trying to be a smartarse, I am genuinely interested?

      “…what drives a person such as yourself to endeavour to influence the world you live in because of beliefs which…(have) been developed without an objective mindset – that is, without fully informing yourself of the various arguments and, most importantly, the available evidence and making a decision on the strength of this alone…”

      OK, you’re new here and haven’t RTFM. Bad form in any online discussion.

      Nova’s archives are chocked full of “evidence and logic” which “support all the positions” she advocates. In fact, Jo Nova’s blog is literally a comprehensive catalog of “all the available evidence” in the Climate Debate and she almost daily challenges all comers to present new evidence to the contrary. Thus far, there have been few takers and those who have tried and failed are now entombed in the archives for all to visit and study.

      At the Apple Corporation’s main campus in Cupertino it is against the rules to ask your manager how something works BEFORE bothering to read the supporting materials first to see if you can work it out for yourself. It’s a good rule. You’ve failed to do this with Jo’s archives. That’s lazy. Please come back with any specific questions you may have, should you find any of the massive lists of evidence and logic in the archives difficult to process.

      I like to think that I am reasonably capable of assessing people’s (including my own) motivations…

      Really? Are you clairvoyant?

      Without even bothering to check if Jo’s archives had any evidence to support her opinions you have jumped directly to assigning motivations to people whose evidence you have not bother to look at.

      This is the first order logical indolence that Humbug took to show that your own motivations are a mystery to even yourself. I assume that’s what he means by technical term “f-wit.”

      I prefer to call it “an unexamined life,” which as the ancients say is hardly worth living, much less exposing online in comments!

      Jack, you’re welcome addition to the commenters here. But you’ll do much better if you can come back with some specific instances of evidence which support your, uh, motivations, otherwise we’ll just steal your lunch money every time.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Wes reply to whomever you wish, but don’t ever excuse me on my behalf.

        The post by the f%$*wit was highly offensive shrouded in polite tones.
        He turns up at Jos place and immediately insults her, e.g.

        ..because of beliefs which (although I am sure they are genuinely held) have in some instances clearly (and I am not sure how to express this without appearing patronising which is not my intent) been developed without an objective mindset – that is, without fully informing yourself of the various arguments and, most importantly, the available evidence and making a decision on the strength of this alone.

        Who does the wanker think he is coming here and insulting our host with his very first comment.
        You may allow people to come into your home and insult you, I don’t. I grab ‘em by the scruff of the neck and foot ‘em up the arse into the street.
        I’ve seen far too many of his type to take kindly.

        You may wish to rise above the fray Wes, that’s fine. I prefer to get down and dirty with those who get down and dirty.
        To each his own ok?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Hi Baa It’s obvious that “I prefer to get down and dirty with those who get down and dirty”.

          On the other hand if you go gently at the start you can gradually draw him in to expose more of his limited intellectual capacity before closing the door and dropping heaps on him when he has no chance of escape.

          With your method he will be more guarded; although the Warmer-economist-Psychologist-Verto group are usually only able to perceive feelings within their own group, so may be he wont bother to lift his guard.

          We are no threat to his impenetrable Image of The Perfectly Organised Society.

          KK :)


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Sean McHugh

          You may wish to rise above the fray Wes, that’s fine. I prefer to get down and dirty with those who get down and dirty.
          To each his own ok?

          The problem is that language like that is counterproductive; it would simply add reinforcement to the PC believers’ sense of superiority. It detracted from an otherwise good post.

          I have lapsed too.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          wes george

          Sorry Baa, I agree with Sean and Kinky. You catch more flies with reason.

          It’s not about staying above the fray, dingbat. It’s about getting into the fray and winning hearts and minds through reason. You never gave Jones a chance.

          No one deserves to be called an F-wit on the basis of their first comment unless its clearly trollcraft.

          You may allow people to come into your home and insult you, I don’t. I grab ‘em by the scruff of the neck and foot ‘em up the arse into the street.

          Bad analogy, Humbug. This isn’t your house.

          It’s more like Jo Nova’s RSL club. And the comment section is rowdy dance floor with a live band. And you’re the dumb drunk bastard throwing punches at the first bloke who looks at you the wrong way.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Speedy

      JJ

      Self praise is no commendation of course, but seeing that you are (or claim to be) reasonably informed and educated, it would be a pity to let you pass by without milking some of your precious wisdom. Can I ask you:

      1. How much will the Australian carbon tax reduce global warming, in degrees celsius, within a 50 year time frame?
      2. If you don’t know the answer to (1), perhaps you could tell us who does know?
      3. Perhaps you could also show us where they have stored their calculations and empirical evidence, and explain this in basic terms for such simpletons as us? Bonus points for showing where it has been independently audited. (Stress on “independent”.)
      4. If you can do any or all of these, you’re better informed than me and I thank you for sharing this.
      5. If you can’t do any or all of these, then you, too, should be asking questions of those who have willingly had their science harnessed by a political agenda.

      You might also consider earlier examples in history of where science has succombed to politics, and the unfortunate results of that. (e.g. Eugenics/Final Solution, Soviet famines of the 1930′s, Maoist famines of the 60-70′s, CSIRO/BOM 2005 onwards etc).

      In anticipation,

      Speedy


      Report this

      00

    • #
      John Brookes

      Can’t speak for the other denizens here JJ, but I do it for fun.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    spangled drongo

    Jack Jones, I come across one eyed people like you every day who can’t see the wood for the trees. Please open both eyes.

    This morning’s ABC report on the NT elections in which the LNP won convincingly was the SECOND LAST story in the bulletin. If labor had won it would have been blazing headlines.

    This is how “OUR” ABC communicates with their people who are at least 50% non labor.

    “OUR” ABC fits you like a glove.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Wasn’t our beautiful PM great tackling the grubs and hacks of the press?

    And “mysogynist nut jobs on the internet” was right on the money! As to libertarians not hunting in packs what do we have here but a pack? A pack that turned on “Adam Smith” when he tried to tell you what the homogenisation of temperatures was about.

    The Carbon Price is no longer of interest to anybody bar nutjobs, I suggest this silly blog is now totally pointless!

    And Arctic ice extent and volume is setting a record new low. I would concern yourself with surviving (not just you but your kids, aged parents etc) the El Nino summer that is coming, it will be worse than 1998!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Huh

      Not you again?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      wes george

      You’re welcome to your view, Maxine, but all the same I beg to differ.

      First our PM is really quite a funny looking stork, at least as goofy looking as John Howard was short. Beautiful? Personally, I think that’s a sexist point of view. Would you have called a male PM “beautiful.” Thought not.

      Nor did she handle the press well at all. Busting the Australian for the single error of calling her “slush” fund a “trust” fund by mistake in one instance then pretending this discredited the whole raft of evidence presented was pure comedy gold. Moreover, by giving a surprise press briefing to unprepared journalists only whet everyone’s appetite for the opportunity to ask the relevant questions that were not asked or answered yet.

      Gillard has created her own Watergate by behaving like a modern day Nixon. Paranoid, brutal, weaselling, willing to shut down whole newspapers that dare challenge her. She’s acting guilty as sin for having nothing to hide, don’t you think?

      The “life choice errors” she made as a 35-year old naif are now almost less important than the cover-up. The way she’s persecuted reporters who have pursued this story is unprecedented for a modern age PM. She’s turned her Finkelstein Inquiry into a way to threaten the freedom to question her rule. It’s now almost the patriotic duty of all free thinking people to stand up and demand please explain, Prime Minister, or please resign.

      The ignorance of calling online voices of dissent “mysogynist nut jobs” was also a huge mistake because she failed to understand that the WWW is like a city square full of people chatting. She basically attacked the Australian city square with an indiscriminate smear turning people against her that were uninterested before. It will only heighten people’s will to find out what she is so afraid to disclose to the public. No one actually believes for a second that this has anything to do with sexism. She looks so desperate, so grasping for straws, so totally devoid of any moral compass. It looks like she’d say anything, blame anything to save her skin.

      Slushgate seems unlike to end well for Gillard unless she miraculously changes her attitude quickly.

      As for the carbon tax, it has only begun the damage that it will do to the Australian economy. Since Gillard made it illegal to blame the carbon tax for price rises or adverse business decisions, such as ending the Olympic Dam project, the slow decline of the Australian economy is happening in almost total silence for fear of prosecution, but the sovereign risk and increased overhead is a heavy handicap in today’s competitive global market and all for nothing. Like wearing a hairshirt for imagined sins.

      If you really cared about the future of the children, you’d be opposed to sacrificing the Australian economy on a Carbon Tax altar.

      The new arctic ice “record low” is hard to get too excited about because its only since a record since they began to measure with satellites. Too short of a record to have real climate significance. Nor is a global phenomena, sea ice is not a good proxy for global warming, many things cause low sea ice..Meanwhile, the Antarctica ice isn’t declining.

      As for the Pacific oscillation, no one has ever claimed that its driven by AGW. The fact that you associate El Nino warming with global warming is just another example of when the weather supports AGW its climate. When the weather does support AGW, its just weather.

      Oh, and btw, speaking of wolf packs, the fluffy little dog in your icon makes me itch. Yuck.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Sean McHugh

      Maxine said:

      Wasn’t our beautiful PM great tackling the grubs and hacks of the press?

      She’s beautiful only to those who are addicted to toxicity. That rules a lot of people out, even the states and territory Labor parties.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Sean McHugh

      Maxine said:

      Wasn’t our beautiful PM great tackling the grubs and hacks of the press?

      She is beautiful at deception and dodging questions. And why are you calling her friends in the Canberra press gallery, “grubs and hacks”? Surely that is for us to do.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Jack Jones

    Not sure of the etiquitte for answering multiple posts – will do so in a few different replies.

    Andrew McRae

    I was actually trying to be civil in my post – clearly something that you struggle with (along with reading comprehension).
    - I only queried some instances of what I perceived to be a lack of objectivity (not all)
    - I never said I was judging Ms Nova by all bloggers on this site, only some that she appears to give credence to. Regardless, I shouldn’t have addressed the comments to Ms Nova personally rather to the site generally (if that makes sense)
    - Not sure if it is immodest to say I’m reasonably intelligent and educated as these are either true or not (I will give you that “well informed” is subjective) however kind of irrelevant
    - I said there were very few subjects I felt sufficiently informed about to have a strong opinion on so not sure how this is saying I think everyone who has a different view to me is an idiot
    - If it wasn’t clear from my post, what I was questioning was whether people’s political/religious positions were impacting on their views of climate science and whether (as I admit is extremely difficult to do and I am sure I fail frequently) they could objectively assess the science if they don’t like the implications of a particular scientific conclusion . To be absolutely explicit ( and highly simplified) – that a political view on the primacy of free markets (libertarian) vs. regulation makes it difficult to objectively assess the science because if mainstream climate science is correct then the most likely appropriate outcome would be a regulatory intervention of some sort

    The substantive point you raised was why hasn’t the free market lept into action to solve this issue if it exists. I am sure you are aware of the concept of a public good or negative externalities which are not disputed by any major economic schools of thought (Austrian, Chicago, Keynsian or otherwise). Basically, there are some goods (such as fresh air) which even the most strident laissez-faire advocates recognise that (at least in the short to medium term) a company has no profit motive not to impact negatively (a good example was the pollution caused by industries until environmental regulations made if financially onerous for them to do so)

    JJ


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Ah, JJ, you did stick around, that is good.

