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



Jo Nova in The Australian: Manne is anti-science on climate

I’m published this weekend in The Australian (building on the post I did previously here.  Manne himself popped in there to tell us “Deniers Hunt in Packs” — demonstrating his true depth of insight into the libertarian independent psyche — a group defined by it’s non-pack nature.)

—————————————————————–
Manne declares that the “Denialists are Victorious” (in The Monthly, August 2012) but his sole reasoning that the victorious are “deniers” is merely that some chosen experts tell us a disaster is coming and he feels they could not possibly be wrong. Argument from authority is a fallacy known for 2,000 years, and it is a key point, it is the disguise of the witchdoctor — “Trust me, I am the chosen one”. The one defining difference between science and religion is that the devout can argue from authority, but the scientific cannot. In science there are no Gods and there is no Bible — what matters is the evidence. The highest experts may declare the world is headed for catastrophe, but if 3,000 thermometers in ocean buoys disagree (and they do: see “Argo”), the scientist questions the opinions and goes with the observations.

Robert Manne thinks internet surveys of scientists are a valid way to test whether planetary atmospheric dynamics is changing in dangerous and unprecedented ways. It’s an anti-science position. Since the dawn of time tribal witchdoctors have been forecasting storms and asking us to pay tribute to their idols. Discussion of climate science has descended into abject farce.

To understand the danger of quoting surveys of scientists, let’s look at the three Manne names.

The first (Anderegg) is a blacklist of “good guys” and “bad guys” in the world of science. It doesn’t measure the climate, but it is a reasonable proxy for government grants. Just add up the salaries of all the believers vs the unconvinced and the ratio would be similar. The US government bestowed $79 billion (1990 – 2009) on scientists who looked for a crisis, but very little on those looking for natural causes or holes in the theory. It is a non-event of no proportions that there are more believers publishing papers than skeptics, and the ratio is similar to the funding (though quite a few skeptics manage to publish despite having no tenure, no staff, and no easy access to data.) The number of papers tells us nothing about the quality of the research, it’s not that hard to write papers that are largely irrelevant or repetitive, or the output of another flawed climate simulation.


His approved “climate scientists” might as well be a list of anointed preachers of the Cult of Climate Science. The esteemed?

The second, Doran and Zimmerman was a 2 minute survey sent to 10,257 scientists, but the figure of “97% of climate scientists” only came from 77 people who were deemed to be “qualified” (75 of 77 agreed). Climate Scientists are failing to convince scientists from other disciplines (who usually have no vested interest the outcome.) The petition project shows that 31,500 scientists (including 9,000 PhDs) disagree with the 75 in the government anointed official climate science positions. The petition does not tell us about the “truth” of the climate either, but it rather makes a mockery of the idea of a consensus. Sure, the opinion of a climate scientist is worth more than the opinion of a physicist, but is each climate scientist worth more than 420 other scientists? Who knows? The answer to that is that it’s a stupid question. We won’t know anything for sure about the effect of trace gases by researching opinions of hominids. Instead we ought pay attention to weather balloons and satellites, or ice cores and pollen assays.

Manne also quotes Naomi Orsekes, author of The Merchants of Doubt, her work was equivalent to a google search on words in scientific papers. Again, confused researchers study proxies for grants instead of proxies for temperature. Oreskes and Manne posit the unlikely conspiracy that oil funds dominate the debate, (as if Exxon were funding thousands of dissenting scientists).  Government funding out-spends the oil giants by 3500 to 1 (or more) and that most oil giants like Shell and BP mostly support alarmism and carbon markets in any case. Oreskes can name virtually no significant funding for skeptics, who are almost all unpaid volunteers, working out of professional and patriotic duty, appalled by the illogical, anti-science sentiments of people like Oreskes and Manne.

Manne treats climate scientists as if they are infallible Gods of Science. They-who-must-not-be-questioned have issued their decree and anyone who questions it is a denier. Manne’s petty name-calling shows how unintellectual his arguments are.

This adulation of individuals and tests of character, “success”, or popularity is the anti-thesis of what the great brains-trust of science ought to do. In science all minds test their theories against the universe, and only the real world matters. The petty world of human reputations is steeped in bias and conflicts of interest with personality defects and political power grabs, not to mention the corrupting influence of money. Science achieved vast success for civilization by freeing us from exactly this cess-pool of complexity, to rise above the posturing and consider only impartial observations.

There is a good reason the club of climate scientists are failing to convince other scientists — their evidence is weak — and any good scientist can see that.

Science is not a democracy. Natural laws don’t form because anyone says so, and the only way to find out the answer is to … look at the measurements from the planet, not from the people.

Jo Nova

Joanne Nova is a graduate in molecular biology and former associate lecturer in science communication at ANU. Her blog is read by 450,000 people a year from 200 countries: joannenova.com.au

 

{This version above may differ from The Australian’s — It’s has the original links to sources – but their final version may have edits. – Jo)

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (146 votes cast)
Jo Nova in The Australian: Manne is anti-science on climate , 9.1 out of 10 based on 146 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/93loo9f

278 comments to Jo Nova in The Australian: Manne is anti-science on climate

  • #
    Mark D.

    Deniers hunt in packs? What interesting insights could one gain by dissecting his choice for words? Manne must have thought this would have some impact with some group but whom and why?

    Is this an extension of the bogus suggestion that we have made threats?

    Is he smearing us by implying that we are violent?

    Probably Rereke would be able to apply the propaganda processor to this expression but certainly these are not words designed for moving towards conciliation now are they.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Tom

      As with everything else he has written on the subject, Manne’s theory that deniers “hunt in packs” is offered as a personal prejudice without evidence. I suspect that most sceptics, like me,have spent hundreds of hours independently reading up on the subject and have come to the oonclusion that the “science” is spurious and contemptible and is not supported by real-world observation, but by an invented reality delivered through modelling of the doomsaying required to justify a lavish stream of government funding.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        My comment on that thread in response to Manne: If there was a purpose (and I’m not sure there was) it was to bait skeptics and fish for a skeptic who lost their cool.

        “Robert is apparently not here for erudite discussion of the evidence, he is baiting commenters with petty insults. Perhaps he hopes they will get angry, fodder for his next article? (I’m pleased people aren’t taking that bait).”

        “Note to Robert, you can hurl baseless names in magazines that accept them, but here we aim higher. We speak English and talk science. Please define “denialist” in that context – we’d like to help you – really, but we think you are referring to some other group.”


        Report this

        00

        • #
          turnrdoutnice

          Bit of an update on the science. What was perplexing me was that according to the 2009 Trenberth Energy Budget there is 23 W/m^2 measured IR absorption by the lower atmosphere. To this is added an imaginary 94.5 W/m^2 from the stupid IPCC assumptions about heat transfer. The latter is the origin of the false claim of positive feedback.

          The reality is that every observation fits an entirely different model. GHGs turn off IR band emission at the warmer surface. The residual IR is from H2O ‘sideband’ emission. Because this swamps the sideband emission from the CO2, other than somewhere like the Atacama Desert, there can be no CO2-AGW, no amplification by the water cycle, a fixed GHE set by the first ~900 ppmV H2O.

          This acts by bunching the IR emission sites to the ‘atmospheric window’. A similar process operates with clouds, where the absorbed IR is indirectly thermalised and much of it shifted to the atmospheric window. The latter is a cooling process which will vary depending on cloud area.

          The reason why this physics has not been picked up before is that climate science has been obsessed by the Aarhenius’ ‘absorbing blanket’ model, which cannot exist. Also most if not all IR data involve the interaction of emitter and detector. Thus a DOWN IR spectrum is not real in that it involves interaction of the spectrometer entry slit, a black body cavity very different from the Earth’s surface.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi TON

            I have never been a fan of that sort of analysis where attempts are made to account for ALL energy in the system.

            It just can’t be done. There are too many factors.

            The best approach is to isolate individual systems or elements of the claims about CAGW.

            The basic physics does not support any contention that CO in any shape or form can cause AGW.

            It is scientific illiteracy.

            KK :)


            Report this

            00

          • #
            cohenite

            Hi TON, you refer to the ‘competition’ between H2O and CO2, in the overlapping wavelengths for IR.; have you seen these papers which establish that when water and CO2 are overlapping that less emissivity occurs then when they are seperate?

            http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/EGU2011-4505-1.pdf

            http://thesis.library.caltech.edu/2809/1/Lapp_m_1960.pdf

            http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Bands.html


            Report this

            00

          • #
            turnrdoutnice

            Thanks Cohenite, this is not my area and I have been asked to write this important paper pronto.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Was prepared to let most of that go until I choked on this:

            Also most if not all IR data involve the interaction of emitter and detector. Thus a DOWN IR spectrum is not real in that it involves interaction of the spectrometer entry slit, a black body cavity very different from the Earth’s surface.

            So you’re saying that every company that sells spectrometers is a fraud?

            The entry slit of an upwards-looking spectrometer creates an IR interaction with a blackbody which is not the same as the IR interaction with the real non-blackbody earth behind it and this imposter interaction leads to an estimate of incoming IR that is false and cannot ever be adjusted or calibrated to generally produce a correct measurement and therefore only the IR photons that do NOT interact with the spectrometer can establish The One True Interaction and therefore no spectrometer anywhere works as advertised.

            Want to try again with that Slayer nonsense? It’s radiative postmodernism. ~ “We will never know the world as it truly is because we can only see things from our own perspective.”

            How about: measuring the incoming IR with (eg) CCDs or PRTs gives a signal that can be corrected with empirically-determined parameters (eg the temperature of the CCD) to produce an accurate measurement of incoming IR flux density regardless of what happens to non-intercepted IR, regardless of what happens to IR after it is absorbed by the CCD, regardless of the albedo of the emitter or target’s background, and regardless of whether thermodynamic equilibrium is ever established between detector and emitter.
            In other words, whilst IR thermometers rely on blackbody theory, IR spectrometers do not.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          wes george

          Jo, although it’s most effective to use the term “anti-science” to describe Robert Manne’s position on climate – especially when space is limited to a newspaper article – a close read of Manne’s article shows that he’s more properly ascientific.

          Ascientific in the same sense as amoral… to be without science.

          Robert Manne proved he’s scientifically illiterate. He’s obvious never heard of the scientific method or studied epistemology or the foundations of logic, which support rational inquiry. His article is testament to his unfamiliarity with science 101.

          Yet through out his article he heartily gives lip service to his naive and inaccurate caricature of science, which as he describes it is a bit like a cargo cult. An anointed priesthood with uncanny powers delivers manna from heaven to us mere mortals through the magic of science. Who are we to question this magical source of all valid knowledge?

          To understand Manne’s climate position as guilelssly ascientific and “prelogical” rather than purposeful “anti-science,” better sheds light on the most elemental animating force behind the Climate Millenarian and Green movement in general, which as John Brookes and MattB regularly illustrate in their comments can only flourish in an environment where our education system has failed to teach a whole generation of school kids what science is and how it works.

          I’m sure there are some truly anti-science thinkers out there, but to be one you would, by definition, have to at least vaguely understand that which you were against. Clearly Robert Manne and vast majority of climate alarmists and greens do not fit this description.

          Note the similarity of ritual in the pointless exercise of the Carbon Tax with that of Tanna Island’s Cargo Cult. The Greens are waiting for John Frum to come back.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            cohenite

            So what you’re saying wes, is that Manne is a genuine fool, rather than one who understands and rejects and/or deceives in his rejection of real scientific criticism of the AGW evidence?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            wes george

            Cohenite. I extend to Robert Manne the benefit of the doubt that he’s being fair dinkum with us. A courtesy he refused to do for the skeptics in his article. Besides, the evidence is that Manne is daft rather than schemingly sinister, otherwise the article wouldn’t have transparently omitted a warmist review of the science.

            Here’s Robert Manne’s thesis in his own words:

            For reasonable citizens there ought to be no question easier to answer than whether or not human-caused climate change is real and is threatening the future of the Earth.

            Now let’s see some evidence for that thesis.

            Thousand of climate scientists in various discrete disciplines have been studying the issue for decades. They have reach a consensus conclusion whose existence is easily demonstrated.

            Consensus isn’t evidence of anything more than a sociological phenomena. Please get on with demonstating that AGW is real and threatens the future of the Earth.

            Every authoritative national scientific body in the world supports the idea of human caused global warming.

            That’s that nice everyone is in agreement, but what about demonstrating AGW with some evidence? In fact, one could say that ALL skeptics also support the idea that the Earth has warmed in the last 150 and some fraction of that warming is probably anthropogenic. Cut the BS, Bob.

            If a citizen is not convinced by this alone then three studies have been conducted that show an overwhelming consensus.

            So that’s it? That’s all you got? A bloody consensus??? A good citizen is suppose to just take your word for it? You aren’t going to review the science for us?

            Sounds more and more like a con job to me.

            I demand to see the evidence!

            A rational citizen has little alternative but to accept the consensual core position of the climate scientists. Discussion of this point should have ended long ago.

            Hello, Earth to Bob…You have no right to limit our access to the evidence. A rational citizen has the right to review the scientific evidence before we accept the consensual core position of a handful of climate scientists.