      > “I was actually trying to be civil in my post – clearly something that you struggle with”

      Not at all. You were trying to be civil and you failed, whereas I was trying to be uncivil and clearly succeeded. If you don’t want to be treated like a troll then don’t talk like one. I’d guess you do not make a habit of walking into banks whilst wearing a balaclava with your hand inside a trench coat, and for the same reason.

      > “I never said I was judging Ms Nova by all bloggers on this site”

      And neither did I, so who has poor reading comprehension? I said only that you were judging Jo by the other commentators, ie- some subset of commentators have left you flabbergasted and by telling Jo this is a problem you’re implicitly saying it should be a problem for her and therefore that a poor judgement of them changes your judgement of Jo. It was never defined as to how exactly she gave credence to this problematic subset so it is only natural for you now to exploit that ambiguity as an escape hatch, but it is a red herring. It does not even matter if Jo has ever given credence to people you find objectionable because the key question you are debating is amenable to empirical science.

      Since you raised no substantive points at all, I skip the rest of them and cut to the chase.

      Catastrophic:
         1a) Which evidence shows even a single prior period in Earth’s history had a net biodiversity loss immediately after a +2°C warming lasting less than 300 years, especially considering the poor temporal resolution of proxies, and especially after adjusting for systematic marine biodiversity sampling biases? OR,
         1b) Which evidence shows that any marine species critical to the human food chain is incapable of surviving a -0.15 pH drop in sea water? OR
         1c) Which evidence of sea level rise covering at least 20 years can be linearly extrapolated to produce a rise of more than 50cm during the 21st century?

      2. Anthropogenic:
         2a.) Which evidence shows that the majority of late 20th century warming was caused by human activity and NOT by a combination of UHI biased measurements, statistical fraud, and natural cycles? AND
         2b.) How did the global warming rate of 1912 to 1942 equal the global warming rate of 1975 to 2005 before the majority of modern deforestation had occurred and before the majority of industrial CO2 has been emitted? AND
         2c.) Which evidence shows the 1975 to 2005 warming trend was unique in either absolute temperature or rate of change, as opposed to being within the natural range found in several historic periods such as the 1200s MWP, and 1691-1720 CET?

      3. Global:
         3a.) Which evidence shows the Medieval Warm Period was isolated to Western Europe as opposed to being a global period 0.25°C warmer than today? AND
         3b.) Which evidence shows that the Greenland Ice Sheet has ever completely melted in a climate of +0.3 above the 1980-2010 baseline in spite of the GISP2 ice cores showing a continuous uninterrupted ice formation record over the last 10,000 years that included periods 0.5°C warmer than today? AND
         3c.) How can there be a global consensus on a sustained warming trend when Chinese tree ring studies predict cooling until 2068 and the head of the Astrometria project of the Russian Academy of Sciences predicts a solar-driven cooling cycle lasting until 2055?

      4. Warming:
         4a.) Where is the IPCC-endorsed physical radiative mechanism to explain why there will be 2 degrees of warming from a doubling of CO2 in spite of there being no significant global warming in either land temperature or OHC measurements for 15 years during a time of record CO2 emissions? AND
         4b.) Where is there a global circulation model which can closely hindcast the previous 50 years of global temperatures and also forecasts more than 0.3 degrees per decade from now until 2050 in a business-as-usual scenario? AND
         4c.) How can large amounts of projected future warming from fossil fuel burning even be physically possible when the warming effect is logarithmic wrt concentration and the rate of oil depletion has exceeded the rate of new oil discovery for over 20 years, with the IEA predicting 4 new Saudi Arabia-sized fields need to be discovered before 2035 to make up the forecast supply gap?

      You wouldn’t deny natural climate change would you? No pressure.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Jack Jones

        Andrew,

        I have probably provided my views on the science (which is really just regurgitating the mainstream position) in my subsequent responses however the key point of my (admittedly poorly worded) first post was that many people on this site (and equally from the Warmist camp) appear to hold the positions they do primarily because of their political ideology not because of their view on the science. I am not suggesting you fall into this category as clearly you have a strong and considered view on the science albeit contrary to the mainstream.

        However, the only substantive point you initially made was to query why markets had not responded to the issue if it was real and I provided an explanation why markets fail in this instance (public goods and externalities). In your subseqent response you ignored this and jumped to the science which is clearly your strong suite. However, do you accept what is pretty much the entire economic professions’ view on why something like climate change (if real) would not be responded to other than by regulation? As an aside, insurers will respond if their actuaries tell them to however they will merely increase premiums on those potentially impacted not those who may have caused the problem and therefore there is no market incentive on emitters to halt or amend the activity.

        Further, surely you would not dispute that Warmists (on average) tend to be (on average) left leaning and Contrarians (on average) right and that if the issue was purely one of scientific credibilit/evidencey this correlation wouldn’t exist?

        To repeat my main contention – do you think it is reasonable to conclude that a political view on the primacy of free markets (libertarian) vs. regulation makes it difficult (but certainly not impossible) to objectively assess the science because if mainstream climate science is correct then the most likely appropriate outcome would be a regulatory intervention of some sort (most likely putting a price on the perceived cost of the negative externality and then letting a market decide the most efficient response)? The clearest example I can suggest is this site (including most of the bloggers) which while primarily about the science of climate change is also very clearly to the right of Australian political spectrum (it explicity has posts on general political issues not just those related to the climate change policies of the major parties).

        To be clear, I am not suggesting in any manner that your political ideology (of which I have no idea) has shaped your view on the science but that it has for many Contrarians (as it has equally for many Warmists – although they do have mainstream science in this instance on their side).

        An interesting question I have posed to some of my strident Contrarian friends is if there was unquestionable proof of very substantial climate change (say 5-6 degrees for a doubling of CO2) what do they think would be an appropriate response for our societies to take today? A number of them (who all perhaps not coincidently have right wing political views) believe that even then we shouldn’t do anything if that involveds some sort of regulatory intervention.

        JJ


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Mark D.

          Jack, you have asked some reasonable questions here. Although addressed to Andrew, I thought I’d give you a few thoughts.

          The number one reason why I am skeptical of AGW is because I have been taught to recognize propaganda. It is my view that politics thrives on it and the Left uses it to a far greater extent than the Right (Conservative) and for brevity I’ll consider Libertarians to be Right.

          If you are attentive you’ll see clearly that in virtually any discussion about AGW from a warmist you’ll find propaganda. This is true in the news media, but most concerning, you’ll find it in the halls of academia. This is a clear red flag that the science isn’t “settled”, that the “consensus” is far from scientific (is in fact political) and large percentage of prominent warmist climate scientists are also political activists.

          Now you’ve posed a question that turns my observations around and suggests that because I’m politically conservative that my political view is my motivation for skepticism. I disagree whole heartedly.
          I hold my political view because of my tendency to be skeptical, to oppose anything that uses or needs propaganda to be “sold” to me. There are more reasons that I’m conservative, I rely heavily on the wisdom of our US constitution. The Left is constantly attacking that. The Left is always using one cause or another to move things politically. The left is constantly saying they want to redistribute wealth, something that I find somewhat reprehensible. Wealth happens when markets are reasonably free and not over taxed.

          AGW and all things “sustainable” fit the motives of the Left like a glove.

          There is not sufficient empirical evidence of AGW period. There is geologic evidence that the Earth has constantly experienced climate change. Adaptation is embedded in every bit of DNA on the planet.
          I firmly believe that IF AGW is real, then humans will deal with it. Knowledge and technology are advancing at such a pace, how can one even hint at where we’ll be in 2100 much less estimate sea levels and temperatures? If we make energy more costly we will be moving backwards, people will starve, advances will be slowed.

          I’m convinced that Man is Man’s greatest enemy via wars and violence not climate. Much of this violence is because of hunger, the other part bigotry and envy. We will do much better as a civilization if we raise standards of living. This will be hampered greatly without low cost energy.

          BTW, Since you earlier said that these were your first posts ever to a blog I thought I’d let you know that in the blog world, after a subject gets “cold” many people disable the e-mail notification and tune into only the newer ones. This means that your post here may not get many answers. I’ll take the liberty of inviting you to take part in the newest discussions as appropriate.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Jack Jones

    Baa Humbug

    You are aggressive and somewhat brave – I suspect you would not be so face to face. However, I apologise if I offended/insulted you or the blog’s host although I think my language was more tempered than you have suggested. Per my response to Andrew McRae I should have voiced my comments more generally.

    Sean McHugh

    Agree. I do struggle to be succinct although hopefully what I was saying was clear even if it was verbose and you disagree with it (I assume). I didn’t know that about “yourself”. Grammar was/is never my strong suit. Thanks

    Kinky Keith

    Really? That is the best you can come up with – “Real World”? You actually weren’t one of the people on this blog I was addressing.

    Spangled Drongo

    No idea what NT elections have to do with what I posted although I agree they are relevant (somewhat) to the original post. That said, you may be surprised to know I was very much hoping for a CLP victory. I also think ABC is crap although slightly better than any News Limited operation other than for business reporting – Fin Review OK when it stays on subject. Financial Times (UK) is pretty reasonable. Generally, I think financial papers (except WSJ post News takeover) are reasonable when compared to mainstream media because they tend to stick to facts as their readers have an obvious need for them to be at least broadly accurate.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Jack

      I feel honored that you don’t include me amongst the “riff raff”.

      JJ says :

      ” Kinky Keith Really? That is the best you can come up with – “Real World”? You actually weren’t one of the people on this blog I was addressing.”

      I’m sure , Jack, that you a re what people call a “warmer apologist”.

      Please don’t ascribe any political or religious meaning to my comments about the global warming by man made CO2 scam.

      Lets get back to the real world.

      Last Saturday I attended a rally of people from Lake Macquarie LGA whose properties bordering that lake had been effectively “re-zoned” by the local council. They are now unable to sell said properties and are financially destrought. Their “Government”, and I use that term lightly has effectively wiped away 10, 15, or perhaps 20 years of their life’s work and savings in a politically inspired “vote catcher” scheme. Back to the real world: No compensation has been offered, these people’s lives have been ruined but I know you want me to explain the term real World.

      OK

      The sea level rise amendments to their Section 149 certificates is based on an assessment that by 2100 AD or whatever the modern term is, sea levels will rise 90 cm or 900 mm.

      As two professors at the meeting stated the only way to know what is happening to sea levels is to measure it.

      So: they tell us that sea levels from the most reliable gauges locally indicate 100 mm rise over the last 100 years and that recent measurements show that over the next 100 years, based on these recent actual, real world, measurement the oceans may rise somewhere between 50 and 100 mm as the best estimate.

      This is in line with world wide estimates by experienced, well qualified people that the current rate of sea level rise is slightly less than 1mm per year.

      Where did the previous LABOUR GOVERNMNT get the figure of 900 mm rise by 2100.

      IT WAS A FABRICATION.

      regards

      KK

      Religious disclosure statement.

      I was baptised in the Church of England, attended Congregational Church and have a degree with majors in Psychology, Neuroscience and Psycho-biology and have recently (8 years) studied and practiced Buddhism to some extent.

      Animosity Disclosure.

      I hate liars and thieves, especially of the political type. Cant handle economists posing as scientists and giving weight to political decisions of a scientific nature.

      Past Life Disclosure.

      In a past life I was Metallurgist.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Craig Thomas

        It’s called risk management.

        Current measurements do not tell us how much sea level rise will occur by the year 2100.

        If you think CSIRO and BOM are wrong, prove it.
        It just so happens that all those who are involved in sea level research agree that sea level rise continues and is accelerating. Last IPCC report flagged a rise of 50cm (+/-30cm) by 2100. The next report looks set to raise the prediction to a higher level.

        The government would be stupid to ignore expert advice in favour of ideologically-driven and factually-deficient arguments to the contrary.

        If somebody could provide the government with convincing professional expert advice that allowed them to ignore this risk, the government would be delighted to do so. This opposing advice simply doesn’t exist at the moment.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Sean McHugh

      Jack Jones said:

      Sean McHugh

      Agree. I do struggle to be succinct although hopefully what I was saying was clear even if it was verbose and you disagree with it (I assume). I didn’t know that about “yourself”. Grammar was/is never my strong suit. Thanks

      Hi Jack,

      I didn’t think that you would be back. You have replied well to your critics. Hope you will stick around.

      The me/myself, you/yourself issue is unfortunately something of an incurable bugbear with me and an unpopular crusade. You won’t see any green thumbs for it in this blog.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Jack Jones

    Winston
    The fact that you assume that I have “minimal technical knowledge, little practical or pragmatic understanding, and a Utopian mindset” and believe in supernational totalitarian political control probably makes it pointless for any further discussion however I will have a crack at it.

    Ignoring also all the assertions you make about what I apparently believe in or “gloss over” I think the substance of your position is that the adoption of non-fossil fuel energy as our primary energy sources will have a cataclysmic impact upon world economies and lead to social breakdown (particularly for the poor)? Clearly a reduction in the use of undoubtedly lower cost fossil fuels will have a negative impact upon world economies. Assuming that you believe there is no substance to mainstream climate science (I don’t know if this is accurate so please correct me if I am wrong) then and there is no need to consider what the extent of those negative impacts will be as any regulatory interference will incur unnecessary costs (assuming other externalities of fossil fuel use are not too large).

    However if you believe that climate change may be real then the issue is which of the two (climate change or a decrease in the proportion of our energy sourced from fossil fuels) is likely to be “worse” for the world. Happy to provide some journal references on the relative costs of these if you are interested to progress this point however renewable energy costs are currently about twice as expensive as fossil fuel costs (this is very rough and depends on what you are comparing what to – solar is about 3 times from memory) however when you factor in externalities (such as air pollution, but not climate change) the real cost of fossil fuels is much higher. Regardless, given energy costs make up only about 6-10% of most countries’ GDP and that the price of renewables (particularly solar) will undoubtedly reduce relative to fossil fuels then it is not clear why we will have cataclysmic consequences.

    JJ


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Winston

      JJ
      Thank you for your much more cogent and considered response, which is in a decidedly less openly smug and covertly hostile than your original,and which clearly got you off on the wrong foot with several of the commenters here. If you disagree with any position here you are more than welcome to voice it, since it is only through animated discussion that one can arrive at an honest approximation of the “truth”. If you are not one of the seemingly endless stream of trolls who attempt to disrupt this blog while amply demonstrating their “minimal technical knowledge, little practical or pragmatic understanding, and a Utopian mindset”, then I apologise, though your initial foray into this post did consign you to that categorisation, IMO.

      As to negative impact on world economies. I don’t believe anyone in the West, especially those advocating the Agenda 21 scenario, has any interest or care for the welfare of those in Africa and elsewhere who barely subsist in a fragile state on the brink of starvation. We are currently NOT seeing an honest appraisal in the MSM of the impacts of biofuels on world food commodity prices (and we never will, because vested interest prevents) and the flow on effects of this (especially with Goldman Sach’s type food price derivatives speculation) I feel will be devastating and are only now starting to impact.

      I believe the onus of proof is firmly upon the advocates to:-
      1. Demonstrate how a rise in temperatures will cause any significant negative impact upon our present civilisation, when every past epoch has shown that higher temperatures lead to thriving civilisations, colder climates such as the “Dark Ages” and the LIA were times of civilisation declines, disease, crop failures and food shortages (the LIA only eventually ameliorated by the fossil fuel inspired industrial revolution- some could argue that low temperatures kick started it out of necessity).
      2. That rising CO2 (anthropogenic or not) is in any way a negative when a currently booming biosphere quite obviously proves otherwise.
      3. That feedbacks with the water cycle to rising CO2 in any way amplify temperature rise as per IPCC predictions, when first principles and observations suggest quite the contrary.
      4. That carbon trading will not lead to speculation and profiteering at the expense of human considerations, which would potentially threaten energy security globally, especially for those countries most energy impoverished.
      5. That transitioning from fossil fuel based economies is likely to succeed if only wind and solar- both of which are unsuitable for baseload power consumption due to their intermittent nature- are on the table. If CO2 were a true threat, why are we not having a conversation even about Thorium nuclear or additional Hydro schemes which are much more practical and capable on current technology to supply a decent quanta of our power requirements without being reliant on as yet unproven technologies.
      6. That economic arguments have been fairly, openly and transparently elucidated- Why do all the figures quoted to support the economic viability of renewables always fudge figures, using theoretical capacity rather than real world MWH output, using cost per MWH with government tax added for coal then comparing to solar and wind with government subsidies subtracted if the intention is not to con the public with rubbery figures to sell the narrative rather than the reality?
      7. That the UN is capable of being trusted with power over every human activity on the planet, and that this will not lead to corruption on an unprecedented global scale, not limited to a need to enforce those controls (by any and every means at its disposal) at the expense of the interests of the general population. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
      8. That rapid and ill-concieved drastic changes in the first world economies which are on the brink of financial collapse currently is likely to benefit civilisation, since among other things one of the first casualties (among many) of poverty and tremendous social upheaval tends to be environmental considerations.

      I could go on, but “journal papers” and treasury modelling really don’t cut it for me, these are generally exercises in self rationalisation and often complete unreality- intellectual wanking which are repeatedly shown to be incapable of even ballpark approximations of cost and intended, not to mention unintended consequences. As a general principle, for change to be successful it must be gradual, modified as it goes along, and mindful of not “throwing the baby out with the bath water” to borrow a phrase. I see no evidence of this from the zealots who advocate this transformative approach, where even basic arithmetic and common sense seems to elude them. I would hope you have more intrinsic understanding than that. Let me finally say that no one would be happier than I to see the end of fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine, but if, and only if, such an alternative were economically feasible, and I see no evidence of that, nor do I see any evidence that that is even the aim of those who propogate the CAGW myth.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Jack Jones

    Speedy – answers to your questions.

    1 – If US, China, India and other large emitters don’t adopt policies to reduce GHG emissions– negligible

    2/3 – As I am sure you are aware, I could list almost every major international scientific organisation and hundreds of journals etc. but I suspect they don’t meet your ‘independence’ requirement. Perhaps if you first provided your definition of independent (I’m guessing peer review doesn’t cut it) then I could have a go. When you are defining independent please consider whether the sources that you do find credible also fit the definition.

    Rather than you listing a whole list of various sources and me a much longer list that say different things please refer to my response to Wes George below which summarises the basis for my position.

    JJ


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jack Jones

    Wes,

    Thanks for the reception and aplogies for the length of the following.

    I ended up on this site when I was looking for an article on arctic sea ice extent which given its recent levels prompted my original comments (perhaps in hindsight too strongly) on ideology vs. observations. I am not a scientist however I am numerate to an undergraduate engineering/ physics level which assists in understanding some of the basic discussion around AGW which I have needed to because of my work (see below) and I am quite familiar with the arguments/evidence in support of AGW. I have also read previously the “Skeptics Handbook” (although I didn’t associate it with this site at the time) and therefore didn’t merely jump to the conclusion as to Jo’s motives as you suggest (the “unexamined life” comment was a trifle condescending by the way). I’ve also read previously material from Lindzen, Christy, Pielke Snr and Jnr, McIntyre, Mckitrick, Monckton, Spencer, Michaels, Singer, Marohasy, Pilmer etc. and am reasonably familiar with their positions.

    I could also list you a whole range of sources that contradict the basic position taken in this site in regard to the science however I can’t see any purpose in duelling authorities (I am sure Ms Nova and many posters here are more than familiar with the mainstream science and me listing the various journals, scientific organisations etc again isn’t going to change anyone’s position – the “Skeptical Handbook” certainly didn’t change mine although it made me interrogate it more strongly). However, what I did was see was the explicit political persuasion of the site coupled with its explicit position on climate change and queried whether the host had genuinely considered all the evidence to hold so strongly the position she appears to and whether or not the two were related. I still think this is a valid query.

    To be more specific, what surprised me and prompted my original comments was that people who are clearly intelligent and knowledgeable can appear to hold such dogmatic views on a subject where there has to be a reasonable chance they are incorrect. In this regard, I am sure most supporters of this site would at least accept that many qualified and reputable scientists genuinely believe the (by definition) mainstream view on climate change. I suspect most would also agree that there are some undisputed (at least as to measurement integrity) indicators such as the recent changes in minimum arctic sea ice extent which may support the mainstream position. Therefore, even with all the arguments marshalled on sites such as this and even accepting the possibility of a global conspiracy or “group think” surely there has to be some or even a reasonable chance that the orthodoxy is correct? I am not saying it is certain or even likely just that it is not completely unreasonable.

    I work and make long term investment decisions (including with my own capital) in the large commercial (global) agriculture sector and therefore have a strong imperative to understand the various risk factors (commodity supply and demand, climate, political, land tenure, legal etc.) that could impact upon the profitability of those investments. I am fully prepared to accept that there is a reasonable chance that current mainstream science on this subject is wrong and factor that into my decision making as is prudent for any long term allocation of capital. This means that while I don’t invest in agricultural regions which (if the mainstream science is correct) are likely to experience the most negative climate change consequences I (and my investors) recognise and accept that if the mainstream science is wrong we will undoubtedly made less profit than we otherwise would have. However, if it is correct we have probably saved ourselves from a potential financial disaster. This is similar to the decision to take out insurance (it is actually an easier decision to make as insurance always involves a cost – at best it mitigates losses – whereas being prudent in this case may actually increase our profits).