            Discussion of this point should have ended long ago. That is has not is the most pervasion example possible of the feebleness of reason, the futility of argument and the failure of politics.

            OK, game over. Robert Manne is admitting he hasn’t a clue what the evidence is for CAGW.

            Read this line again:

            They (climate scientists) have reached a consensusal conclusion whose existence is easily demonstrated.

            Manne never even bothered to look at the science, for him evidence for a climatological phenomena is empirically proven by measuring the depth of the consensual conclusion. And he can’t even get that measurement right!

            So you see it’s far worse than we thought.

            Not only is Robert Manne logically daft and scientifically illiterate, he also represent some kind of crypto-totalitarian gestalt that has recently taken hold of our Leftist intelligensia and will only grow once “democracy fails” when Tony Abbott is elected the next PM.

            Manne says he’s given up on reason and rational debate and the political processes of our constitutional democracy. What Manne is implying here is that we need to have socioeconomic-based environmental policy imposed from above by an unelected technocracy that need not explain anything to Manne’s citizens. Why? Because Australians are too stupid to evaluate facts for themselves in a free society and then vote their minds. We simply can’t be trusted to do the right thing.

            The rest of Manne’s long article is dedicated to smearing skeptics as evil denialists whose goal is to destroy the planet, a bit like villians in a James Bond blockbuster.

            Dehumanising skeptics as the evil “other” further reinforces Manne’s diatribe as setting up a narrative for future authoritarian statist policies, such as curtailing the right to free expression for those who challenge climate change policies and restricting access to scientific databases subject to state approved.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Thanks for the reminder about worrying.

        Need to find a way around the mental blockage called worry.

        KK


        Report this

        00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          On the score of worry.

          People who inhabit the perimenter of Lake Macquarie have been dealt a blow from the endorsement of “Sea Level Affected” comments on their section 149 certificates by the Local Council.

          Their properties are marked as liable to be engulfed by rising seas associated with Climate Change and have lost substantial amounts in the valuation basically to appease the God of Greenie Stupidity.

          This morning I went to the Speers Point rally headed by speakers Bob Carter and Stewart Franks and was able to say hello to both

          before they spoke to those affected and listen to them put some perspective on the issue.

          A couple of greenies were present and gloating at the relatively low turnout.

          This predicament is a worry to the small number affected but is an embarrassment to all of us that these people are in so much pain.

          For nothing.

          How did we become so unguarded as to let the festering monster of Global Warming become so bloody nasty.

          Why, in a nominal democracy, are we so unable to bring justice and restoration to the people whose lives have been so blighted by unfair treatment.

          Politics is truly an ugly animal when a Nothing mythical meme like CAGW can become the justification for this sort of preemptive sea level nonsense.

          KK


          Report this

          00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            As a followup to this matter it is worth reporting the publicity that resulted from this rally.

            In the local TV coverage by NBN there were distant shots of the crowd (this avoids seeing the distressed faces and hence

            emotional involvement with all the old people); neither of the two scientific commentators, Bob Carter and Stewart Franks,

            were shown nor mentioned.

            There was , however, a close up interview with the mayor of Lake Macquarie, who stated that it was basically impossible that

            this zoning could affect property values. Unfortunately if you are unable to sell your proerty iyt has NO VALUE regardless of

            the Valuer Generals assessment.

            It is obvious that the Mayor was addressing the Green Constituency of the electorate and all of those whose lives had been

            decimated were just “collateral damage”.

            It is worth noting the this council has a very strong Climate Activist department.

            All of these useless parasites which are attached to all levels of government from Local to federal have just about brought

            the carcase of Democracy in Australia to its knees.

            KK


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Plain Jane

            Lake Macquarie are a bat crazy green totalitarian council who started working on the Rio Earth summit and Agenda 21 movement the second it came out. Our family has had stolen from it over 1m land value by Lake Macquarie green laws. I dont live there any more. I feel sorry for you (and ourselves). Makes one very very very angry.

            Many people think their councils are bad. Lake Macquarie must be one of the worst.

            it is not about “green” or “nice” it is about power and money.

            There are not a small number of people affected by the “Green” policies of Lake Macquairie council in the wider sense, there are a huge number. There are over 3000 blocks of land that cant be used in the southern part of the council area and the northern part of wyong shire. That is under the guise of not overdeveloping – it includes blocks of land that have been in one family for around 150 years. That is only one.

            Actually Im probably still affected by the same laws as you as my parents house is near a large brackish creek and I am sure that if we ever have to sell it the house will be affected by that stupid council regulation. So we will have had one property confiscated to provide Kyoto protocol credits and the other devalued in homage to global green stupidity.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Jane

            Sorry to hear that.

            I live in Newcastle LG Area but we also have Klimate Krap and rampant PC approach by Councillors.

            If you still have the property live in hope.

            The wonderful thing about humanity is that it is like an overturned yacht.

            It can right itself. There may be light at the end of the tunnel.

            Until the next delusion.

            KK


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            Councils often do things because they are forced to under legislation. Which does not absolve the facts of what and how they implement any particular compliance to a law. Nor do they put forward a case for a law to be poorly representative of the problem (get the law repealed).

            Once legislation is passed, either by Canberra or the States, local Council’s will (usually) try to comply as best they can. Often the laws are so difficult understand that their attempt at compliance might miss the point altogether. We’re all human.

            What I’m saying is that the Council’s don’t invent the problem laws in the first place. They are more often compelled to adhere to the laws which somebody else makes up. Dumb laws create dumb results. It is a shame that Council’s don’t fight dumb laws, or burdensome laws more actively.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            cohenite

            KK, I’m sorry I wasn’t there; I had meant to come but other issues required my presence.

            Greens gloating at the distress of others; never truer words were said.

            In the upcoming elections in Newcastle, vote for McCloy; he definitely is a sceptic; the rest are spineless and will deal with the Greens.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            AndyG55

            @ KK

            Ah Stewart Franks. Great guy, but that darn accent ;-) )
            And I doubt there are many in Australia that know as much about climate patterns.

            Wish I’d known about it, I would have tried to get there.

            @ Cohenite

            McCloy is also one of the good guys, a highly practical, no-nonsense sort of guy, who actually does stuff !!!

            And yes. Newy and the Lake definitely need to get rid of the Green element out of council and try to find ways around the general regressive green agenda


            Report this

            00

          • #

            All of these useless parasites which are all levels of government from Local to federal have just about brought

            Fixed it for ya.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Mike

            Re your “fix”.

            I was thinking they were “attached” as in fleas and ticks.

            Bloodsuckers.

            KK


            Report this

            00

          • #

            It’s Greens that hunt in packs, that’s why they get bigger rallys. Greens such as AGW alarmists are predominantly (although by no means exclusively) collectivists, whereas skeptics are predominantly (although by no means exclusively) individualists. This is because collectivists are inclined to surrender their individual judgements to group authorities and are attracted to any problem, real or manufactured, that can be used to justify government intervention to make everyone fall into line with their groupthink. Individualists are inclined to make up their own minds and are suspicious of governments who want to take away their freedom to make their own judgements. So (contrary to one of Manne’s many stupidities) individualist skeptics’ are less inclined to join packs to demonstrate and pressure governments than collectivist alarmists are. While collectivist alarmists are rallying, individualist skeptics are busy getting on with their own lives (and paying taxes that fund the former). But even individualists need to get together to protect themselves against predatory packs – so thanks to those who do.


            Report this

            00

      • #

        Worry – a propaganda tool to enslave us – was fortunately detected by a few astute reporters like our host !

        Here’s the rest of the story: Conclusion from Climategate:

        When we encounter Reality, Truth, God, we respond with:

        a.) Fear and ignorance if filled with false pride, or
        b.) Reverence and knowledge if we have humility.

        This was reflected in differences between consensus [1] and one dissenting [2] response to the abrupt release of energy (E) stored as mass (m) from the cores of heavy atoms [3] over Hiroshima and Nagasaki sixty-seven years ago (Aug 2012 – Aug 1946 = 67 yrs):

        The fearful response of one famous theoretical physicist explains the consensus to establish the United Nations and save the world in Oct 1945: Dr. C. F. von Weisäcker [1] asked: “What should we do? We played with fire like children and it flared up before we expected it.” (page 335)

        A nuclear scientist from the Imperial University of Toyko, Dr. Kazuo Kuroda [2] expressed a dissenting opinion: “One day in August 1945, while standing in the ruins of Hiroshima, I became overwhelmed by the power of nuclear energy.” (page 2)

        “The sight before my eyes was just like the end of the world, but I also felt that the beginning of the world may have been just like this.” (page 2)

        Unaltered measurements and observations since 1945 have confirmed [3] the validity of Kuroda’s conclusion [2], and the futility of using consensus science [1] to try to obscure Reality, Truth, God.

        References:

        [1] Robert Jungk (aka Robert Baum), Brighter than a Thousand Suns: A Personal History of the Atomic Scientists (Mariner Books, October 1970, 384 pages) http://www.amazon.com/Brighter-than-Thousand-Suns-Scientists/dp/0156141507

        [2] (Paul) Kazuo Kuroda, The Origin of the Chemical Elements and the Oklo Phenomenon (Springer Publishing, December 1982, 165 pages). http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Chemical-Elements-Oklo-Phenomenon/dp/3540116796

        [3] Oliver K. Manuel, “Neutron repulsion,” The Apeiron Journal 19, 123-150 (2012) http://tinyurl.com/7t5ojrn

        PS – Two popular videos also illustrate the flawed basis of AGW propaganda:

        a.) http://tinyurl.com/4ysul36

        b.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcF75h4BHk8


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Oliver @1.2.2,

          The contrast between von Weisäcker and Kuroda is stunning when you realize how one saw only the glass being emptied and the other, even in the midst of all the destruction, saw it being filled.

          The greatness in mankind lies in our ability to rise above our fears. Yet so many can’t seem to do it.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Well, you did ask, Mark …

      When I first read about “hunting in packs”, I assumed he was referring to Wolf Packs.

      Mankind (gross generality, I know), seems to have hereditary collective fears of animals that are as intelligent and socially organised as Homo Sapiens. Wolves in Northern Europe and North America, are a good example. Wolves in Northern America were almost hunted to extinction. And Wolves were hunted to extinction in England. A royal bounty was placed on their heads (1).

      All races have these hereditary fears, and it is a common practice for political movements to use them for propaganda purposes. The Fascists if the Third Reich used the term for several military units, and Hitler’s mountain retreat was know as “The Wolf’s Lair”.

      But on deeper reflection, I think he is referring to the tendency that the blogosphere has, to collectively focus on “the issue of the day”, and then to move onto the next issue, as and when it arises. In a way, if you were on the receiving end, it would appear like an attack from all sides, the tactic preferred by Wolves.

      Of course the symbolism will not be lost in terms of its propaganda value, but it is as statement made from a position of defence and defeat, rather than from a position of strength and confidence.

      (1) The last wolf killed in England, died just outside the village of Paddington, in the area that is now a central borough of London. I have no idea why this interesting but useless fact has stayed in my mind.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Brian of Moorabbin

        Actually Rereke, Hitler’s mountain retreat, the Berghof, was known as The Eagle’s Nest.

        The Wolf’s Lair, or Wolfsschanze, was the building used as his headquarters for the invasion of Russia and the susequent campaign in the east.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Mankind (gross generality, I know), seems to have hereditary collective fears of animals that are as intelligent and socially organised as Homo Sapiens.

        Rereke,

        If wolves are as intelligent and as organized as Homo sapiens why did they suffer so much and the Homo sapiens so little by comparison?

        I understand why the wolf was feared, they are a dangerous predator and wrecked havoc with livestock. Even worse, they were a prized hunting trophy. But wait a minute here, as intelligent as humans? :-)


        Report this

        00

    • #
      ghl

      I suspect that it was a spur-of-the-moment attempt to associate deniers with pack scavengers. Don’t overthink this, I am sure he didn’t.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      mc

      Is this an extension of the bogus suggestion that we have made threats?

      To people who cannot tolerate dissent threat exists everywhere.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      “‘Deniers hunt in packs?’ What interesting insights could one gain by dissecting his choice for words? Manne must have thought this would have some impact with some group but whom and why?” –Mark D.

      Most likely he is addressing himself. The explanation is in Jungian psychology; the concept of the Shadow and projection of its darkest contents upon others:

      “A man who is unconscious of himself acts in a blind, instinctive way and is in addition fooled by all the illusions that arise when he sees everything that he is not conscious of in himself coming to meet him from outside as projections upon his neighbour.” CG Jung, CW 13, P.335


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Speedy

        Jorge

        Every time I read through this blog, the word “eclectic” springs to mind. In the positive sense, with rare exceptions. I haven’t had someone quote Jungian theory for me all year!

        And, you’re right. Projection seems to be a powerful means of self-justification for the likes of Manne.

        Thanks,

        Speedy


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Ian Seton

    So Manne thinks “deniers hunt in packs” ? Obviously a mere throw-away line. Even the use of the word “denier” as an all-inclusive term is purile.