    To someone who makes these types of long term investment decisions it is inconceivable that I wouldn’t take this approach – frankly, to do otherwise would be completely reckless. Obviously, however, the world’s populations (particularly the poorer ones) don’t have the luxury to select where they (or more relevantly their children’s children) live and invest so how should we respond? Surely the same logic applies, they (we) should take reasonable steps to mitigate the potential risk on the basis the mainstream science is correct. Reasonable steps presumably have to involve a reduction in the quantity of GHGs we emit – obviously there are many alternatives as to how to best achieve this outcome (regulatory, sanctions, pricing carbon etc.) but while intelligent and informed people argue forcefully against there being any chance of the current science being correct it is almost impossible to construct and implement the most efficient mechanism to achieve this.

    A response to the above argument may be that the ‘cost’ or ‘insurance’ involved (reducing GHG emissions) is too great for the risk it is mitigating. Given the risk we are considering has the potential (again I don’t think we need to agree on its exact likelihood or extent just that is reasonably possible) to have very negative consequences for large swathes of the world’s populations the cost would logically have to be high. What therefore is the potential cost? Clearly, there is a range of views on the costs to reduce GHG emissions however even the most extreme views on these costs that I have seen don’t involve any economies going backwards in terms of real GDP/capita. Most studies I have seen suggest that (real) GDP growth per capital will be slower than it may otherwise have been over the short to medium term (for example, ~1% real in the US).

    This is taking a very high level cost-benefit approach to the issue and obviously there are a whole range of additional reasons (strategic, ethical, environmental, sustainability, pollution, health, quality of life etc.) which could be argued (some with more merit than others) in favour of reducing our reliance on non-renewable fossil fuels.

    I honestly don’t know what I would say to my great-grandchildren if I actively sort to prevent implementing any precautionary steps if in 30 years-time the current mainstream views on the impact of increasing GHG proved to be correct and society had not done anything to prevent it? What would I say to a family in Bangladesh? I do know what I would say if the current science turned out to be wrong and we had taken the (therefore unnecessary) steps to reduce GHG emissions. I also know what I would say to the person in a developing country who may have only experienced a 4% increase in their standard of living each year versus a potential 5% over the preceding 30 years.

    Risk mitigation is therefore the crux of my position which I don’t think is based on ideology but on prudence. If you fervently believe there is no or negligible chance mainstream climate science is correct then I can understand the position taken by this site however to say there is no or negligible evidence seems to me an extremely long bow to draw?

    Completely as aside, if you haven’t seen before, I always thought contrarians (I assume that is acceptable nomenclature) would like to use the following quote when questioning the motives of climate scientists:

    “It’s hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding.” – Upton Sinclair (I think he may have been a socialist so you may need to use judiciously)

    JJ


    Report this

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi jack says:

      “I could also list you a whole range of sources that contradict the basic position taken in this site in regard to the science”

      We know you can Jack: every warmer who has visited the site can do that.

      NONE of them, however, can EXPLAIN the CO2 warming mechanism in their own words with understandable REAL WORLD science.

      I have found if people can’t break down science into it’s parts and explain it then they either:

      1. Do not understand it

      or

      2. Are working under close supervision of someone who is paid more than they are.

      Which one are you NUMBER 1.

      KK


      Report this

      00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Jack

      If this is true:

      “I work and make long term investment decisions (including with my own capital) in the large commercial (global) agriculture sector

      and therefore have a strong imperative to understand the various risk factors (commodity supply and demand, climate, political, land

      tenure, legal etc.) that could impact upon the profitability of those investments”

      Then: You need to deal with Professor (associate) Stewart Franks who is a professional hydroclimatolgist and does live in THE REAL

      WORLD where things actually happen.

      KK

      ps were you aware that sea levels have dropped world wide by between 1200 mm and 1500 mm in the last 6 or 7 thousand years.

      Minor fluctuation; up and down that are current are about as stable as this large ball of stuff is ever going top be.

      The climate change scammers have sprayed so much dis-information around that it is almost impossible for unqualified people to sort through.

      Even young PhDs at the CSIRO have little vision of climate outside of their own small area and that is really scary!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Jack says:

      “Risk mitigation is therefore the crux of my position which I don’t think is based on ideology but on prudence.”

      So.

      Could it be that your attack on Jo was more to see our response , to see if we were just cretins of the anti believer type or REAL

      WORLD science addicts trying to get at the truth?

      Cunning.

      But maybe you aren’t that smart.

      Percentages say you are a “believer” in drag.

      Apologies to those in drag.

      KK


      Report this

      00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      line 76

      “sort’

      sought ?

      Sean , could you confirm.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Sean McHugh

      Jack Jones said,

      I’ve also read previously material from Lindzen, Christy, Pielke Snr and Jnr, McIntyre, . . .

      Hi Jack,

      McIntyre is probably most well known for his detracting work on Michael Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’. Do you advocate the Stick?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      wes george

      Jack,

      That’s a lot thoughts covering a wide range.

      Sorry about my unexamined life quip

      I could also list you a whole range of sources that contradict the basic position taken in this site in regard to the science however I can’t see any purpose in duelling authorities

      I’m not into dueling authorities either, so please explain how you think CO2 will cause catastrophic warming (say ~ +4c) before 2075?

      Use your own words.

      Cite sources if you want, but please explain to me in your own words. A famous physicist once said if you can’t explain something in your own words then you don’t understand it. And he was talking about quantum physics. I dare say climate science isn’t Schrödinger’s cat!

      Then, I’ll explain to you, in my own words, why I don’t think the CAGW is a useful description of modern climate and we need a new model.

      I am sure most supporters of this site would at least accept that many qualified and reputable scientists genuinely believe the (by definition) mainstream view on climate change.

      Consensus is politics, not science. You said you don’t want to do duelling authorities, but to say my army of experts is bigger than yours is just that.

      In the 13th century a consensus of experts might have believed that the Earth is flat, but that in no way had any effect on the shape of the Earth. The Earth didn’t become a sphere just because the consensus by 1510 was that the Earth is a sphere.

      Consensus is not evidence.

      So focusing on which theory has the largest number of acolytes says absolutely nothing about science, which is all about who has the most useful explanation for evidence observed.

      In fact, the history of science is the history of consensus after consensus after consensus after consensus falling to lone, persecuted individuals who dared to think and measure things outside the box of consensus. Instead of “believing” they looked out the window or into a microscope and checked for themselves.

      That’s the true spirit of Jo Nova’s work and of all skeptics.

      …surely there has to be some or even a reasonable chance that the orthodoxy is correct? I am not saying it is certain or even likely just that it is not completely unreasonable.

      Yes, there is always a chance and no is not unreasonable to believe in CAGW, unless you have been made familiar with all the evidence from a range of inquiries that show it’s less probable that CAGW is a useful description of climate than not. In fact, it would be unreasonable for a rational citizen whose only information source is the conventional wisdom on the matter to not be worried sick about CAGW.

      I’m a rational skeptic.

      Every day I wake up and say, God, show me the error of my ways.

      In fact, I believe in very little, not even God. Much.

      If I have a “faith” it is in the rational procedures outlined in the various models of scientific methodology to construct useful hypotheses by which we can better navigate our world and solve problems.

      I don’t “believe” in any theory about the world or the universe. I don’t think of theories in terms of right or wrong, but useful or useless. Not good or bad, but passes or falsified.

      I don’t think that any human description of anything, in any language, can capture all the dimensions of the reality being described, therefore more precise descriptions are always possible.

      However, there are many theories that I concede are contingent working descriptions which we can manipulate to construct models for, say envisioning how matter and energy perform at the atomic level and then shape our culture with the tools we thereby invent using our descriptions of nature.

      But as soon as a better description comes along, I hope I will always be an early adopter.

      Because the purist skeptical position is not to “believe” in anything, it allows the skeptical mind to stay relatively emotionally unattached to specific theories of anything.

      That’s the theory, at least.

      The human nature reality is now that the Climate Millenarians and Climate Skeptics are divided into warring political camps there are blind true believers among the skeptics, although not as many as in the Warmist camp which is outspokenly against dissent against the orthodoxy. The climate faith is where those who gravitate toward collectivism, tribalism, fashions, peer-group approval and group-think comfort naturally belong.

      It’s this fog of the battle that seem to be confusing you about skeptical values being just another group-think. I hope I’ve cleared up what the bigger universal skeptical agenda is really about, though of course, we fail to achieve the ideal since we’re only human after all. But we are not the moral equivalent to climate millenarianism. We’re bigger than that.

      I hope my mind is always, always open to a better description of reality. That’s why I turned away from the AGW theory to start with. I became aware of new evidence and had to change my mind.

      I honestly don’t know what I would say to my great-grandchildren if I actively sort to prevent implementing any precautionary steps if in 30 years-time the current mainstream views on the impact of increasing GHG proved to be correct and society had not done anything to prevent it?

      I too am primarily concerned with the social justice issue as well as with the unexamined assumption that human political will can centrally manage planetary systems like a thermostat, not too cold, not too hot, but juuuuuuust right.

      Just right for who?

      What if I could show that the cautionary steps that are being planned are more likely to increase human suffering than the problem they are designed to redress?

      I have much to say on this topic, but have to run.

      Hope to see you in the morning with your explanation of how anthropogenically produced CO2 will warm the planet leading to a environmental catastrophe within the next 75 years. Don’t forget to show why water vapour feedback must be strongly positive!

      Cheers,

      wes


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Gee Aye

      HI. Were you looking up an article or obtaining research material for broadcast?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Mawashi

    Just heard Jon Faine “interview” Klimate Kommissar Will Steffen on ABC radio in Melbourne. They were talking about retreating ice in the Arctic during the northern summer allowing increased access to commercial shipping. Interestingly, anthropogicall global warming was not mentioned at all, neither by Faine nor Steffen. Usually one or both of these jesters will bring up AGW but today, nothing.

    Wonders never cease…


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John Brookes

      Retreating ice in the arctic? Would that be record low extent this year? Couldn’t be because I just had a look at WTFUWT and there was no mention of arctic sea ice records, and they are sharp over there! If there was a record low arctic sea ice extent (or area for that matter), they’d have been onto it like a shot! So all is good – just have another G & T.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Mawashi

        Well John, the point is the big surprise was that they didn’t mention AGW once. In fact it was a very odd conversation. Almost without fail when warmist Faine is chatting with one of the Climate Commissioners its little short of a love-in, followed by the obligatory supporters and the occasional skeptic that Faine shuts down when he’s faced with too many facts. Steffen mentioned that the sea ice tends to be getting thinner with each winter re-freeze, but presented no argument or evidence that this is due to AGW.

        Just awfully odd that they weren’t banging on with the usual old chestnut. An optimist might argue that Steffen and Faine are experiencing some sort of road-to-Damascus conversion. Not sure about Steffen, but Faine’s pride/hubris means that won’t happen publicly in a hurry.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Mark

    Re “Jack Jones”.

    What a space invader. Could have saved himself a heap of time and effort by just announcing to the world:-

    “I’m a believer”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jack Jones

    KK,

    Frank’s work that I have seen on La Nina,IPO etc seems very well regarded and because I have a financial exposure to some agri assets on the East Coast of Aust I have followed it a bit – particularly in regard to short term weather conditions (I would actually like it to stop raining as much as it has for the last three years so we can get some work done). I haven’t however seen any detailed work he had done refuting AGW although I know he has added his signature to general statements disagreeing with the mainstream. I would be interested if you could point me to any published work by him addressing broader AGW issues?

    “Believer in drag” is actually pretty funny – I would make a very large and ugly drag act.

    Sean McHugh

    I think historical reconstructions using various proxies are extremely difficult and the realm of statisticians (such as McKitrick – McIntyre’s partner) as much as climatologists. That said, the more recent versions of the “stick” appear much more robust than the original (with many different lines of evidence – corals, ice cores, marine and lake sediments, boreholes, glaciers and of course tree rings with all their faults) and with much more of the underlying information available to third parties to review. I haven’t looked at this for a year or so but I thought that there was now less criticism of the amended “stick” which is somewhat less hockey like (although still with a flourish over the last 50 years). See the following for example -http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf

    Regards


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Sean McHugh

      Jack Jones said:

      I think historical reconstructions using various proxies are extremely difficult and the realm of statisticians (such as McKitrick – McIntyre’s partner) as much as climatologists. That said, the more recent versions of the “stick” appear much more robust than the original (with many different lines of evidence – corals, ice cores, marine and lake sediments, boreholes, glaciers and of course tree rings with all their faults) and with much more of the underlying information available to third parties to review.

      Whether a believer or a sceptic, one can’t just brush aside the Hockey Stick (the original). It has played too an important role in the whole Global Warming industry. That the new ones might be more robust tells us little without first assessing the worth of the standard upon which the new versions improve. It is not necessarily a noteworthy achievement to make something more robust than rubbish.

      Jack, was Mann’s Hockey Stick good science?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Jack Jones

    KK,

    I work for myself so can’t be No.2?

    “NONE of them, however, can EXPLAIN the CO2 warming mechanism in their own words with understandable REAL WORLD science.”

    Explanation
    1.GHGs let sunlight (shortwave radiation) pass through the atmosphere
    2.GHGs absorb heat rays (infrared or longwave radiation)
    3.The earth absorbs the sunlight then re-radiates heat which is absorbed by GHG in the atmosphere
    4.This heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates longwave radiation in all directions including back to the earth

    Evidence
    1.More infrared radiation coming back to earth at wavelengths that GHG’s absorb – surface measurements of downward longwave radiation
    2.Less longwave radiation leaving the atmosphere at these wavelengths – satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation
    3.Theoretical physics (conservation of energy, radiative transfer and climate sensitivty)

    JJ


    Report this

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Thanks for that Jack

      Good. Outline is what we start with and shows you are aware of the core topics.

      There are a couple of details that may add a few extra points for you to ponder.

      In an average atmosphere, the ground IR moves upwards.

      There are specific frequencies at which CO2 is active in absorbing some of this energy.

      By about 10 -20 metres altitude, the atmospheric CO2 has absorbed all of the IR available at those frequencies; assuming that water

      hasn’t got at it first.

      What this means is that there is a column of CO2 above, say 20,000 metres, which has played no part in absorbing ground origin IR.

      This is spare capacity and means that people proposing that more CO2 will lead to “hotter” air are just misguided, engaged in

      group-think or perhaps telling porkies.

      This means that if more CO2 is added to the atmosphere then effectively no extra IR will be absorbed.

      Technically it may be possible that a few extra tenths or hundredths of a percent or the original amount can still be extracted but

      effectively it’s all over. This is the asymptotic effect.

      Now, despite all the above theory about CO2 there is another confounding issue. Water competes with CO2 within a great deal of the

      CO2 “absorption “bandwidth”.

      The other confounding … sorry, don’t want to give it all away in one hit.

      The basic science say that CO2 didn’t and can’t do it.

      The idea that man made CO2 can heat the atmosphere is a political concept suitable for attracting people to the Green side of politics

      and to those less scrupulous who wish to use their naivete to harvest votes – being “elected’ is very rewarding financially so any

      scheme that gets you over the line is a good one.

      KK

      ps. Stewart Franks is not especially interested in politics but is nevertheless active in promoting truth in science. Last week end he promoted “measuring” sea level to assess what was really happening. Warmers do not like this type of science because the measurements show that the oceans are almost static but currently rising at just under 1 mm per year.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Jack Jones

    Winston,

    Before considering your individual points I agree completely with your comments on the mandated use of biofuels, their insidious impact on food prices (amongst others) and the treatment in MSM. Don’t get me started on the evils of EU and US agriculture subsidies (particularly for developing countries which should be using their comparative/absolute advantage in certain types of agriculture to improve living standards). More generally, although we obviously disagree on whether action on climate change is required I suspect we would be in heated agreement that any of the mainstream methods currently used/proposed to achieve this are (to be extremely generous) sub-optimal.

    Given your concluding views on the veracity of journals and government modelling it is very difficult as a layperson to respond without at least some reliance on these however I will endeavour to do so.

    1.Demonstrate how a rise in temperatures will cause any significant negative impact upon our present civilisation,
    With the West’s technical and social structures I suspect we will be able to manage (other than if there are extreme changes in climate changes) and in many cases may be better off. However, I don’t believe the developing world will be able to for a long period of time. Obviously, all societies and ecosystems would adapt in the long run however the potential impact upon developing countries and their populations in the intervening period will (I believe) be much worse than the costs of reducing fossil fuels assuming climate change is real. History may show climate changes have ultimately led to growth but I am not sure I would want to be the one dealing with the transition.

    2. That rising CO2 (anthropogenic or not) is in any way a negative
    The area that I have some experience in that has the potential to be most fundamentally impacted is agriculture in developing countries which just don’t have the capacity to adapt in the short to medium term. An increase in the severity and frequency of droughts (reduction in glacier melt) and floods has the potential to have a huge impact in some regions especially if coupled with different pest and diseases. Also, hotter night time temperatures can have material negative impacts on some crop yields (particularly rice). For example, large irrigated (modern) rice projects in North East Africa use substantially more water and produce a lower yield than projects on comparable soils in Australia because (mainly) of higher night time temperatures.

    3. That feedbacks with the water cycle to rising CO2 in any way amplify temperature rise.
    Can’t see how to respond other than with reference to authority which you don’t accept. Suffice to say that mainstream science (currently) believes net forcings are positive although this is clearly the area of most scientific uncertainty.

    4. That carbon trading will not lead to speculation and profiteering at the expense of human considerations

    Undoubtedly it will. The issue (as for any financial market) is whether the positives outweigh the negatives. Should be possible to implement a system that minimises these but this isn’t alone a reason not to do.

    5. That transitioning from fossil fuel based economies
    Agree, but given the technological advances we have seen over the last 50 years I have enormous faith that with correct incentives (full pricing of externalities) we will find efficient solutions for the storage of intermittent energy to provide base load power.

    6. That economic arguments have been fairly, openly and transparently elucidated-
    Figures I have seen show full life cycle ‘renewable costs’ 2-3 times that of fossil fuels but with fossil fuels becoming scarcer and renewable technologies improving this ratio should reduce. Agree that if externalities (pollution, potential impact of climate change etc.) are to be ascribed to the MWH cost of fossil fuels this cost should (at the very least) be transparent.

    7. That the UN is capable of being trusted with power over every human activity on the planet
    You have lost me here. The international community does many things that don’t require central governance – if the problem is real enough individual nations will find a way that works. For example, if the US, China, India and the EU agreed bi-lateral firm emissions targets with trade sanctions for those that don’t comply then the rest of the world would fall in line without the need for an over aching UN control.

    8. That rapid and ill-concieved drastic changes in the first world economies which are on the brink of financial collapse currently is likely to benefit civilisation,
    This is an argument for doing it right not for not doing it at all. Agree it needs to be considered and gradual but AGW contrarians believe there is no issue and we shouldn’t be doing anything at all. Ultimately, if you believe CAGW is a myth (the “C” bit of the acronym is a thesis in itself) then clearly most of the arguments are irrelevant. If, however, you believe that there is a reasonable chance of CAGW being true then it becomes a cost-benefit and implementation exercise which I believe humans can solve

    As another aside, received this via email today – I suspect some posters here may (as I do) find it amusing:

    ‘Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end.’


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Winston

      JJ,
      Your replies are definitely improving, but I do believe your faith in economic modeling and government intervention in general is misplaced. Some central assumptions re CAGW are not confirmed by observation below scenario C rises as per IPCC AR 4. So the C in CAGW is tenuous at best, disproved at worst. The AGW philosophy is admittedly not debunked, but all relies on computer modeling which fails to account for so many factors, especially clouds, cosmic rays, extreme UV, Solar system mechanics, etc etc, so as a consequence at best only form a rough guide to future scenarios. The problem with the precautionary principle is that fire insurance is no help if your house is crushed under an avalanche of ice and snow, nor is insurance viable if the annual premium is greater than the sum insured. You fail to take into account the snakes in the grass in this Garden of Eden, those who seek to take economic advantage of the trillions of dollars floating around, diverted from practical on the ground poverty abatement and instead lining the pockets of international bankers and African despots. You are seriously mistaken if you think that is not what is already happening, or that will increasingly be the norm such is greed at the heart of the human condition. Similarly, those of a far left political persuasion who see this as a political opportunity to bring down Western culture and promote their beloved Marxist doctrine (and we know how well that went historically), using the greed and stupidity of governments to their geopolitical advantage. It
      pains me that the lifelong humanism that I’ve lived by has been forced to fight this neopaganist Utopianism, because some of the stated aims are I believe at odds with the reality. Your whole argument is that climate can be controlled, which it cannot. There is no regulator, no ideal CO2 level, no climate stasis point. To pretend that is ludicrous, beyond the foundations of good sense and reason. We have time to make a natural transformation in energy sourcing without compromising the survival of large swathes of humanity. Hasty, ill-conceived and impractical solutions are likely to do far greater harm than good. More’s the pity.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Winston

        If you think that is not what is already happening…..

        Should read “You are seriously mistaken if you think…………..”

        [your wish is granted] ED


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Winston

          Btw, to clarify my earlier comment- the Journal articles I have NO faith in are those dealing with the economics of the situation. I don’t mean to automatically decry the validity of all research on climate, just that much of it is stilted by preconceived notions that “CO2 drives all” that is looking decidedly shaky, to be kind.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Jack

      Comments : “3. That feedbacks with the water cycle to rising CO2 in any way amplify temperature rise”

      Regardless of what “Climate Scientists” may state about this, there is no such mechanism.

      It is an absolute scientific nonsense to suggest that these feed-backs occur and mainstream science is quite clear about this.

      The micro focus on the CO2 – IR mechanism which involves radiative transfer only, serves to avoid the full analysis of the system

      which must include mass, Heat and Momentum transfer as well as energy losses in chemical reactions and friction losses in momentum changes.