    Jo, keep up your great work in the tradition of real science, and while you hear the rumbling as the thousands of now-deceased real scientists keep turning over in their graves as science and prejudice are confused, take heart.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    RB

    Hasn’t that always been the tactic?

    Never mind the quality, feel the quantity.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Tom:
    I spent 4 years looking into “Global Warming” before I dared make a comment on any blog. What initially raised my doubts was the contradictory “facts” which had to be believed.
    This had nothing to do with the chicanery revealed later in the Climategate releases, nor the increasing demands for immediate surrender to the belief.

    I imagine Mr. Manne would have liked to be a missionary in Victorian times in Africa, converting the natives at the point of the Maxim gun.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bite Back

    I knew Joanne was being too generous to this guy.

    It’s dangerous to give ground in a fight. He feigns some agreement, some apology but keeps on as before.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jim Stewart

    Jo
    You have me looking forward to collecting my copy of ‘The Weekend Australian’ this morning.
    Having acheived publication in such a reputable broadsheet will give deserved pride and hope that your, and Davids, efforts in reach of sound science [and common sense] are bearing fruit. Well done and many thanks.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    Thank you Jo!

    Reading your article in the Australian this morning has made my day. I just had to pop over here and tell you that.

    Brilliant as usual and I think you should be given a regular spot!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    There’s a good case that the Enlightenment may be over. How often are we now told that “research” or “scientists” have made “findings” about something that is at best a matter of commonsense and at worst empty speculation? Publish-or-Perish is proving to be a catastrophe for civilisation. Pretend scholars are being paid to generate “studies” about anything and everything.

    We are expected to accept “findings” because they are new, while, by the same logic, one should reject them because in ten years they will be invalid. Why not trade-in early, since Publish-or-Perish runs on programmed obsolescence?

    Enlightenment, which asked “What do I know?”, is giving way to Scientism, which asks “What can I publish?” A “climate scientist” should be somebody who is very brainy and who gets very wet, very cold and very hot. He or she should be absolutely terrific at statistics while being intensely skeptical of all statistics – all the time!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      mc

      There’s a good case that the Enlightenment may be over.

      Welcome to the endarkenment.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        AndyG55

        Wondering when we will have the first major electricity system collapse on the east coast.

        The instability is gradually building because of irregularities of solar feed-ins.

        Then the “endarkenment” shall truly be here,

        ……and maybe, perhaps, will wake some people up to reality !!!


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Robert

    very well written Jo…..may reason prevail!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Mann’s achilles heel is his piss poor methodology and his consistency in applying it. Let us get pass the fact that he used a sample size that was worthy of a lilliputian for his temperature reconstructions and let us also ignore a reconstruction with a more robust sample that showed the hokey stick was just a limbo dancing stick and let us also put aside the “investigations” which were nothing but whitewashes. Instead, let us look at one of his recent reconstructions that applied the same methodology to something which could be compared to empirical data.

    Manne’s hurricane reconstruction was so divorced from reality that it left some of his peers wondering if the area being studied was in a parallel universe.

    Here is a quote from Mann when he was being interviewed by legendary CAGW water boy Joe Romm

    “One of the more robust predictions is that in the Atlantic, hurricane intensities have increased and they will likely continue to increase, and so, it’s part of a trend, Katrina, the record season of 2005 was part of a trend towards more destructive storms…“

    We are now in record territory but not the promised land (for warmists) which Mann prophesied. We are in the longest period of the US not sustaining a hit from a major hurricane since records have been kept. The old record was set in the civil war era.

    Another forecast/prediction/prophecy gone bust from the king of broken sticks!

    Mann produces more wood than Ron Jeremy!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Jesus saves

      Oh dear Eddy, do try and keep up, this is not about Mann it’s about Manne.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      “One of the more robust predictions is that in the Atlantic, hurricane intensities have increased and they will likely continue to increase, and so, it’s part of a trend, Katrina, the record season of 2005 was part of a trend towards more destructive storms…“

      Isn’t it a shame that the National Weather Service, the people who’s job it is to keep records by which this claim can be judged, say there is no such trend of increasing hurricane violence. In fact the decade prior to Katrina was a period of weaker than usual hurricanes. With Katrina they began to come back toward past experience. And then that trend turned out not to be a trend.

      But what has the truth got to do with anything?

      Hit him hard, Eddy!


      Report this

      00

    • #

      janama
      August 25, 2012 at 8:29 am · Reply
      Eddy – the Manne Jo is writing about is an Australian, not the Mann you think it is

      Mann oh Manne did I get it wrong! Actually, I had three different screens going on my computer (you know, Janama, that non-PC computer) and got a little confused!

      Wow, my first senior moment! :-)


      Report this

      00

  • #
    janama

    Eddy – the Manne Jo is writing about is an Australian, not the Mann you think it is ;)


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Winston

      Mann’s not half the Manne he used to be!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Man oh man, but these jokes are awful.


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Reminds me of an old cricket joke, or three.

          Legendary commentator Brian Johnston, (‘Johnners’) one of the wittiest cricket commentators out there was ‘calling’ a match in South Africa before they were exiled. The English would tour under the banner of the MCC. In the late 40′s MCC was being captained by George Mann, who was batting at the time, and the bowler was Norman Bertram Fleetwood Mann, who was better known as ‘Tufty’ Mann. He was a slowie, a left arm orthodox spinner.

          George, captain of the MCC was facing and ‘Tufty’ bowled him an unplayable ball pitching outside the right hander’s leg stump and taking the off bail on the way through to clean bowl him.

          Without missing a beat, Johnners said this was another case of Mann’s inhumanity to Mann.

          Only Johnners could have got away with the following two.

          West Indian quick Michael Holding was bowling to English middle/late order bat Peter Willey in a Test at The Oval, and Johnners, unwittingly, (and sometimes disputed) said, “The bowler’s Holding the batsmen’s Willey.”

          Or in New Zealand, with the late Bob Cunis brought on to bowl, he mentioned that he was neither one thing nor the other.

          Yes, Tony loves his cricket!

          Commentators like Brian no longer exist, more’s the pity.

          Tony.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        But Eddy is a better Mann than Manne!


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Jesus saves

    I think this is a classic example of why the print media in this country is dying a slow and painful death. If you publish this junk then people will just go elsewhere. There was a time pre-Chris Mitchell when I used to buy the Weekend Aus every week but now I would sooner poke myself in the eye with a sharp stick than read the junk they print. All under the guise of (false) balance. They might as well publish articles defending a flat earth theory.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Debbie

      Publish this junk?
      While I agree that the MSM is more about infotainment and personalities than anything else, would you care to explain what is ‘junk’ about this particular article?
      Is there a fault in the logic or a misrepresentation of the evidence?
      It is a response to an article written by Manne so should logically be read with that in mind.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Winston

        “Jesus” only wants to read articles which conform to his religious beliefs, obviously. It’s a pity, because he is such an empty vessel that he could do with the full spectrum of opinion, and as much factual content he can possibly lay his hands on. Not for him the vicissitudes of weighing evidence and differing points of view, bit difficult I’m afraid to step outside of his predetermined, adolescent mindset.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      You mean the Earth isn’t flat?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      manalive

      Right on Js.
      And how do you know that the Earth is not flat?
      Why? Because 97.68% of scientists say so!


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Ive got a sharp stick here for you….I will read the articles


      Report this

      00

    • #

      I think this is a classic example of why the print media in this country is dying a slow and painful death.

      So you see why the (leftoid) Fairfax media is about to go under, especially the print media arm which has been valued at ZERO.

      I would sooner poke myself in the eye with a sharp stick than read the junk they print.

      Jos article was published, therefore I assume;
      A-) You are blind in one eye from poking yourself
      or
      B-) You didn’t read Jos article, in which case you have no right to comment on it.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Dear Mr Jesus Saves,

      thanks for dropping in to show us the depth of the intellectual arguments against us.

      Witness the brain power of the believer. :-) .

      Jo


      Report this

      00

    • #
      AndyG55

      Jesus saves.. obviously you are a very religious person.

      Therefore you believe God has built this Earth for us…….. INCLUDING providing us with plentiful coal and fossil fuel JUST when we needed it to further our development.

      I mean what chance that all that original CO2 which cause massive abundant growth, which then got buried just at the right time to be ready for us, now. Thanks you God !! Great planning , dude !!!

      Now lets use God’s gift to us, as He intended us to.. !! :-) )


      Report this

      00

    • #
      gbees

      Jesus saves: we here don’t want balance. we just seek the truth. A truth which you and your cohorts can’t seem to bring yourselves to admit or report. Your brand of media (hard left) , SMH, Age, and online outlets like GetUp and Crikey seek only to impose their brand of ‘truth’ upon the rest of us. You know, “What I say is the truth and we have consensus, we are smarter, more intellectual so you have to listen to us. Mind you, we don’t have any evidence (none that’s not manufactured that is), but believe what we say lest you be branded a heretic.” I gave up purchasing the SMH a long time ago, because the truth hardly gets reported. It’s just a mouthpiece for the Labor/Greens coalition and seeks only to pander to people like you. The death knell of Fairfax is not far off. News Limited is way ahead of the pack and will survive long term.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Neville

    Great news for the Maldives. Suddenly all that drowning, dangerous SLR has suddenly become a non problem.

    Seems there’s more money coming from normal investors than there might be from the UN SLR BS.

    So no more worries about under sea cabinet meetings once claimed by the liars and con merchants. And all this from their president, what a hoot.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/24/the-maldives-emily-littella-moment-never-mind/


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Winston

      The Maldives is the modern equivalent of “The Mouse that Roared”. For those who don’t remember or have never seen the film or read the books -google up The Grand Duchy of Fenwick


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Congratulations Jo, I’ll go pick up a copy. (Have a new puppy in the family, so any part we don’t need to keep will be used for other purposes.)
    “97% of climate scientists” survey nonsense still going the rounds :-(
    I’m about to run up a single page list of these to pass on to those of my peers who may be interested.

    “Climate Scientists are failing to convince scientists from other disciplines (who usually have no vested interest the outcome.)”

    Hmmm – not just scientists, but many technical disciplines think they have no vested interest. Time they woke up. There is a lot more unsupportable alarmism that could translate into law.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    so true Jo.But will the next gov. get rid of these “snake oil” salesmen and abolish their costly mistake ridden false ideal peddling organisations?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Glen Michel

    Manne has about the same amount of credibility as Perry Pickering or whatever that fraudsters name is.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Debbie

      Glen,
      Outstanding effort at missing the point!
      “Character Assassination” is poor behaviour.
      You have just displayed the popular game of ‘shooting the messenger’ rather than discussing the message!
      You may notice that Manne was the one who tried to ‘shoot the messengers’ and Jo has taken him to task for that behaviour.
      Shooting Pickering rather than heeding the message is equally poor behaviour.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    wes george

    Bravo, Jo, bravo!

    Well written and to the point. Congratulation on getting a piece in The Australian, as well!

    *

    I’m having the cover of the August issue of The Monthly framed for my library, because it marks a watershed moment in the history of the climate debate. Robert Manne, one of great men in our modern republic of letters, admits from the very title that the skeptical argument has utterly defeated the warmist faith.

    Think about how remarkable that is for a moment.

    The intellectual wing of the Left and the Greens has admitted scientific defeat on the cover of their banner journal. Never mind the snarky Orwellian contortions. It’s only human to gloss shocking failure with, ahem, denial. It’s a passionate description from the point of view of the slaughtered how their arguments, scientific, political and cultural have been vanquished by scientific data championed by little nobodies they consider subhuman. A real David and Goliath story. Although Goliath in this case is so dazed he knows not his name.

    Then, after conceding unconditional surrender in bold font on the cover of The Monthly, Manne meanders through 20,000 words seemingly unaware he’s illustrating not only the scientific illiteracy of leftist intellectual reasoning, but the that there is no scientific argument he can draw upon to show that the victory of skeptics is Pyrrhic or false! Not one word of Manne’s article assigns a single scientific datapoint to defend AGW, much less Catastrophic AGW.

    Logically, one must draw the conclusion Robert Manne knows of no data which supports AGW. His belief is as entirely faith-based as an Oaxacan peasant kneeling before a shrine to the Virgin Mary de Guadalupe.

    Apparently, the climate alarmists and the political left are utterly bankrupt of any evidence or ideas by which to continue prosecuting their unsupportable faith with rational argument. So the scientific debate really is over. There is nothing left to say. Well, not exactly nothing…

    Manne, ever the erudite leftist intellectual, managed to dredge up a whinging subtextual commentary on the political trench warfare, wrapped in the paranoid narrative of spy-novel conspiracy theory typical of delusional political extremism from 911 Truthers and Birthers to the Occupyists. Now we have Climatists who believe: OMG! Tobacconists are plotting to destroy the planet because the collapse of civilisation is good for business.

    OK.

    Paranoid or not, in a real sense the warmists are victims… Victims of confirmation bias, victims of fraud, victims of the Marxist dialectic, victims of scientific illiteracy, victims of media propaganda, victims of failed school systems and finally victims of their own conceit and bigotry towards anyone who dared questioned their morally superior assumptions.

    Robert Manne is right — the warmists are scientific, cultural and soon-to-be political roadkill.

    In a historical sense Victory of the Denialists pegs the intellectual end of reason in the Climate Debate. It reminds me of the moment in art history when Ad Reinhardt began painting his canvases black. Reinhardt’s work pegged the logical and emotional endpoint to a trajectory in art as does Manne’s in the climate debate.

    That’s why I think Robert Manne’s Victory of the Denialists is probably the most important Warmist document of 2012 and maybe since Climategate. It’s probably the most accurate and comprehensive analysis of the warmist position in print today.

    Where do we go from here?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Massey

    Robert Manne has been called Australia’s intellectual thinker, what a joke.

    He came on this blog for one statement and then left when Jo raised the article but he didn’t want to engage. I think he just wanted to get us to buy the document his article was printed in (sorry I can’t remember the publication and I couldn’t be bothered even finding out) so he can make more money from us moronic hunt in pack Deniers. Fat chance!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    msher

    somewhat off topic

    Amazing. A monetary prize offered by the “University” of East Anglia to M.A. students who submit the best creative prose or poetry showing understanding of the effects of climate change. I’m sure they aren’t planning to use it to send out to media for propaganda purposes or anything like that.

    I think all of us skeptics should submit our various entries. Anyone who doesn’t have the normal academic masters – well the climate science people themselves say we are in new post-normal times.

    M.A student might mean “Mastery of Angling,” or “Mastery of Anger,” or “Mastery of the Arcane” or “Mastery of Arson.” Or you might be a student Of “Mastery of ArcticIce.” There are endless possibilities of what various skeptics might be students of mastering. So I think we all qualify as entrants to the contest.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/24/poetic-license-ueas-creative-climate-writing-prize/

    Apologies if off topic is considered rude. I haven’t been a poster on this blog. Am a Delingpole regular.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Speedy

      Welcome aboard ! However, I don’t think Uni of East Anglia needs to look to far to discover “creativity”. Or whitewash.

      Cheers,

      Speedy


      Report this

      00

      • #
        msher

        Speedy

        Thank you for the welcome. Given how many trolls the advocacy groups send to the Delingpole blog and I assume to this one too, I thought it was about time the skeptics returned the favor. I’m sure we have all written posts we might find appropriate to send them. There is a place to submit online.

        My submission consists of the one gigantically long post I once put together with all my objections to the science, the methodology, the so-called data, the corruption and the destructiveness of the remedies proposed. I think the words “fraud” and “manipulation” appear a number of times. Special attention is given to the CRU emails and programmer’s notes. And mention is made of the political agenda to destroy the Western economies. I think I covered about everything.

        Their contest is also looking for poetry (God only knows how they intend to use that. I bet sending it to schools to teach to children.) I thought of making everything rhyme, but didn’t want to spend the time. It’s a shame, because it would have made for a really good, albeit very long, poem.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Speedy

          Msher

          As it happens, I wrote a poem about this myself…

          It’s based loosely on Hilaire Bellot. Trying to get the concept of Beer-Lambert’s Law into a poetic medium was a challenge. See below – and it is also quite long.

          Cheers,

          Speedy

          Climate Science (???)

          We’ve heard it said, and then repeated,
          This world of ours is getting heated.
          They say we’re to blame for global warming–
          (The sometime name of crisis forming),
          Which, we’re told, is quite alorming .
          (To demonstrate their woes and cares,
          We’re shown pictures of some polar bears.)

          By “They” I mean the climate Boffin,
          Who tells us now and then and often,
          The things we can and cannot do,
          With that evil substance, CO2 –
          And since it’s all so very true,
          It’s goodbye flowers, goodbye fauna –
          Our world becomes one giant sauna.

          And on this basis – it’s then assumed,
          We’re all so very, very, very doomed –
          With melting of ice, and rise of seas,
          The spread of malaria, and other disease,
          Temperatures up two smidgen degrees –
          All this and more, we hear them shriek –
          Or grant their wishes by Tuesday week!

          How do these Sages know what they know?
          Their wise computer has said it so!
          But climate computer appears to be shy,
          So please don’t be rude, and ask him why,
          If much of the data appear to be high.
          (Science is over, don’t ask any more –
          Thus it is written, in the Gospel of Gore…)

          Carbon’s kept burning, in spite of their fears,
          Yet temperature’s FALLEN these latter ten years –
          No melting of ice, no rise of the seas,
          No spread of malaria, or other disease,
          Temperatures FELL two smidgen degrees!
          But, worst of worst for these Jeremiahs –
          They’re getting quizzed by climate “deniers”!

          And a most tiresome lot they seem to be –
          Obsessed by – of all things – reality;
          Not for them a computer’s contention,
          A shouted slogan, a trendy convention,
          They’d rather give real data a mention –
          And instead of handing us “virtual” truth,
          Prefer Boffins to pander to physical proof!?

          For if CO2’s risen, and things haven’t got,
          Anything remotely, incredibly hot,
          Either Mister Doom is running late –
          Or else climate models over-state
          The ominosity of impending fate.
          [A “Runaway Greenhouse” – were it so –
          Would have happened, long ago…]

          Yes. A runaway greenhouse – were it so –
          Would have happened, long ago.
          Because, CO2, in ages past,
          Was eighteen times that of Sunday last,
          And nothing seemed to go aghast.
          A fact that indicates to me,
          The climate models’ veracity.

          Why this hasn’t happened, we suspect,
          Is CO2’s diminishing marginal thermal effect.
          Which is to say, that each tiny bit,
          Of extra CO2, that we emit,
          Yields a less and lesser greenhouse hit.
          And models assuming otherwise,
          Are nothing more than fancy lies.

          Sadly, “Old School” science has delusions,
          Of finding data, and THEN conclusions!
          But Boffins who seek the politically correct,
          Are advised to examine, then discretely reject,
          All data contrary to the case they select.
          (By employing this rather basic trick,
          They came up with the “hockey stick”) –

          A “history” forgetting – now that is sublime –
          How earth’s been around a very long time,
          In which it’s been hotter and colder and same,
          At any CO2 you’d like to name –
          And long before people existed to blame!
          Yet our planet thrived while CO2 hit the roof –
          Now that’s what you call “Inconvenient Truth”!

          Greenhouse economics are likewise bent –
          They ignore the earnings, but count what is spent;
          So while it serves no productive role,
          The same logic used for sequestering coal,
          Applies equally to digging (then refilling) a hole –
          Or a carbon tax, that, we’re told with elation,
          Combines greenhouse reductions with job creation.

          But what does it matter if Boffins are wrong?
          If logic is weak, when emotion is strong?
          Because; in tilting at mills and chasing wild geese,
          We’re discarding the most and retaining the least,
          So earth is no better, but Mankind’s decreased.
          And in pursuit of a meaningless CO2 drop,
          They condemn children to starve for a Bio-Crop.

          Clearly, arguments presented for global warming,
          Are more for persuading, and less for informing.
          In tear-jerking ads, are emotions implored,
          With selective reporting, key data ignored –
          And most of this isn’t, technically, fraud.
          But these and other sneaky tricks,
          Aren’t the servants of science, but politics.

          So if your politics are that way inclined,
          Give them your vote, no-one will mind.
          But please don’t, for one second, expect,
          The solutions they promise to save or protect.
          There is no salvation to be won by this sect.
          Because it is founded on a false contention,
          Involving polar bears, and computer’s invention.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            … it is also quite long.

            But very, very good.

            I can see you are a man of many parts, Speedy. I tip my hat to you.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            wes george

            Thumbs up! :-)

            Speedy, you rock.

            Hilaire Belloc is smiling somewhere.


            Report this

            00

          • #
          • #
            Bob Massey

            Speedy I bow to your eloquent word-smithing a fantastic effort well done mate :)


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Loved the poem and thumbs up, but the line

            “They ignore the earnings, but count what is spent”

            isn’t strictly true, in so far as no greenie project I seen has ever been the subject of proper financial analysis.
            The assumption is always that there is an unending supply of money somewhere which will pay for their wishes.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            msher

            Speedy

            Magnificant! You must, simply must submit this to the UEA contest. You can do it right online. This is so much better than my long pedantic entry. You could even win – as the most irritating submission. But it’s about time the favor is returned. The Delingpole blog is now taken up with a troll who doesn’t even bother posting about anything AGW related. I don’t think he actually knows anything. He’s just glib and finds a generalized criticism, not specific to anything to make – and the skeptics are taking the bait and page after page is filled up with non-content filled post of no interest to anyone. And the guy already said his goal is too push good posts off the first pages. (The Daily Telegraph blogs up set up so there are only 25 posts to a page, you have to keep clicking to go from page to page. I think few readers bother.) People keep responding to his non-content-filled barbs and whole pages are nothing but this ridiculous back and forth. Sometimes, skeptics, like conservatives, are their own worst enemies and allow themselves to be played beautifully.) So I’m really in a payback mood. I hope you submit your wondeful poem.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            msher

            Speedy and Graeme #3

            Re ignoring the earnings – I don’t think so. Some figures.

            phenomomen: Climate-change funding grows
            January 15, 2010

            “U.S. foundations increasingly are awarding grants to mitigate global warming and climate change, investing a total of $1.9 billion in the cause over the last decade, a new study says.

            And in 2008 alone, funders awarded a total of more than $850 million in climate-change grants, more than double the amount awarded in 2000, says the report from the Foundation Center.”

            http://www.philanthropyjournal.org/news/climate-change-funding-grows

            http://maps.foundationcenter.org/gpf/climatechange2010.php

            2008 Foundation Giving for Climate Change by Country of Benefit

            1,669 Grants Totalling $887.399.888

            http://maps.foundationcenter.org/gpf/climatechange2010.php


            Report this

            00

          • #
            debbie

            Great poem Speedy,
            Points out with clever imagery that the AGW argument is lacking in logic and also lacking in anything approaching sensible, achievable policy.
            Absolutely love stanzas 6 to 10 and the final stanza.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            msher:

            There was a slight loss of meaning in the translation; I was referring to the benefit (income or dividends) accruing to those taxed to pay for these bloody useless projects. I wasn’t referring to the loads of money being shovelled onto those squawking loudly while imitating a headless chicken.
            The last action might seem to be impossible if not contradictory, but so are the announced plans of the CAGW mob.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            msher

            Graeme #3

            Preventing AGW is of course (they say) about saving the planet from AGW so there won’t be drought( or rain or blizzards or whatever – let’s go with the current definiton “severe weather events”) The AGW crowd want to avert this pending catastophe (so they say) to prevent poor people in poor countries from starving and to save species frfom going extinct. Isn’t that what they are trying to avert (so they say)? What in the world is contradictory in imposing the use of biofuels and thereby turning crops into biocrops, thereby raising the price of food in poor countries and encouraging people in Countries like Indonesia to cut down forests (habitat of endangered species such as the orangatan) in order to grow biocrops.

            Only a gullible skeptic, misled by Big Oil, would see any contradiction in that. (Or point out in warmer weather there would be more food since much of the taiga could be used as farmland.) Or maybe you yourself are a lackey of Big Oil if you are going to talk about contradictions in the warmists plans. I bet you even claim data has been falsified and/or manipulated.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            The data has been manipulated as much as a medieval peasant getting the dungeon treatment, for not paying their tax, rent or impost on time. If the peasant survived he always looked crooked afterwards.

            I maintain that if they are so concerned about polar bears starving, then they should ship themselves to Canada, with a label around their necks saying polar bear food only.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Apologies if off topic is considered rude.

      Your definitions of MA remind me of a similar situation.

      I once worked with (actually for) a guy who, on his business card, had the letters FRSCO after his name. I was curious about what they stood for, so finally got around to asking him.

      His answer, given with a grin, was “Fellow of the Regular Society of Chronometer Observers”.

      His “qualifications” had been noted by various people, who gave them great weight in job interviews, etc. But like the story of the magic suit of clothes, nobody had wanted to appear stupid by asking him what the letters stood for. I was the first person to ask, so he told me.

      He then explained that it was what people could do, and what they achieved, that mattered, not what qualifications they held.

      There are a lot of people with “qualifications” that make them climate scientists, but one wonders what they actually achieve, apart from causing a great deal of unnecessary expense.

      So there, you were not off topic at all.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        msher

        Rereke Whakaaro

        We could ask what is a “climate scientist.” Given they don’t really have a paradigm for climate yet, I don’t think they even could say what discipline is involved. Physics? Chemistry? Astrophysics? Oceanography? Geology? Some of each?

        I notice that people that have degrees in ecology also sometimes call themselves “climate scientists.” That’s pretty dodgy to me.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Brian of Moorabbin

          Tim Flannery is a paleontologist, yet is considered a ‘climate scientist’.