      I’m very wary about what is behind this discussion and would offer this: the best thing we can do for our Grandchildren is to face the real problems..

      Chemical pollution, from industrial processes is still a big problem to health, especially in china and India and Vietnam as main examples.

      Human origin CO2 is not a pollutant and is about the ONLY bye product of the combustion of fossil fuels that is not a pollutant. Thankfully in the West, the techniques used for FF combustion are now greatly improved over 50 years ago . This is a big step forward.

      At the moment, the only alternates we have in Australia are Nuclear but that is too expensive and politically laden with bad karma.

      The only problem with nuclear is the corruptibility of people who govern us; they always extend plant life or working conditions into the danger zone for a few dollars more.

      KK


      Report this

      00

  • #
    wes george

    A quick review of your reply to Winston reveals that you’re proceeding based on a whole rash of unexamined assumptions that you lifted straight from the media, but didn’t bother to look into the evidence.

    Let’s unpack a few:

    An increase in the severity and frequency of droughts (reduction in glacier melt) and floods has the potential to have a huge impact in some regions especially if coupled with different pest and diseases.

    Glacial melting evidence has past form for being manipulated forward by the IPPC, by about, oh, 250 years or so. The same people are still in charge of the data and have not been stood down.

    Thus far there is no evidence that extreme weather is on the increase. Al Gore popularised the extreme weather myth and even today people believe Katrina was a mega-super storm caused by AGW and that hurricanes are on the rise.

    http://coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/global_running_ace.jpg

    No matter how many studies show no rise in the number of storms, tornadoes, droughts, flood and, yes, even earthquakes, that’s not going to stop the meme, which is really just the modern version of the old farmer’s yarn, “Ain’t the weather been odd lately?”

    Even the shocking, shockingly unprecedented new super-record lows of arctic ice are not, well, unusual. A study based on aerial views of the coast of Greenland shows that it was just as warm or warmer in the 1920′s and 1930′s, although the peer-reviewed study was published in that notorious denialist rag, Nature Geoscience.

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1481.html

    Think rationally, man. If you’re really investing in agricultural markets based upon urban legend, rather than the empirical evidence thus far gathered, you’re going to lose money.

    History may show climate changes have ultimately led to growth but I am not sure I would want to be the one dealing with the transition.

    By definition the climate is always changing. There is no such thing as a climate stasis in the big picture.

    The climate since the bottom of the little ice age has been warming at about 0.7c in the last hundred years. So we’re always dealing with climate change.

    What history does show is that warming trends such as the Roman warm period or the Medieval Warm Period led to cultural renaissance and prosperity while cooling trends are universally hard times. The evidence for possible continued warming bodes well for underdeveloped nations who depend directly on each seasons crop success. Heighten atmospheric CO2 is powerful plant food. There is also some evidence that we might be entering a cyclical cooling period as well time to coincide with the high water mark of population in the developing world. If you’re the type to worry about things you can’t control, then worry about possible cooling, because that could be just the kind of ironic catastrophe that nature tends to visit on those with the hubris to believe she bows to human authority.

    Can’t see how to respond other than with reference to authority which you don’t accept. Suffice to say that mainstream science (currently) believes net forcings are positive although this is clearly the area of most scientific uncertainty.

    This goes to the heart of the problem. True Believers simply believe, while skeptics demand to be shown how it works. It turns out that there is no such thing as a “mainstream science” opinion on water vapour forcing, just an IPPC pronouncement based on the assumption that it has to be so or the whole theoretical edifice of AGW collapses into a rubble.

    In fact, the preponderance of evidence combined with what we know about how complex systems balance themselves, suggest that the Earth’s most important greenhouse gas, water, must work to stabilise the climate, not provide massive runaway feedback.

    “Mainstream science” is like when Nasa uses Newton’s Laws to successfully put men on the moon, not when a tiny group of scientists propose an untested assumption simply because it is absolutely vital to protect their pet hypothesis.

    Read this:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/models-get-cloud-feedback-wrong-but-only-by-70wm2-thats-19-times-larger-than-the-co2-effect/

    Watch this:
    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/04/david-evans-explains-the-skeptics-case-youtube/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jack Jones

    Wes,

    I’m running out of steam and have work to do so this will be briefer and less thought through than I would like. I also wrote most of this last night before seeing your comment this morning which I will respond to separately.

    In terms of your request – I could quibble about why choose 75 years and what “catastrophic” means but if you agree I will confine your requested task to an explanation of how really bad things may reasonably (not ‘will’) happen to a significant number of people or a large part of the environment within the next generation’s lifetime as a result of AGHG?

    Before having a crack at this I would note that I will be summarising my understanding of the mainstream science not my personal assessment of its correctness which you may find unsatisfying. I am not a climate scientist. I can only rely on experts in regard to a technical/complicated issue that requires many years of study to understand the arguments and math/physics/chemistry and which has evolved over many years. If you are going to delve into the physics and math then you will be disappointed as I have no ability to assess whether it is informed genius or ignorant nonsense without reliance on authority. I wouldn’t be in a position to argue with the mechanic who says my fuel injector needs replacing (particularly when the other mechanics I ask say the same thing) let alone a physicist about a slightly radioactive poisoned (dead or alive) cat.

    Here’s my attempt:

    1 – Humans are causing the emission of GHG

    2 – The currently level of atmospheric CO is around 390ppm and over the next 75 years on the current trajectory we will reach about 560ppm (doubling from pre-industrial CO2 levels of around 280ppm)

    3 – Climate sensitivity estimates for this doubling ranges from 2 to 4.5 C of warming (from pre-industrial levels) with a ‘most’ likely outcome around 3 C. Summarised in the below paper.
    http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf

    Water vapour is the main GHG. Water vapour feedback is roughly estimated to double the amount of warming from increases in GHG (with other net positive feedbacks accounting for the remainder).

    4 – The main uncertainties around the this large range of climate sensitivity are whether clouds will act as a net positive or negative feedback and how much warming may be offset by human aerosol emissions. From what I have read the impact of these two are still unclear.

    5 – Really bad “reasonably likely” impacts from temperature rise assuming we hit around the 3 C mark within the period in question

    Food/AgricultureIncrease in drought
    Decreasing human water supplies, increased fire frequency and expanded deserts (Solomon 2009)
    Risk to fish populations (Munday 2010)

    Environmental
    15-38% of all plant and animal species will be extinct due to mid-range temperature change across their 20% sample of the earth terrestrial land mass
    http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/digitaaldepot/20040108nature.pdf
    Loss of 2/3 of the world’s polar bear population within 50 years (Amstrup 2007)

    Sea level rise
    SLR of 1m-3m and if Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets break up could produce a 5m SLR
    Consequences for Vietnam, Egypt, and the Bahamas are potentially catastrophic (Dasgupta 2009)

    Melting glaciers
    Severe consequences for at least 60 million people dependent on ice melt for water supply (Barnett 2005, Immerzeel 2010)

    In regards to ‘consensus’ argument, I very deliberately didn’t use the term ‘majority’ instead using ‘many’ to endeavour (obviously unsuccessfully) to avoid the issues you raised. Obviously, the number and position/experience of people who hold a specialist/technical view doesn’t make something true but surely it makes it more likely that it is, particularly if it is an established area of science that has been evolving over (in this instance) 150 years? Can you identify any other current field of (non-esoteric) scientific endeavour which has existed for any material length of time where the fundamental building blocks (the physics/math/chemistry) are in dispute? I also think you romanticise the history of science which in the vast majority of cases has evolved gradually through continual refinement – the number of Galileo’s are tiny (and even he is not a great example).

    If out of 5 surgeons 4 believed you had a malignant tumour and the only way to deal with it was (non-life threatening) surgery and 1 believed it benign how should one respond – spend the next 10 years researching the subject to (maybe) become as informed as the surgeons and make your own decision? Going with the 80% doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do but surely it is more logical than to rely on the 20% if the risk of getting it wrong is death and the cost is only a couple of weeks convalescing? My original argument takes this even further and says that even in the absence of a consensus if the consequences of inactivity are potentially severe and the remediation (non-life threatening surgery) is relatively minor then even if only 20% believe it is necessary it is still the right decision to make. That is, I am arguing that even in the absence of a consensus or even a majority view as long as it is plausible and reasonably possible then the prudent thing to do is act as if it is correct.

    I think we will have to disagree about whether your definition of a “skeptic” is applicable to the many people who consider themselves AGW skeptics – even amongst the scientists who are skeptical there appears to be considerable dispute as to what aspects of mainstream AGW they are sceptical about. Repeating my very original contention I am deeply suspicious that many people (you not included – I almost used “yourself’ then) hold the positions they do because of free market ideology not because of logic or science. Do you think Rick Perry is a skeptic as you define one? As an aside, I think the majority of “Warmists” would fall into this position as well (their underlying ideology has made them much more likely to agree with the need for regulatory intervention regardless of the facts) except in this instance they happen to have mainstream science on their side. In the case of nuclear energy for example they probably don’t.

    “What if I could show that the cautionary steps that are being planned are more likely to increase human suffering than the problem they are designed to redress?” Subject to few qualifications I would change my mind.

    I had never heard of the cat thought experiment and after reading 3 articles I am more confused although I assume that is the purpose of a paradox

    Regards


    Report this

    00

    • #
      wes george

      Gosh, Jack

      Sorry I’ve underwhelmed you with shoddy evidence.

      I can’t really keep up with all your arguments, because you’re setting up too many fronts to cover in a single comment.

      You seem to have a pretty good lay of the climate landscape from the “mainstream” science perspective. So let’s just cut to the chase.

      You understand that further increasing in CO2, even a doubling can’t catastrophically warm the planet. (Let’s define the C-word as the eco-apocalypse you described.) The logarithmic effect of CO2 means that a doubling of CO2 can only warm the planet by about 1c.

      So the whole debate comes down to water vapour and whether it has positive feedback on warming. There is a growing body of observational evidence it must be very low to negative. Chief among these is the missing tropospheric hotspot and that the net shortwave radiative effect of stratocumuli might be as high as 70w per square meter rather than near zero as assumed by the IPPC models.

      Worse is the fact that the amplification effect of CO2 induced warming was calculated by assuming that all the warming since the bottom of the Little Ice Age back in 1800 or so is due to CO2 warming amplified by water vapour feedback. But it seems highly likely that some of the warming would have been a natural cyclical rebound from the LIA. Evidence for this is that medieval warming and the LIA weren’t caused by variations in the CO2 level, which remained relatively flat over the last couple of thousand years. So we know that natural climatic cyclical variation is occurring. Between about 1930 and 1980 was a mini-cool period that certainly can’t be explained by rising CO2.

      By excluding the possibility that natural cyclic climate variation occured outside of CO2 induced warming since 1800, the climate scientists dramatically over estimated the positive feedback of water vapour. Again, the evidence that they have overestimated the positive feedback of water vapour is the missing tropo hotspot and models that completely omit the shortwave radiative effects of low clouds.