          I’m still at a loss to understand how the study of prehistoric bones relates to the study of the interaction of natural forces of air circulation, pressure, temperature, etc (ie. climate)..

          but then, no scientist am I…


          Report this

          00

          • #
            msher

            Brian of Moorabin

            Haven’t you kept up? The definition of anthropogenic global warming is now “the increased likelihood of severe weather events.” Doesn’t matter what kind of event. The blizzards and heavy rainfall were AGW events. According to the trolls on the Delingpole blog from whence I come. It is a very useful definition, since it covers anything that happens – and even covers if nothing happens (since it was more “likely” to have happened, and we are just lucky it didn’t.)

            So obviously the extinction of early mammoths in an Ice Age might have been caused by fire from the smoke of cavemen (assuming they were contemporaneous. My prehistory is a little sketchy) and even if not, it shows what will happen if AGW brings a new Ice Age, as some scientists say is coming. (Including all the now warmists when they were writing in the 70′s). So the relevance seems clear to me.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Dodgy is putting it politely.

          I have always equated them with Epidemiologists – mercenary purveyors of dubious statistics in support of the best scare scenarios that money can buy.

          Or perhaps I am being too kind?


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          You might also add to the list Statistician and Historian.

          That their statistics fall into the categories of dodgy and very dodgy is for others to discuss. Yet any body with a knowledge of history would realise that the “world climate” has moved in cycles. Written history.
          The comment in 100BC about grapes now being grown as far north as Rome (Allen, H. W. 1961: *The history of wine* ) is disputed by the warmista, but Emperor Marcus Probus encouraged viticulture in Germany (276-282) with the introduction of the now obscure Gouais grape, which left interesting progeny across Europe. (Those inner city Chardonnay drinkers owe a lot to the Medieval Warm Period that they deny existed).
          The freezing of the Bosphorus and the Black Sea in 800 A.D. was surely not a feat of imagination, especially as the Nile River is reported as freezing in 829 A.D. (but then the Black Sea froze in February this year, so such ice must be proof that the Earth is warmer than it has been for 1,000/10,000/500,000 (insert scary time span of your choice) years …Sarc. off).
          When the Vikings settled both Iceland and Greenland, they recorded that they could grow grain. Recent diggings in Greenland have proved that they did do so. Iceland resumed growing oats and barley in the 1920-1940 warm period after 400 years without.
          Yet the “true believers” believe that CO2 is higher so the temperature must be higher, by deluding themselves that the Roman and Medieval Warm periods didn’t occur, and that the Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age were non existent, or just periods of Climate Change.
          Logic apparently also is beyond them.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      My humble entry:

      There once was a student named Rufus,
      who thought climate change he could prove-us.
      He tried and he tried,
      but his theory, it died.
      And now he just looks like a doofus.

      So much for East Anglia’s contributions to the world.

      Off I go to WUWT.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    read the comments about the Guardian’s map and figures being wrong. don’t know what difference any corrections would make:

    24 Aug: Guardian: Carbon emissions per capita mapped for every UK local authorityCarbon emissions per person rose in 2010 for more than 90% of local authorities, according to new figures released by the Department for Energy and Climate Change
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/aug/24/carbon-emissions-per-capita-uk-mapped-local-authority?newsfeed=true


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    LOL:

    25 Aug: WeeklyTimesNow: AAP: Greens decry changes to ETS
    NEW Zealand’s Green Party says the country’s emissions trading scheme will become “irrelevant” if new legislation passes in parliament.
    A bill introduced on Thursday will implement previously announced changes to the ETS and the Greens say it is a “self-defeatist piece of legislation”.
    The bill indefinitely defers bringing agriculture under the ETS and freezes the price the scheme puts on carbon dioxide emissions.
    The government says it can’t afford to impose burdens on the economy during tight financial times…
    “This is business as usual for the government – they don’t want to deal with climate change and so, just as with the brain drain to Australia, unemployment and housing unaffordability, they are simply ignoring it,” the Greens’ climate change spokesman Kennedy Graham said on Thursday.
    “The ETS was already weak but will be irrelevant after these changes go through.”
    Dr Graham says the effect of the bill means taxpayers will have to keep subsidising polluters as the government meets its international climate change obligations
    http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2012/08/25/529301_latest-news.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Glen Michel

    Very good piece in “The Australian” ; succinct. SMH next and more enviro articles from Benny and Louise and maybe Mike Carlton who can be amusing at times but has lost it as an objective writer. De omnibus dubitandum!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    TonyfromOz needs to read all of this to make sense of the madness:

    21 Aug: Reuters: COLUMN-EU countries to reveal cost of renewable back-up: Gerard Wynn
    Furthermore, most EU countries support renewable power by guaranteeing firms a premium, or feed-in tariff, which means they are insulated from wholesale power prices. They will continue to generate power even if this means dumping so much electricity into the grid that wholesale prices drop close to zero.
    If the market were left to its own devices, power prices could rise to extremely high levels at times of peak demand when renewables are not available, to allow fossil fuel plants to recoup their fixed costs.
    Britain’s Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has estimated that prices would have to rise to as high as 10,000 pounds ($15,700) per megawatt hour (MWh) for short periods, from an average of around 45 pounds. Prices in Britain have historically never exceeded 938 pounds per MWh.
    Power generators would expect regulators to intervene before prices could rise to such levels, which makes them reluctant to invest, and so creates the need for a capacity mechanism…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/21/column-wynn-renewable-costs-idUSL6E8JJ0IP20120821


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Debbie

      Defintely needs help from Tony.
      This article has logic that appears to go round and round in ever decreasing circles.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Wow, what utter CharlieRomeoAlphaPapa.

        Hidden in plain sight in the text is this, passing over everyone’s head with a vapour trail.

        Furthermore, most EU countries support renewable power by guaranteeing firms a premium, or feed-in tariff, which means they are insulated from wholesale power prices. They will continue to generate power even if this means dumping so much electricity into the grid that wholesale prices drop close to zero.

        Besides the massive (usually up to half) original construction subsidy, part of the contract is that Government’s will further subsidise the cost of the electricity that is generated by giving the Company an amount of money.

        Let’s say retail cost of electricity is 20 cents per KWH. Generating costs for coal fired power (Power sold TO the grid by the generating entity) are around 2 to 7 cents per KWH.

        Renewables cannot do this, as to actually generate their power costs them seven to ten times coal fired power, eg anything up to probably 50 cents per KWH. Hence the grid has to purchase renewable power for that 50 cents, power that they can only then onsell for retail (20 cents/KWH)

        So, renewable Companies are promised via the original contract that for every KWH they actually do generate, then the Government will give them a set amount, anything up to the total retail cost, so now that renewable power ‘seems’ to cost less, because they are already getting that subsidised amount from the Government. Taking into account the original construction subsidy, that renewable plant now only needs to recover half its original outlay extrapolated out over the (short) life of the plant, hence a calculation as to the cost of power per KWH generated. Part comes in that secondary subsidy from the Government, so in effect, anything they then sell to the grid is that much cheaper, (albeit artificially) so anything in excess, they can in fact ‘dump’ on the grid, again further artificially lowering the price of renewable power.

        What people fail so utterly to understand is the nature of the grid itself.

        The grid HAS, (as an absolute certainty) to have an amount of power available to cover what is being demanded PLUS a percentage, in case there is an increase in demand. The power is drawn down from the grid, so that power has to be there.

        Coal fired and Nuclear (where it is available) hum along as they always do, at their maximum supplying that Base Load, and, as required, Natural Gas plants are tasked to come on line topping up that total (Plus some) so the power is always there to be drawn down. The grid doesn’t just phone up the gas fired plant and say shut ‘er down mate, we have enough renewable stuff here.

        Then an hour later phone em up again and say can you fire er up again mate, the wind’s stopped blowing and the Sun’s gone behind a cloud. The gas plant asks when they want this power and the grid guy says half an hour ago!

        Sorry, it just does not work like that. The grid controller who did that would be fired so fast his wife would say, but you just had breakfast.

        This whole article swirls away, counter clockwise, vanishing down the plug hole while uninformed readers exclaim that those filthy gouging fossil fuel plants are forcing UP the price, while renewable operators think of more gouging tactics they can stick on their next contract.

        Tony.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Yep, Tony. Definitely -.-. .-. .- .–. and gold plated at that. :-)


          Report this

          00

        • #
          debbie

          Thanks Tony,
          Love the imagery :-)
          This whole article swirls away, counter clockwise, vanishing down the plug hole while uninformed readers exclaim that those filthy gouging fossil fuel plants are forcing UP the price, while renewable operators think of more gouging tactics they can stick on their next contract.
          I’m still gobsmacked that so many people are so ready to believe that they should demonise those who supply energy to their homes, roofs over their heads and food on their tables.
          I wish they would take the time to actually figure out what it is that is ripping them off.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Ross James

          Tony,

          Off Topic – I’m addressing our energy man here who seems a good critic of pro and cons of renewable.

          I’ve had the 4.5 k/watt Solar installed way ahead of its scheduled installation date due to major installations in our area of Solar. The System fully installed and with upgraded digital meter box (Energex) cost in total $9,500.

          At peak times (12pm to 1pm and cloudless) – it can generate up to 4 Kilowatts at peak. This was the past week as of this post.

          On cloudy days it drops to 2 kilowatts on average but fluxes upward quickly to 3 kilowatts if sunlight peeks through the occasional partial-cloud (weak) cover.

          At (low sun) sunset (5pm) it generates just below 1 kilowatt – clear sky.

          At (low sun) sunrise (6:30pm) it generates just below 1 kilowatt – clear sky.

          The Solar generated a surplus of 96 Kilo watt hours over six days – some days were very for a few hours.

          The feed in Tariff is 50 cents per kilowatt hour (for surplus) QLD Government = 44 cents per kilowatt and Origin = 6 cents.

          The overnight usage of CONTROL kilowatt power is 3 kilowatts per hour for the Hot Water which is an energy efficient heat pump type.

          Most of the daylight hours (after 8:30am till 5:00pm) we draw no power from grid at all.

          We have seen our total kilowatts usage drop to a conservative over just under half kilowatt usage.

          We live North of Brisbane (Rural setting) but still classed as South East Corner QLD.

          The 24 panels directly are 2 degrees off North – Eastward.

          _______
          Ross J.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            What sunny weather will do for solar!

            Here near Adelaide, I installed a system about the same size, after an “environment concerned person” (school teacher) told me “it was the moral thing to do”. Realising that this attitude was rife in the State Government and could only lead to higher electricity prices, I decided to reduce my electricity bill by allowing those less fortunate to pay for those large feed in tariffs.

            I’ve had 3 days of surplus power in 3 months. Overnight hot water makes up 50-70% of daily consumption of 9-10 kWh. Cold, wet, overcast days seemingly without end. But yesterday was sunny (the best of the surplus days 2kWh), and today looks to be better again…may even get to 15℃ . Obviously evidence for climate change.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Ross James

            Corrections – 6:30pm should read 6:30am
            The sentence: The Solar generated a surplus of 96 Kilo watt hours over six days – some days were very for a few hours.

            Should read: The Solar generated a surplus of 96 Kilo watt hours over six days – some days were very cloudy for a few hours.

            Graeme No.3 Replies as to improved Solar efficiency:

            Surplus to grid over one week (August 2012) generated revenue is in excess of $50.00

            The electrical grid usage to house is almost halved.

            I think there are more factors then just sun intensity. The northern aspect is super efficient.

            The Invertor is Southside which results in more efficient cooler running. (Passive cooled)

            The house is also fitted with low wattage fluro lights and also remeber I have an efficient hot water heat pump configuration.
            _______
            Ross J.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            It’s a good thing to sit back and think, rather than rush off a quick reply to Ross here.

            I saw his Comment not too long after it was first posted, and wanted to come in immediately, and sometimes I don’t know why that small voice in your head (the one that that you really don’t even notice) tells you to wait a while.

            I sincerely believe that Ross is basically an honest and a moral person. I think his beliefs are wrong, but I admire his sincerity in trying to persevere with those beliefs.

            So, having read his Comment on his Solar power system, what I want to draw your attention to is how that beliefs system has allowed Ross to be hoodwinked into accepting something perceived to be moral, but actually quite immoral, and in fact, relatively useless.

            When you go through the paperwork for systems like this, they advise you to move as much power consumption to non daylight hours, and in reality, this is already the period of highest electrical power consumption in a residential application, which is usually one third in daylight hours and two thirds after hours, most of that in the period 6PM till 11PM.

            Now why would they advise you to move the bulk of your power consumption to those out of daylight period?

            Obvious really.

            What you do not use during the day is fed back to the grid. What you get for that is what Ross says here, 50 cents per KWH.

            50 Cents.

            That’s just more than double the retail price for electricity. So, if you have something that consumes power during the day, in effect, you are losing that 55cents per KWH, and by moving it to out of daylight, then it only costs you 25 cents per KWH (Post CO2 Tax) Hence, Ross now heats his water after hours. He cooks his family meal after hours, his largest consumption is in fact out of hours. He is still a nett consumer of Power FROM the grid. Any electrical consumption he moves from daylight to out of hours sees him getting back more money.

            Ross, where does that money come from?

            From us, Ross, from all of us who have no rooftop solar system. We are paying that 50 cents per KWH you are receiving. We are paying for it in the higher cost of electricity that is supplied from the grid. Not just us as residence owners, but every consumer, in the Commerce sector and the Industrial sector as well, They all pay higher costs for their electricity, so in every walk of life, everywhere you go, those costs are higher, so you can be bribed into thinking you are getting a good return, and because you think that what your system actually generates is what your home consumes, you think you are in effect neutral.

            Not true. Patently not true. The grid is not your personal battery where the excess you generate during the day, then you can call that back at night, and even if it was, you have sold that power, and for a handsome profit too, at all our expenses.

            And Ross, you are not saving on CO2 emissions by generating your own power that somehow will be used elsewhere.

            Look at it in isolation Ross.

            You are generating around 2KW, averaged across the day, which is around 18KWH.

            The overall grid supply in the area you are, South East Queensland, has an average consumption of around 9,000MW every hour, averaged across the day. So your system generates 0.00002% of the grid. So insignificantly tiny an amount as to not even register at the grid. Either way, power plants that are supplying the grid do not cut back on what they are emitting because of your rooftop system, so you are not saving one gram of CO2 emissions. There could be a million rooftop systems and still those plants supplying the grid would not alter what they are doing.

            Ross, you THINK you are doing something good, but you’ve been conned mate, and you know what. We are the ones paying for your rooftop solar power system.

            How can you justify receiving 50 cents per KWH for the power you generate, shift all your consumption across to night time, and only pay 25 cents per KWH for that usage.

            You are still a Nett consumer of power from the grid Ross, and that power is still being generated by the same plants that have always generated that out of hours power.

            Waiting to reply, and not rushing in at the first opportunity focuses the mind.

            Ross, what you are doing, is in fact immoral, making other people pay for something you falsely believe is a good thing.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Ross,

            I mentioned in the earlier Comment that I believe you are a basically honest man, so I have just one question for you.

            That exorbitant FIT of 44 cents per KWH plus the providers 6 cents on top of that was offered up by the benevolent regime so comprehensively thrashed out of office at the most recent State election in Queensland.

            That FIT has now been lowered to 8 cents per KWH, which is still higher than the cost of generation for coal fired power.

            Here’s the question for you.

            Would you still install that Rooftop Solar System if you were only promised that 8 cents per KWH?

            In case the Maths is a little beyond you, I’ve actually done it for you at the following Link.

            Residential Rooftop Solar Power – Part Two

            The costings at the 8 cents per KWH is near the bottom of the Post, but read the whole lot. It’s worth it.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Ross James

            Tony,

            Please allow me to present the flip side of this argument over a few days. I will address your thoughts on this. Papers and articles on this very issue present the argument that such systems remove loading the system grid for peak overloads in Summer and hence blackouts. (Non-blackout strategies from coal are expensive but save the economy from disruption) But this requires many adopters to create such a situation by diversity. Community movements are springing up in the States whereby a slab of population contribute to funding mechanism whereby home owners invest in off the grid localised power strategies – removing a centralised dependence on power generation. The mechanism of this model uses a very localised investment contribution.

            As a quick response to the dropping of the feed tariff to 8 cents – most likely I would not be an adopter as I certainly do not have the necessary funds to pay back such a system. That aside as far politics goes this is just cyclic and you will note Neuman’s plunge in the opinion polls.

            Immoral are strong words. Warmists often impinge global anti-warming advocates with the same tarring accusation as future generations are lumped with all the heavy lifting for any changes required.

            _______
            Ross J.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Immoral are strong words.

            Oh Ross, look in the mirror,

            You’re accepting 50 cents per KWH for your excess power, and shifting your consumption to out of hours periods so you maximise that 50 cents, and only pay 25 cents for that power, and again let me repeat, you are still consuming power FROM the grid, and that power still has to be generated. In fact because you are moving your consumption into that time frame, as are all rooftop system owners, then that Peaking Power period is in fact larger, hence requiring more CO2 emitting plants to stay operating longer.

            You are not, and let me repeat that, NOT, making one iota of difference, just robbing us to pay for your indulgence.

            I thought my saying that this is immoral was putting it politely.

            Oh, and thanks for answering the question and admitting that you only did this for purely money grubbing reasons.

            and then there’s this:

            ….. that such systems remove loading the system grid for peak overloads in Summer and hence blackouts.

            Wrong!

            and this:

            Non-blackout strategies from coal are expensive but save the economy from disruption

            Wrong!
            and this:

            ….. a slab of population contribute to funding mechanism whereby home owners invest in off the grid localised power strategies – removing a centralised dependence on power generation.

            Wrong!

            And who’s this guy and what does he have to do with this?

            That aside as far politics goes this is just cyclic and you will note Neuman’s plunge in the opinion polls.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Ross James

            Tony,

            You mentioned State landslide. I said it was cyclic and NOT related to power generation.
            Neuman is our state Premier.

            I strongly suggest to you that you are indeed very SELECTIVE in data and choice of words in accusing those who embrace renewable energy through subsidies as being the greatest contributor to cost increases of electrical power.

            The liberalisation of the electricity markets in many developed countries has removed part of
            the regulatory risk shield where integrated monopolies can transfer costs and risks from
            investors to consumers and taxpayers.
            http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/326027/2011-05-a-comparative-analysis-of-the-future-cost-of-electricity-generation-in-OECD-and-non-OECD-countries.pdf

            What this is saying and this is my emphasis – Unless GOVERNMENTS introduce incentives and shield transitional revaluations of energy and how these can be generated the costs thereby spiral greater then the consumer can manage. It is therefore the LIBERALISATION of electricity markets that spiralled cost more so then the ACTUAL subsidies.

            In other words we need a mix of government regulation and liberalisation in those markets. We just cannot allow the “god” of free market to deliver and determine the pace of transition. It cannot magically and altruistically bring down energy prices or ever support the small guy. Rampant capitalism creates centralised corporations and monolithic structures. They are NEVER altruistic. The only power a citizen has is to support a layer of intervention by Government by democratic right.

            It is therefore not immoral to support an average citizen when such competitive instruments exist whether by subsidy, new instruments (technology) or otherwise. To make such returns to a citizen by way of refunds is a good instrument. This then is empowerment at the private level.

            Consider the estimated subsidy to Oil, Coal and Mining is just under 10 billion a year in this country.

            You have stated disagreement – perhaps you’d like to elaborate on: OFF the grid movements, loading contributions, non black out strategies are not expensive.

            Off the grid technologies will be looked at by me dependent on the direction the power monopolists take it.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Neuman is our state Premier.

            Sorry, Ross I thought you meant Afred E Neuman, and not the State Premier Campbell NEWMAN. That’s NEWMAN.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Ross,

            Judas Priest, where the flock do I start?

            (Here’s me pretending to be Smith!)

            I strongly suggest to you that you are indeed very SELECTIVE in data and choice of words in accusing those who embrace renewable energy through subsidies as being the greatest contributor to cost increases of electrical power.

            Me being selective!

            Actual data is data.

            You are one who is very selective with the data you use, and yet you find it abhorrent in me. Ross, in the same manner that you think your data is correct, then my data is also correct, and that’s not just by belief. It actually IS correct. I have never said it is the greatest contributor. It is one of those factors that adds to the cost of electricity for all of us. As a whole, electricity prices have been raised, not by greedy money grubbing private enterprise, but by the Governments who set the generation cost, who set the added cost of the CO2 Tax, who set the cost to others for the subsidies they pay to all types of industrial scale renewable power, (Wind and Solar Plants) who set the extra price for the FIT paid to rooftop solar. All those added costs then add to the overall retail cost of electricity that we all have to pay.

            Unless GOVERNMENTS introduce incentives and shield transitional revaluations of energy and how these can be generated the costs thereby spiral greater then the consumer can manage.

            So, subsidies for one level of power generation are OK, but in other areas not associated with Renewables are evil. The subsidies to those renewables of themselves are causing the cost of electricity to spiral.

            It is therefore the LIBERALISATION of electricity markets that spiralled cost more so then the ACTUAL subsidies.

            What utter bolshie crap. The sale of the power retailing sector introduced competition into the market whereas previously it was in the one hand, the Government, who set the price. That isn’t my just saying that. That’s what those Labor Governments who sold off that arm of electricity retailing have said all along. The subsidies just add to the upward price spiral.

            We just cannot allow the “god” of free market to deliver and determine the pace of transition.

            If your renewables are so great, then why can’t they compete in the free market and see just how they do perform. What you have now is Governments forcing retailers to purchase power whose cost to generate is far greater than what those retailers can sell at the retail price. On top of that Governments subsidise that price to make renewables seem not as expensive for those retailers to purchase, and even then, they can only onsell that power at a loss, and because of that, they then have to raise that retail price in all other areas.

            It cannot magically and altruistically bring down energy prices or ever support the small guy. Rampant capitalism creates centralised corporations and monolithic structures. They are NEVER altruistic. The only power a citizen has is to support a layer of intervention by Government by democratic right.

            The Government is not supporting you in your purchase of your rooftop solar system. We are supporting you, every other citizen who has to pay increased costs for their electricity, to support the money being paid to you for your excess power you return to the grid, power that in effect the grid now has to purchase at 50 cents per KWH, power it can only onsell for 25 cents per KWH.

            It is therefore not immoral to support an average citizen when such competitive instruments exist whether by subsidy, new instruments (technology) or otherwise. To make such returns to a citizen by way of refunds is a good instrument. This then is empowerment at the private level.

            Empowerment for you Ross, but slavery for us, because we are forced to pay for your indulgence.

            Consider the estimated subsidy to Oil, Coal and Mining is just under 10 billion a year in this country.

            Prove it, Ross! Prove it. This is Oil, Coal and Mining Ross. Show me the subsidies paid to the (CO2 emitting) power generating sector. There are none Ross, and most definitely none on the same scale as those subsidies paid to Wind, Solar (all forms) and Rooftop power. They get NO subsidies. In fact the Government regulates to increase the cost of the electricity they generate.

            ….. perhaps you’d like to elaborate on: OFF the grid movements, loading contributions, non black out strategies are not expensive.

            You have no concept whatsoever of how electrical power is generated. I’ve lost count of the number of times I have explained that here at Joanne’s site. Do you think I just make it up. You explain to me what you mean here.

            Off the grid technologies will be looked at by me dependent on the direction the power monopolists take it.

            Ross, you are not ‘OFF THE GRID’. You are still connected to the grid. You are still a nett consumer of power FROM the grid. You rely solely on the grid for all your needs at home. Bite the damned bullet Ross, Have the courage of your convictions. Take your system off the grid Ross. Make a difference Ross. Do it right Ross. Then come back here and preach to us.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Ross James

            Tony,

            1. I have NEVER stated I am off the grid. I said quite clearly I would look at going offline (tech. solutions) if energy prices keep on rising.
            2. You want the subsides paid to coal, mining and oil sectors – Its coming in the next post.
            3. I have never said it was not funded from Government revenue.
            4. Data coming – you are either silent or turn a deaf ear to the flip side of these issues and that data.

            Follow up coming
            _______
            Ross J.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Heywood

            Ross,

            Interesting that another warmist brings up the subject of fossil fuel subsidies.

            Let’s have a quick look at the subsidies related to electricity production ie Coal vs “renewables”

            I’ll even use Greenpeace data for you..

            According to this…

            Coal has been subsidised to the tune of A$1.7 billion and Renewables subsidised at $326 million.

            Now that doesn’t seem fair does it?

            Hang on, according to this,

            In the same period, Coal provided 78.5% (192.1 TWh) of electricity, when Solar/Wind/Biomass only provided 1.55%. (3.8 TWh).

            So, Coal is being subsidised at a rate of one dollar per 113 kWh where Solar/Wind/Biomass are at a rate of one dollar per 11.66 kWh.

            Or another way of looking at it, Subsidy is 1.13c per kWh for Coal and 8.58c per kWh for Solar/Wind/Biomass.

            Your precious solar is subsidied at 8 time the rate of coal Ross.

            Also, the subsidies to coal producers comes directly from the government from the taxes that everyone pays and NOT from a direct levy on electricity bills like solar and wind.

            You are milking the average electricity consumer for your self indulgence Ross. Face the fact, all those pensioners and low income earners who can’t afford to buy solar panels pay for your green fantasy.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Ross James

            The subsidies to fossil fuels:

            http://www.giz.de/Themen/en/29957.htm

            and

            http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/energy/great-energy-challenge/global-energy-subsidies-map/

            Further investigation on Australian subsidies indicate not all is quantified in regards to the worldwide charted subsidies.

            Moral?

            This may come down to a world view issue regarding Greenhouse gases rather then anything else.

            Those who cry foul about any subsidy should realise that they are entitled to the same on a state by state basis as well as federal subsidies.

            Consider this:

            My Superannuation or portion of it could be used to fund oil harvesting in Nigeria. Many of the populations in those regions are suffering environmental industrial vandalism – yet your investment portion is funding such activity.