      Further more there’s also a common sense homeostasis argument to support low water vapour feedback based upon system analysis. James Lovelock illustrated the biological version with his daisyworld model, but it’s even more likely the most powerful GHG, water, works to moderate temperature rather than to amplify and lock in wild swings in climate variation. Evidence: That we exist to argue the point, indicates an absurdly narrow range of climate variability over a very long period of time. If water worked against temperature homeostasis, the Earth would be either a snowball in space or stuck in a permanent Jurassic climate.

      if the climate scientists were right about water vapour having a positive feedback on warming, then as it warmed, for whatever reason, evaporations levels would increase leading to higher water vapour content in a positive feedback loop leading to extended warming. On the flip side, as the Earth cools, for whatever reason, there would be less evaporation, less water vapour in the atmosphere and this would amplify the cooling and keep it cool for a long time.

      We would expect the past temperature record should show that once a warming (or cooling) trend is established that trend should continue on to form a broad long-lived plateau (or trough) that can only be interrupted by some kind of more powerful forcing outside of the water vapour cycle.

      But that’s not what we find… the past temperature record is a series of sharp peaks and troughs… periods of warming followed quickly by cooler periods. For instance, the MWP peaked quickly and then was followed by a descent into cooler period. The LIA, which bottom about 1830 didn’t stay cool, it warmed into the modern age. The warming of the 1930′s nosedived in the 1940′s and bounced back in the 1980′s.

      If water vapour feedback work to maintains temperature homeostasis a weak version of AGW is still possible, but it might be difficult distinguish from the background natural climate variation.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Well here we Go!:

        “If out of 5 surgeons 4″

        Yep this is definitely a Warmer and he has shed his cover.

        KK


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Sean McHugh

        Wes George said to Jack:

        I can’t really keep up with all your arguments, because you’re setting up too many fronts to cover in a single comment.

        I think you are too kind. I don’t see the arguments, just a list of standard warmist assertions.

        Jack, if you are reading this, just let us know if you will be back. I would like to at least debate you on the assertion regarding polar bears.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Jack Jones

    Sean,

    I really don’t see why the accuracy or not of the original HS (13 years ago now) is relevant other than to the extent it may impact upon the current best science. Mann’s work could have been based on completely wrong assumptions and assisted in the growth of the “industry” as you coin it but if the current best science is broadly in agreement and therefore the “industry” has validity why does it practically matter?

    However, in answer to your question given that all the revised work I have seen is not materially different to Mann’s original output one would have to conclude (on the current evidence) that it was good science. If the current work suggested he was wrong it wouldn’be be.

    See below link on multiple temperature reconstructions

    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=2

    JJ


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Sean McHugh

      Jack,

      Well I think the HS was and is very significant but never valid. I do think it was always rubbish and I don’t believe it has been subsequently confirmed. I consider Michael (Piltdown) Mann to be deceitful and deserving of all the criticism he receives and more. I have always been an admirer of scientists and my bookshelf would attest. I am no admirer of the likes of Mann, Jones, Hanson, Trenberth, Flannery etc. etc. Isaac Newton said:

      If I have seen further it is by standing on ye sholders of Giants.

      The names I have mentioned (except for the last) form the dirt that genuine scientists need to tread on.

      Some things have come up which might delay proper reply till next week. It might be better to wait for the next open thread. I see that another poster has given given you some reply to the matter. Thanks, Wes.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Jack Jones

    “A quick review of your reply to Winston reveals that you’re proceeding based on a whole rash of unexamined assumptions that you lifted straight from the media, but didn’t bother to look into the evidence.”

    Wes – you (a) forgot the rules of engagement with Winston which I understood (since corrected by him) to not accepting journals etc as appropriate evidence so I didn’t include (b) make a completely baseless and erroneous statement that I relied on assumptions lifted from the media and (c) misunderstood or misread what I said as outlined below

    I never said that there was any evidence that extreme weather experienced to date has been caused by GW- I said there is a potential if GW occurs for it to have an impact on these events in the future – do you really believe there is no evidence that if average surface temperatures were to increase by 3C over the next 75 years then we wouldn’t have increases in extreme weather? If you shift the climate boundaries there has to be some impact on the weather within?

    An assertion (true or not) about historical manipulation about glacial melting data doesn’t impact on whether it is happening or not and, more relevantly for this discussion, whether it will happen in the future.

    Your statement about no increase in extreme weather is highly challengeable – you may dispute the veracity but there is some evidence – see below for one example.

    http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/full-report/national-climate-change

    The paper you cited (at least the extract) with regard to temperature in Greenland doesn’t say anything about artic sea ice and if glacier retreat is a proxy for warmth then from your paper it suggests only about half as much impact as today.

    “Over the 80 years, two events stand out: glacial retreats from 1933-1934 and 2000-2010. In the 1930s, fewer glaciers were melting than are today, and most of those that were melting were land-terminating glaciers, meaning that they did not contact the sea. Those that were melting retreated an average of 20 meters per year — the fastest retreating at 374 meters per year. Fifty-five percent of the glaciers in the study had similar or higher retreat rates during the 1930s than they do today. Still, more glaciers in southeast Greenland are retreating today, and the average ice loss is 50 meters per year. That’s because a few glaciers with very fast melting rates — including one retreating at 887 meters per year — boost the overall average.”

    You implore me to think rationally but even the evidence you provide doesn’t support your position.

    Can you please provide the evidence for the following statements?

    “The evidence for possible continued warming bodes well for underdeveloped nations who depend directly on each seasons crop success.”

    There is also some evidence that we might be entering a cyclical cooling period as well time to coincide with the high water mark of population in the developing world.”

    “True Believers simply believe, while skeptics demand to be shown how it works” – fine if you are baking a cake but what if you don’t understand enough to know what you are being shown is correct or not?

    One study in one year in one region I don’t think is sufficient to overturn the apple cart. I would agree that the feedback effect of clouds (but not water vapour) is the area of greatest current uncertainty in the science.

    Listened to Dr Evans (again). Please refute the following commentary on his presentation
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/David-Evans-All-at-Sea-about-Ocean-Warming-and-Sea-Level-Rise.html

    To be frank Wes if what you have provided in your comment is the basis for why you hold the position you do versus the enormous weight of evidence to the contrary it is completely underwhelming.

    JJ


    Report this

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      He’s out folks.

      He’s a warmer!

      It’s all over.

      This was never about his management of a portfolio of weather sensitive farming ventures.

      What a load of codds-waffle.

      KK


      Report this

      00

    • #
      wes george

      The paper you cited (at least the extract) with regard to temperature in Greenland doesn’t say anything about artic sea ice and if glacier retreat is a proxy for warmth then from your paper it suggests only about half as much impact as today.

      Yeah, it’s a proxy. The 1930′s warm period was comparable to the melt of 2000-2010. Try to remember the case you are defending is for catastrophic CO2-induced warming, not warming about the same as witnessed many times in the past at much lower levels of atmospheric CO2.

      Logically the modern arctic warming is not evidence for AGW, much less CAGW, as long as we can show similar warm periods occurred in the pass without 390ppm CO2.

      The fact that modern warming is roughly the same as ~1930 and that the Medieval Warming Period was probably much warmer, calls for a climate hypothesis that can explain BOTH modern warming and past warming. AGW doesn’t explain the warming of 1930 or the MWP and so as a hypothesis is not particularly useful.

      Let’s go to the other end of the planet now…

      Southern elephant seals currently do not have breeding or moulting sites within the Ross Sea, which is considerably south of their primary habitat in the Subantarctic. In previous work, we discovered that the seals once occupied large areas of the Victoria Land coast at times between about 500 and 7000 years ago. We believe that the presence or absence of elephant seals in this region is largely due to the extent and duration of sea-ice cover. The coast today is locked in land-fast ice, but must have been ice-free when the seals were present.

      http://climatechange.umaine.edu/Research/Expeditions/2006/seals/index.html

      So much for Michael Mann’s attempt to flatten out the MWP.

      Mann knew that the only way that modern warming could be caused entirely by CO2 was to show that at no time in the past was the world as warm today. Otherwise, the AGW hypothesis has failed a basic test of its most important implication, which is that CO2 increases causes warming. With modern CO2 levels at historic highs, according to the AGW hypothesis today’s warming must be unprecedented. The past must have been one long cool “climate stasis” during the later part of the Holocene. The MWP, Roman warming, Mycenaean warming and the Akkadian collapse can’t be explained by the AGW hypothesis, all periods that might well have been upwards of 1c warmer than today.

      http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

      And if the world during past warm periods was as warm or up to 1c warmer than today, then why didn’t the water vapour positive feedback on warming kick in and warm the planet even more and keep it warm?

      What do you call a hypothesis which does not useful describe the phenomena it was designed to illuminate?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      It is worth re-reading what Jack said here about receding glaciers:

      ““Over the 80 years, two events stand out: glacial retreats from 1933-1934 and 2000-2010. In the 1930s, fewer glaciers were melting than are today, and most of those that were melting were land-terminating glaciers, meaning that they did not contact the sea. Those that were melting retreated an average of 20 meters per year — the fastest retreating at 374 meters per year. Fifty-five percent of the glaciers in the study had similar or higher retreat rates during the 1930s than they do today. Still, more glaciers in southeast Greenland are retreating today, and the average ice loss is 50 meters per year. That’s because a few glaciers with very fast melting rates — including one retreating at 887 meters per year — boost the overall average.”

      You implore me to think rationally but even the evidence you provide doesn’t support your position.”

      End of Quote.

      The reason I have put that up there is for contrast.

      Jack is caught up in the micro analysis of current glacier melt which is a very vexed topic.

      For a little perspective I offer this:

      A thought experiment in the Real World.

      Go back to the building of the great Pyramid about 4,560 years ago. The Earth’s oceans were roughly where they are now in terms of level, but over the previous one or two thousand years had dropped by about 1.2 metres to their present level.

      Now we go back another 1500 years and the Sea levels has just ended the massive rise associated with the great melt: they rose 119 metres in the previous 12,000 years; a massive rise.

      Now go back to the start of the melt or 20,000 years before present. If we were in the vicinity of New York Central Park we would be standing on an ice field with a depth of 1500 metres.

      All of that ice has melted, in the process the oceans rose a total or near 130 metres.

      Now that is melting ice.

      The current advance and retreat of glaciers is piffling by comparison and in light of the forces at work can currently be considered to be extremely stable.

      What I am saying is that there is little or no perspective offered with alarmist comments on glacier melt in 2012.

      The current worry about glacier melt is a bit like obsessing over a glass full of ice cubes melting – not real important in the scheme of things.

      We are currently in a warm, interglacial period which is usually very short compared with the length of the normal ice age which is coming.

      They run to 80,000 years or more and the next one will not be pleasant as there is not enough room for Earth’s entire population to live in the Equatorial or temperate zones when it arrives.

      Human origin CO2 is incapable of having any effect on the Earths climate and is incapable of delaying or moderating the next ice age.

      The current alarmist/political/power focus on Man made CO2 as a driving force in our weather is farcical and needs to be confronted by all scientists.