            If the Solar Panels on the house produce nnnn kilowatts per hour over a 25 year period and that person reduces their carbon footprint and they follow distinct lifestyle choices which improve and maintain their lives to be more healthy, responsible re-cycling and a non-addictive lifestyle to consumerism, non-gambling, drugs and alcohol – Is that person considered more morally responsible?

            The person who drinks there liver to oblivion, smokes like a chimney and then gets admitted to a public hospital to fix there wrecked body at a cost in excess of $30,000 – is that immoral?

            Begging the question results in contradiction.

            If you sit there reading believing we need more CO2 in the air to avoid global cooling and I do not accept your opinion – does that make me wrong?

            Who has high ground now? Answer: NO-ONE. Are subsidies then moral? Well that depends on your own personal world view whereby you make a judgement call. It may not then be correct.

            Yes throw the logic around but you’ll find NO-ONE wins this if such is based a moral argument or judgment call.

            _______
            Ross J.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Ross,

            in 21.1.1.3.9. I asked this question.

            Prove it, Ross! Prove it. This is Oil, Coal and Mining Ross. Show me the subsidies paid to the (CO2 emitting) power generating sector. There are none Ross, and most definitely none on the same scale as those subsidies paid to Wind, Solar (all forms) and Rooftop power. They get NO subsidies. In fact the Government regulates to increase the cost of the electricity they generate.

            Ross, you are the same as all those people on your side of the argument.

            They confuse their subsidies.

            When I talk subsidies to the renewable electrical power generating subsidies, your side always quotes these subsidies paid to oil etc, as shown at both of your links.

            Ross, show me subsidies paid to what I asked you, the electrical power generating sector that emits CO2, and that would be an equal comparison.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Ross James

            Subsidies PROVIDED to Australia’s electricity generation sector at both wholesale and retail levels.

            http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/109921/13-carbon-prices-appendixd.pdf

            Note paper is outdated but is helpful as to what subsides are applied broadly to the energy sector. Reduced calculations of some Sates who have turned Liberal or LNP governments need to be taken into account. It is noted some states applied GROSS for feed in to the grid (whatever your solar panels generated) whilst others applied Nett from Solar Excess during day time to the grid.

            Regards,

            _______
            Ross J.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Ross,

            Perhaps it is my overwhelming denialism, or perhaps it is my impatience, or perhaps it is because the document does not mention subsidies to the coal industry. Whatever the explanation, basically I have been unable to find in your proffered document the subsidies paid to “the electrical power generating sector that emits CO2″ that Tony requested from you.

            There is one table and paragraph in there about CO2 reduction payments gained by natural gas providers over the equivalent power from coal, but that is not what Tony asked for because a penalty for CO2 emissions is an offshoot of the industry that does NOT emit CO2 when generating electricity.

            Please help, where in that document does it provide figures that answer Tony’s question?
            How else can we find out how much the government subsidises the derdy polluders of Big Coal? /sarc


            Report this

            00

  • #
    pat

    btw jo,
    congrats for getting into the MSM again. now for a weekly column!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Manne…Mann…
    That which we call a charlatan, by any other name…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David Strass

    what is someone who has no relevance , no experience in the climate science industry doing publishing articles like that in the australian , that should be the only question being asked


    Report this

    00

    • #
      MadJak

      David Strass:

      what is someone who has no relevance , no experience in the climate science industry doing publishing articles like that in the australian , that should be the only question being asked [by the Bigots]

      There – all fixed


      Report this

      00

    • #
      AndyG55

      Ask Manne, or the Ork..or AlGore, or Flannery or … darn, you could make a long list !!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      So, Jo needs experience in the “climate science industry” (whatever that is) to be qualified to write a commentary on an article about “climate science” written by a Professor of Politics who is a specialist on the Holocaust and the Stolen Generations.

      Who’d a thunk?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Please do us all a favour, and go back to whoever suggested that you put such an inane comment on this thread, and ask them if they could kindly send a better class of troll.

      Preferably one who actually understands the debate, or at least one whose communication skills extend beyond the use of prehensile thumbs on a phone keypad.

      Thank you so much.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      llew Jones

      Perhaps from one like you who no grasp of the science that may seem a sensible question. To those who are well aware of the tenets of alarmist climate science and its lack of confirming, observed data yours is a very foolish question.

      For your information there are more than a few climate scientists who reject the alarmism propagated by the sect of climate science to which you seem to be referring.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Bob Malloy

      what is someone who has no relevance , no experience in the climate science industry doing publishing articles like that in the australian , that should be the only question being asked

      ?????

      Gee guys, I thought David was most incisive in his assessment of Robert Manne. Silly me.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    jonathan frodsham

    Deniers hunt in packs? Ha ha ha. Those warmists are idiots. Reminds me of M Mann and his: “The Serengeti strategy” A tried-and-true tactic of the climate change denial campaign to isolate individual scientists just as predators on the Serengeti Plain of Africa hunt their prey: Picking off vulnerable individuals from the rest of the herd.”

    Yes that is from The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. I have read it, what a waste of 10 bucks. But at least I know my enemy better.

    Did you know the computer code he is hiding is a variation of the computer game he made at college, Yes Tic-tac-toe.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Could also be Monopoly…

      Player 1: One two three… ah, Fairfax! Yess!! I’ll buy that! I’ve got half the media utilities now.

      Player 2: One two three four five… err draw from Communist Chest? Okay. Dammit! “You mentioned non-anthropogenic causes of climate change in your application, go directly to CERN funding freezer for 8 years, do not pass Pal Review, do not collect grant money”.

      Player 3: Haha! Suck that Kirkby! Okay lucky dice, land me on that sweet sweet Nobel prize. (tumble tumble) OH YEAH, Rio here I come bayyybyyyyy!

      Player 2: You get all the luck in this game Al.

      Player 4: One, three, two. Oh, not the MWP again! I dodged that last time. Okay, Rothschild, how much to get rid of it?

      Bank: That’ll be three court cases, Mike.

      Player 4: I’ll need a loan for my legal defense.

      Bank: I won’t hear of it, my dear boy. For as long as you are in my service you are a protected species.

      Player 1: (tumble tumble) A two, which lands me on… CLIMATEGATE! Phew! Lucky I just bought the papers…


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Speedy

        Andrew

        And how will they go with the Power Utility? Demolish it and install government-funded renewable wind power with PV backup systems? Will they convert all the railways into green-sourced electric so that they can make the renewable Power Utility economically viable? (Sod the poor punter consumer.) And go to gaol? Who will they see there? Not “Choo-Choo” Pachuri I suppose?

        There’s a lot of satiric scope in your idea.

        Cheers,

        Speedy.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          heheh.
          Yes there was a lot of scope. It is very late at night for me and so I just gave the players one round each. Plenty more squares to be discovered. I’m off to sleep now. Night shift will have to take over.

          Might we soon see episode 1 of “If the Parker Brothers Were Relevant”?

          I rather hope so.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    pattoh

    News flash for Mr Manne & Ms Julia – “the packs” could be larger than you think & probably something to be wary of when the reality of disenfranchisement & dispossession sinks in.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard A

    In the good old days 9/10 dentists recommended a brand of toothpaste on tv. The statistic was obtained after 100′s of dentists were interviewed. Only problem was the 9/10 “pro toothpaste” were lined up together! I understood that this statistical manipulation practice is now outlawed. The problem is that today’s journalists are all science and mathematically ignorant, so are unable to ask the pertinent questions to expose a paper’s weakness. Not withstanding that they also allow their bias to simply reproduce the author’s work.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I had a go at Manne and his article on my website. Like Clive Hamilton and others who ‘believe’ in the consensus, Manne is an awful cleft stick. He says of the sceptics that they must be wrong, but refuses to engage in any discussion because he has decided that the science is too difficult for him. If you reply that it’s not so difficult he will say that you must be out of your depth. It’s a kind of intellectual denial, that sits oddly on someone who has been twice voted as Australia’s leading public intellectual.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Allen Ford

      How anyone could be labelled a public intellectual, or a private one for that matter, who eschews any pretentions of intellectual principles or rigour, sure beats me.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    [...] Manne declares that the “Denialists are Victorious” (in The Monthly, August 2012) but his sole reasoning that the victorious are “deniers” is merely that some chosen experts tell us a disaster is coming and he feels they could not possibly be wrong. Argument from authority is a fallacy known for 2,000 years, and it is a key point, it is the disguise of the witchdoctor — “Trust me, I am the chosen one”. The one defining difference between science and religion is that the devout can argue from authority, but the scientific cannot. In science there are no Gods and there is no Bible — what matters is the evidence. The highest experts may declare the world is headed for catastrophe, but if 3,000 thermometers in ocean buoys disagree (and they do: see “Argo”), the scientist questions the opinions and goes with the observations. Robert Manne thinks internet surveys of scientists are a valid way to test whether planetary atmospheric dynamics is changing in dangerous and unprecedented ways. It’s an anti-science position. Since the dawn of time tribal witchdoctors have been forecasting storms and asking us to pay tribute to their idols. Discussion of climate science has descended into abject farce. To understand the danger of quoting surveys of scientists, let’s look at the three Manne names. Keep reading → [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    “Deniers hunt in packs? What interesting insights could one gain by dissecting his choice for words? Manne must have thought this would have some impact with some group but whom and why?”
    .
    Clearly he’s trying to frighten the flocks with that one. The flocks of CAGW followers that have surrendered their minds to the collective.
    .
    There are wily foxes out there, still counting on such fears to manipulate the flocks to their advantage, as Manne is doing.
    .
    The flocks eventually grow weary of being fearful though. It’s debilitating. And when they feel they have little left to lose they will begin to rise up , as individuals, & turn on the foxes.

    What do you call a collection of individuals ?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    AndyG55

    ““Deniers hunt in packs? ”

    I didn’t know you needed a pack to bring down a sloth…… or a galah.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Jo-did you see the interview with Christine Milne, Green Party Leader, this week where she rants about Denialists and actually states “we should have been using the social sciences a lot sooner than we have been to work out ways of talking to people’s value systems rather than to their intellectual capacity.”

    I wrote about it here http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/are-educators-free-to-plot-mental-insurrections-in-students-with-impunity/ as she accidentally acknowledges what I have been saying all along. Education globally has become a weapon to impose political ideology. You use learning theories to ground instruction in emotion and social interaction not actual facts and knowledge. You make the natural sciences and math concrete and hands-on activities about “meaning-making” and assert they are only social constructs, not reflective of universal truths or human perspectives. You make the social sciences dominant and use them to attack consciousness itself so the mind encounters experiences through a disorienting filter that skews perceptions.

    Jo-you and Anthony Watts and Lord Monckton belong to the generation that still believed in the transmission of knowledge. K-12 and higher ed globally are full of idealogues pushing to destroy capitalism and the division of labor. You do that with initiatives like Transformational Outcomes Based Education, ATC21S–the global 21st century skills movement based at U of Melbourne, the UN pushed Bologna Protocol that insists social backgrounds cannot impact who gets a degree from higher ed. Since differences in background can create real differences in the ability to do abstract, analytical work, the Social Dimensions insistence means the abstract itself has to go. Which is of course the whole point.

    Pretty soon there will be an ever declining number of minds with the knowledge and skills of logic and abstraction to analyze what is wrong in the statements of either Manne or Mann. Which is about 5 years from what I have seen of the Australian Core Skills and the Employability emphasis and the Qualifications Frameworks and the higher ed reforms that emphasize Graduate “Attributes” rather than knowledge.

    It’s not enough to just deal with the poor science involved here because poor science for all is again the whole point. It’s an absolute that impedes the exercise of power. Thus it must be subordinate. And regimes that have believed that and pushed it officially on their people all end tragically.

    Which is why we fight. And write.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      MadJak

      As a member of the younger generations, I must agree with you. it seems my peers are very good at spouting lines from someone else without having the incisive independant streak I was lucky to acquire.

      Fortunately there are others (one I could name who is still in High school) who is actively challenging preconceptions on many issues rather than accepting the lines from his teachers.

      they’re still out there, it’s just that instead of the education system enabling and encouraging independant thinkers, it seems more geared up around “checking the boxes” and “conforming to the norm”


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Winston

        Unfortunately, MJ, your generation is being quite literally attacked intellectually from all angles. Social media is all about encouraging narcissism and diverting otherwise potentially intelligent people into trivia and exhibitionism. In addition, although many university students know that a large percentage of what they are being taught in the name of PC socially constructed paradigms in history and the sciences is a nonsense, they also know that they must answer by conforming to the expected responses, because no matter how well argued they are failed or at least marked adversely if they deviate from this false doctrine. This has a permeating effect, even though the logical brain KNOWS that it is a falsehood, resolve is worn down, priorities shift and the lie is perpetuated. Such is the insidious nature of this indoctrinating cancer that has robbed a generation of the benefit of historically accumulated scholarship and deductive reasoning.

        Not since book burning has such a sabotage of learning been permitted let alone actively encouraged, with people like Manne cheering on the dumbing down of succeeding generations. No doubt this massages Manne’s ego, by appearing superior to those who follow whom he and his ilk have actively engaged in a program of misinformation and brainwashing. I would say to the saboteurs like Mr Manne, if they were to read this, that I judge men by their legacy, of the quality of knowledge they impart and by the betterment of those whom they influence. For that gross betrayal, you deserve far more than my mere contempt.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Nicely put Winston.