      Sadly, as has been pointed out very eloquently in this blog just recently(was it Wes?) scientists employed in the CSIRO and government departments cannot speak up and expect to hold their job.

      This is a world wide problem – it is spooky to think that so many intelligent people have been silenced. In the USA a couple of high profile people from previous administrations did speak out and lost their jobs.

      The message has been sent.

      Shut Up.

      Toe the line.

      Get us Elected / re-Elected.

      We want access to the treasury.

      KK


      Report this

      00

      • #
        wes george

        That’s an excellent point, KinkyKeith. One we tend to forget, because we allowed non-Earth scientists with political agendas set the terms of the debate.

        My father was a geologist and I was raised in an environment where the main intellectual focus was on the history of the Earth. Back then in the 1970′s and 80′s it would have been inconceivable to talk about glaciation or sea levels or the Earth’s climate without constant reference to the geologic timescale.

        Thanks for reminding us that the even the Earth’s recent history is not measured in years but millennia. My dear old Dad, had he lived to hear this debate, would have laughed his ass off at the thought we were following the retreat of glaciers and sea ice on a month by month basis at the top of the Holocene interglacial with wringing hands and furrowed brows.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    wes george

    “True Believers simply believe, while skeptics demand to be shown how it works” – fine if you are baking a cake but what if you don’t understand enough to know what you are being shown is correct or not?

    My wife throws me out of the kitchen because serious baking recipes assume a level of prerequisite cooking skills even to read, much less execute. So I bow to her authority.

    I’m a layperson, I can’t do the statistics, the physics or the basic research myself, but we can follow the arguments and counter-arguments just like in any logical debate. In the final analysis, yes we are dependent upon the experts, even the experts are dependent upon experts in other fields. We do this all the time in political debates about complex issues about the economy, health care and defence issues.

    There is a vast difference between simply counting up how many experts are on each side and then declaring that as evidence for which side is more likely to be correct rather than listening to ALL arguments for their merits.

    It’s in the oppositional to and fro of the debate that “truth” becomes approachable, not simply adopting the loudest point of view.

    There is so much more to say about consensus.

    For instance, I believe the consensus is largely a false construct based on my own anecdotal experience with several friends who work in Canberra, in the CSIRO and one in the university system as an academic. Although none are climate scientists, all work for institutions that fall under the banner of the consensus. None of them think that CAGW is a real threat, but not a single one feels free to speak their minds at work, because they know it will hurt their career prospects. (Although my academic friend has become increasingly cheeky about it recently.)

    I’ve been told that it is not possible to work for the CSIRO or BOM and publicly proclaim your climate skepticism. So how is it honest to say these organisations are truly part of the consensus when their own employees are more like union members during a show of hands in a bitter labor dispute. You damn well vote with the majority, mofo.

    In 2009, I met a mate in a Canberra pub and when we got around to the climate debate, he started to glance around and talk in whispers because the place was pack with the after work bureaucrat crowd. It was like we were in a spy movie. When I told him about something at WUWT, he said it would be safer to log on to a gay porno site at his government office than WUWT. That’s how deep the closet is.

    You go to skepticalscience or desmog and you can hear the crickets cripping. Jo’s blog is busting out with half a million views a year in a country of 22 million.

    Will the real consensus please stand up, and that’s the only consensus that counts, since consensus is political, not scientific.

    There won’t be a carbon tax in Australia in two years time if the voice of the consensus is heard.

    Meanwhile, the joke down at the local bakery, which had to raise its prices is “We did it because of the carbon tax, but sssshhhhh don’t tell anybody ’cause the PM will have us arrested.”

    I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

    Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

    In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

    Caltech lecture by Michael Cricton


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Winston

      Is it just me Wes, or are we attracting a better class of trolls lately? JJ was so nice and well spoken (after his initial faux pas, anyway), I quite liked him. But, if he is in Agriculture futures I’ll eat my hat. Unfortunately, the medical analogy really was a bit lame, while talk of insurance policies for every what if scenario was highly erroneous logic, and that is being kind. And the polar bears, don’t get me started on the polar bears. Still, nice guy. I hope he visits me in the gulag when the time comes. I suspect somewhere in the recesses of his unconscious he may have room for some doubt that all he accepts as true may not be as incontrovertible as he might like. Some of his answers suggest he may acknowledge at least some of these are at least open to contention, which is more perceptive than some.

      I congratulate him for broadly encapsulating the warmist philosophy and position, but it all revolves around “if we are correct in our beliefs then this will happen, so we better take precautions” type of argument that bypasses whether or not the position is actually a valid one backed up by sufficient evidence, and whether there is enough time to further analyse the preliminary predictions made to see if a more refined understanding may alter the basic premise, or the timetable or even the need for so called “action”. With static global temperatures for 14 to 15 years, there is quite obviously time to make the most thoughtful and best decisions if any, and not rush into precipitous or counterproductive responses which fail to address the supposed “alarming” concerns raised. I would respectfully suggest that those who call for haste do so out of less than pure ulterior motives.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Jack Jones

    Winston/Wes,

    Thanks for the civil discussion which I have found very interesting (it is genuinely the first time I have participated in a blog of any sort and I have probably gone over the top in some of my responses) and it has certainly made me examine much more closely the basis for what I believe. In terms of anything substantive it has also left me thinking that I need to much better understand the potential broader impacts of climate change from an economic perspective.

    Winston – if you mean by agricultural futures do I invest with others in commercial agriculture ventures then you have some hat munching ahead of you (actual farming too not associated logistics or services). I am not a commodities trader and am not a big fan of hedging generally other than short term FX. Not sure why I would make this up by the way as it doesn’t exactly give me any particular insight or credibility just a motivation that I otherwise wouldn’t have had to try to make the best informed decisions.

    All the best – may your days be pleasantly warm and nights refreshingly cool,

    JJ


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Winston

      Jack,
      It has been pleasant chatting with you. I have a homburg at the ready with a nice Pinot to wash it down. This complex question of CO2 and its alleged ill effects has been so distorted IMO by human malfeasance and vested interests that I don’t believe Science will recover in my generation and possibly beyond. I am extremely saddened by that and genuinely concerned for the future health of our society as a consequence. However, I have taken on board some of your statements (even some of the more dubious ones) and hope you have genuinely had some cause to skeptically analyse some of those assumptions in the “settled science” to which we were referring. Certainly if I didn’t deem this an important and defining issue I would not waste my valuable time commenting.

      There is quite a lot at stake here, and I believe rigid application of principles needs to be adhered to, with objectivity, empiricism and transparency high on the list of priorities. As to economics, the principle that applies best is “follow the money” but beware that “bait and switch” is the oldest con in the book. Scam artists have to gain your confidence first by giving the “mark” a small token of their desire, then pulling the rug out from under the unwitting when they take their eye off the ball. Don’t be naive and buy into the Green renewable dream too readily, because you might get your fingers burnt when it all ends in tears.

      Good night and good luck.

      Winston


      Report this

      00

  • #
    wes george

    Winston,

    LOL, I hope Jack visits me in the gulag too! Maybe he can sneak us in some tobacco. I don’t smoke, but I suppose I’d take it up if detained for re-education. Might even get a Jo Nova tattoo in prison.

    Jack’s not a troll just because he disagrees with us. A troll is someone like Maxine who just pops in shouts some abuse to attract attention then moves on giggling. You know, like kids dumping liquid soap in the town fountain or stuffing mailboxes with beer cans. Trolls never defend a position.

    He’s got his reasons for believing as he does. We disagree. That’s what living in a free country is all about, to have the freedom to disagree within the bounds of a rational debate and still respect each other’s right to exist.

    I have the utmost respect for Jack Jones for having the balls to come into a totally hostile space and putting forth his arguments with eloquence.

    I understand his slight defensiveness tinged with a tad bit of snark. He knows his comments will be attacked here by all. It’s one against us all. I have the same defensive attitude when I post on the few warmists sites I’m not already banned from commenting on. I tip my hat to Jack Jones and wish that he would visit here more often to keep us honest.

    Btw, Winston, I enjoyed reading your comments here, you’ve made some great point in the debate with Jack.

    I’m not finished with Jack yet.

    There is still the greatest of all unexamined assumptions that Jack hangs onto as if it were an axiom of nature that we haven’t dealt with yet.

    But it will have to wait for tomorrow.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Winston

      Thanks Wes,

      We often seem to be on the same or at least a similar page. Enjoy your learned comments immensely, as I do many other posters here, even those whose point of view differs sometimes widely from my own. I take the attitude that I hope to learn as much as I can here, impart some of my general perspectives for what they are worth, and hopefully influence some of those lurking here in some small way to at least think about the broader implications of climate policy and also the dangerous game being played by our lords and masters, both economic and political. As you say, JJ on the face of it seems cut from a different cloth than Maxine or the like (so troll is a bit derogatory in retrospect), and the galvanizing nature of the collision of opposing ideas is one of the central tenets of my philosophy, and often a pathway to clearer understanding as opposed to collaboration among like minded individuals alone.

      A bientot, mon ami.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    Winston/Wes/KK/Jack,
    You have been indulging in rational discussion. This is irrelevant to the political problem that we face.
    The insanity of the CO2 scare is that it is supported at all levels of government in AU. Both ALP and LNP in their platforms say that CO2 is a nasty thing.
    Rational deduction, reason, logic and empirical observations are ignored. The political die has been cast. The problem we face is how to change the politics to a state where reason rather than dogma provides the agenda.
    Dogma versus reason: these two have been at war for thousands of years and at the moment it appears that reason is losing.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi inedible.

      The longer Jack was drawn out the more it became possible to see his “core’ beliefs.

      Our grandchildren , for example, are in great danger if we don’t cut CO2 emissions etc etc ….

      Was just curious to see where it would lead.

      I’m not sure I give any credibility to his supposed role as a “farmer” and agree that this is just tax collecting dressed up as a

      “noble cause”.

      KK


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Winston

        this is just tax collecting dressed up as a

        “noble cause”.

        Agreed KK,

        But it was a reasonable debate with him after a shaky start, and at least he was prepared to make concessions of uncertainty. I’m torn between my desire to engage people like JJ who may be genuine, but of a different set of beliefs, and the anger one feels that such debates are usually so one-sided and manipulative with the usual alarmist crowd, while those in positions of influence are unwilling to openly and honestly engage on any level at all. I have no doubt there was more to JJ than met the eye, but its OK to engage in civil and well-mannered disagreements of this nature- you never know, he may just have his curiosity piqued to look into the skeptical side of things more open-mindedly as a result. There are some ex-warmists out there, and just like swinging voters they are a pretty important demographic.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Hi Winston

          Yes he was different and did provide sensible answers to the CO2 mechanism which showed he had at least looked at the parts of the problem ; so credit there.

          You and Wes did produce a lot of very good stuff so the interaction with JJ was also profitable in making us all think a bit sharper.

          KK


          Report this

          00

  • #
    behalfacre

    ANY person who is listening to either ABC or commercial networks for news or facts about what is REALLY happening, ” has no idea what is going on”. Tazzy


    Report this

    00