          This very scenario was reenforced by Bob Carter who spoke at the Speers Point Sea Level rally on Saturday. “It is no sue blaming Local Government, it is no use blaming state Government, Federal” and so on.

          He said it all originates from the UN codes that Australia follows.

          We must get out of the United Nations as a first step to intellectual freedom in this Country.

          KK


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        the incisive independant streak I was lucky to acquire.

        And very modest too, Madjak.
        You left off modesty. :D

        I’m on the tail end of Gen X myself. Didn’t die in a blinding nuclear flash, hooray.
        Well, with current proxy war between USA and Russia via Syria, don’t count your warheads before they hatch.

        I had assumed that most kids of that age (say 14 to 18) assume the government operates the same way as their parents and for the same reason, so using a projection of a stereotype as a substitute for actual details. What I had not ever wondered before today was whether the ABC and various school curricula had programmed me to think that way, far beyond any example set by my parents. It’s a scary thought.

        In my immodest opinion, schools should teach kids how to think productively and reliably (eg empirically and logically), and to the extent they tell you what to think this should be limited to facts and to versions of history that are not disputed. I think there was not enough attention given to some humanities subjects such as psychology, human relationships, how our society legally operates, including all the messy details, and the Australia’s constitution. Some of that happens in primary school, but they don’t like to teach the whole story, warts and all.

        But above all I want basic skepticism to infiltrate every single subject, in which the last question of every exam in every semester in every subject in every school Term after Grade 8 was a 5 point question which picks out some standard teaching of that semester and asks:
        “How could you test if this teaching was false? Explain your answer. (5 marks)”

        That habit of thinking, if learned early, could have changed the world.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          debbie

          Public education truly does have much to answer for.
          Any of us who have gone through ‘the system’ or are part of ‘the system’ are all aware that we must give the ‘expected’ answers if we want to pass our subjects and/or keep our jobs.
          This is particularly true if the ‘lecturer’ is also the ‘author’ or ‘co author’ or ‘reviewer’ of the course and/or the course’s text book.
          Education has turned into game that has a clear set of rules.
          The very worst thing any student/teacher/lecturer can do in most areas of study is buck the system or question the rules and/or the ‘assumptions’ that underly the established system.
          Interestingly, one of the very few areas of study that questioning and opposing arguments is still sometimes encouraged is in languages, literature studies and the dramatic arts….and it is often these people who are the ones who can see straight through the political PR spin that is being dished up as ‘science’…they can recognise the ‘language techniques’ that are being employed.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            debbie

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19348427
            Here’s a classic example.
            It is clearly stated in the 2nd last paragraph that this report does not conclude that human activity is the cause of anything, yet we have 2 profs claiming that they can use this report to say it does.
            The headline of this piece and the conclusions in the report both state that although possibly unusual, any perceived warming in Antarctica is NOT UNIQUE.
            So why do 2 professors then use this report to claim that it does prove a human fingerprint?
            The report that Tony dissects re renewable energy also suffers from the same basic flaw….information and reporting is being used inappropriately by people who claim they are ‘scientists’ or ‘economic analysists’
            here’s a little gem from this morning, this time from political analysis.
            http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/indigenous-voters-dump-labor-in-territory-putting-the-clp-back-in-power-after-11-years/story-fn59niix-1226458204734
            They are ‘blaming’ the indigenous vote?????????
            Seriously?
            This report is a hair’s breadth away from being racist in its faulty analysis/logic.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            debbie,
            I have seen a similar thing happen in one or two climate science papers where the conclusion written by the scientist toes the party line on strong CO2 warming, even when the measurements they actually collected in the study does not. ( IIRC it was a pine needle stomata paleoclimatology reconstruction but can’t remember the link. ) So that is a situation where one can quite legitimately claim a paper supports the conclusion that “X is false” even when the paper explicitly concludes “X is true”. Always look for the evidence to tell the real story.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      She couldn’t get to me that way. Period! If you fail to appeal to my intellect I immediately wonder if you have an ulterior motive. It’s all downhill after that.

      I suppose anyone can be manipulated by a clever approach, at least for a while. But the drivel from the social sciences should ring loud alarm bells immediately. The only use for it in this world is to manipulate people. What else can you do with it?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      John Smith101

      Well-expressed Robin, and other commenters-in-reply. If people have not yet been there I suggest a visit to Robin’s site – his writing and research is very important in understanding what is happening in education. For those folk somewhat down on the “humanities” I suggest a reading of C P Snow’s, The Two Cultures (and a second look) – great background material.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        John,

        When I read this I was gritting my teeth. I really wanted to say something a lot different than I did. But common courtesy demands otherwise.

        Does being an educator–Teacher, Principal, Super, Professor–come with a magic “Get Out of Jail Free” card along with the degree? Especially those doctorates. Can educators push emotional and psychological practices in the classroom or Systems Thinking or Values Clarification or Soft Skills or Character Education or Inquiry Learning or the Student Centered Classroom or a myriad other terms that the Creators acknowledge are means to alter a Student’s Consciousness? To try to get to the Blind Spot that impels behaviors in an effort to obtain Communitarian Social Change?

        Unfortunately this is upon us. Obama’s Department of Education is doing exactly what Robin describes. For those in America I can recommend a movie called, 2016: OBAMA’S AMERICA. It will chill your blood. The scenes at the end of grade school children singing, “Obama will lead us…” froze me to the bone. There’s no better way to spend the price of a movie ticket.

        The enemy is not just at the gates, he’s inside the walls. He’s inside our homes.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          John Smith101

          Couldn’t agree more Roy. The pity is the humanities did have a valuable role to play at one time, hence my reference to C P Snow. He outlined, in part, the dangers of where the humanities was heading, back in the 1960s or thereabouts.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Joe V.

    Congratulations Jo, on getting such wisdom into a mainstream broadsheet at last. It would have been considered heresy  not so long ago. And in a Weekend edition too ( that’s being what most people read).
    .
    It bursts quite a few of the old myths we are so familiar with here, in front of a wider  and now wiser audience.

    “We won’t know anything for sure about the effect of trace gases by researching opinions of hominids.

    That one sure bursts their self inflating authoritarian bubble.
    .
    Pity about the headline though.  

    Manne is anti-science on climate

    Journalists seem have an unfortunate habit of drawing on the worst aspects for headlining.
    .
    While not untrue, it appears to set the scene as an being attack on the Manne , while in reality  its just an attack on his reasoning, which he shares with the fawning minions of Climate Science followers.
    .
    Well done on an excellent presentation though.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Speedy

      Joe

      It is rare to strike a humble climate scientist – can you name any examples? Which is odd. I would have thought that as one begins to understood the cosmos, one would be ever more acutely aware of one’s own insignificance and ignorance ? And that this humility forms the platform for further learning?

      It’s a lucky thing that climate science, at least, is settled. No need for humility I suppose.

      Cheers,

      Speedy


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Joe V.

        Speedy,
        Don’t go all mystic on me.
        .
        I’m sure there are many humble climate scientists. They’re not the ones we hear from or that get to take the credit though, in that distorted world that Climategate has shown us into.
        .
        Humility may take an acceptance that there is something greater. It may seem more palatable if that greater isn’t human nor even animal. God, Gaia, or Ghandi.
        .
        Is it just our tiny minds that cann’t envisage there not being an architect for such order in the universe ? It doesn’t hurt if you don’t think about it .
        .
        What would John & Brian make of Mannes piece ?
        How might they present Jo’s reply ( hadn’t they been beholden to the ABC of course) ?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Speedy

          Joe

          I suppose I was getting a bit mystic but that can happen if you think about things…

          As to John and Bryan? They had a puff piece on Thursday night – the satirical equivalent of sticking the fingers in the ears and singing to yourself. It must be tough being the cartoonists for Pravda.

          Cheers,

          Speedy


          Report this

          00

  • #
    thojak

    Kind of ‘being used before’, however still rather up-to-date[-d]… ;)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx-t9k7epIk

    Brgds from Sweden!
    /TJ


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Joe V.

      :-)
      Thanks for that.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Awww, isn’t that sweet.
      Now we’ve got “our song”.
      You know, that special song, just for us.
      Next time we meet up to celebrate the scrapping of the ETS,
      at a table for two lit by genuine candles,
      we can get the hotel band to play “our” special song.
      I’ll even wear my own chicken suit! :D

      That is great, very catchy. Easier to remember than the German rap song.

      Al Gore and Mike Mann being chased over the hills by a giant chicken wielding a hockeystick. Genius.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Phil Ford

    Fantastic piece, Jo – and congratulations on getting it published.

    Manne also quotes Naomi Orsekes, author of The Merchants of Doubt, her work was equivalent to a google search on words in scientific papers.

    Ouch! I had to chuckle.

    Keep it up, Jo!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    Well done, Jo. Increasingly “spreading the message”:
    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/moore/

    - – - – - – - -
    RE: Manne, Mann, man
    Your readers might enjoy the “Who’s on first?” material –

    Video here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sShMA85pv8M

    History here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who%27s_on_First%3F


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Joanne, you knocked that one out of the ballpark! Love it!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    msher

    May I ask for some guidance if I post here. I’m a Delingpole regular, but sick of the trolls.

    I follow events in America (I’m American) and Britain (my mother was English and it’s a good preview of things to come in the U.S.), but not very much in Australia. So I can add very little to discussions specific to Australia, but can add parrellels in my insane left present home of California which continues going ever While the state is insolvent (furlonging workers without pay and sending IOU’s to vendors I call insolvent), as is its biggest city, Los Angeles, and two cities and a huge, not poor county, have officially declared bankrupt. The Democrat. governor is going ahead with the high speed train nobody wants that will cost billions and only covers the 300 miles of the 400 miles between Los Angeles and San Francisco, the two cities it was supposed to connect. Literally the train to nowhere.

    I can write about fanatic greenies who predict drought, but won’t let any new dams or resevoirs be built and the American Express advertisement featuring the CEO of Patogonia (libs favorite extreme aventure gear company) talking about the satisfaction he gets in dam busting. I can talk about the initiative that the greenies got put on the November ballot to tear down the dam that provides San Francisco with water. (I guess San Franciscoans will drink Perrier or Crystal.). I can talk about the fertile farmland that now is arid and unfarmable because it can’t be irrigated because such irrigation might harm an endangered smelt. I can talk about the hispanic farm workers who are jobless as a result – poor hispanics, and the fact that four of the most powerful members of Congress are Democrats from California that could change this with one phone call. They haven’t bothered, but that doesn’t stop them campaigning as champions of the poor and especially hispanics, while they allege the conservatives are greedy and just care about tax cuts for the rich.

    I can talk about liberals and conservatives anywhere and the tactics of each and how wimpy conservatives are and let the libs get away with it. I can talk about the George Soros financed efforts to hijack our elections and courts. Since he operates in many countries, i.e, supporting the Islamists in Turkey, he might be doing similiar things in Australia. Or if not him, others.

    So I have stuff to write about – from the U.S., from Britain, from the EU and AGW and conservative and liberal and far left attacks to hijack, but it wouldn’t be about Australia. What is interesting and useful, what is off topic and what is useless distraction? I don’t want to be an annoyance.

    I wrote a post which is #19, and a couple of replies to repliers. That is farily typical of me, although sometimes I write longer with info in a post. This post is also typical me.

    A useful addition to this blog, or an annoying distraction?

    [Post to your hearts content. You'll find moderation here is light and all opinions are treated equal by the mods. Just a heads up, in Australia, the Liberals and Nationals (LNP) are the conservatives and Labor are the lefties. Mod Oggi]


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Msher, welcome to the best blog down-under (Jo has the awards to prove it). I for one look forward to your particular view of the politics of the environment and climate change.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Jesus saves

        Yep this blog beat Woogs World in a tight tussle to claim the coveted glittering prize! What a triumph!!

        (When will you ever make a meaningful contribution to the award winning blog?) CTS


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Truthseeker

          Js – just look at the top right of the page, just under the tip jar button.

          As usual, you and your ilk cannot seem to handle the evidence.

          By the way, Jesus saves, but Moses invests!


          Report this

          00

      • #
        msher

        Truthseeker

        My view of climate change and politics. The collapse of the Soviet Union left a void for the anti-capitalists and anti-West neo-marxists to fill. AGW filled the void perfectly. The remedies involve crippling Western economies, impoverishing the middle classes, increasing the size of government with increased taxation and regulations and mandates and intrusion into our activities. It also helps the one world government or governance movement – e.g., see ClubofRome.org – a think tank started by David Rockefeller despite what Wiki says, because all the treaties call for UN policing of economies. I have a hard time thinking that the powerful people who have orchestrated all of this want to be subordinate to the likes of Kofi Anon or Ban Ki Moon, so to get really weird in conspiracy theory, I sometimes wonder if the UN is a dupe itself.

        It certainly has become a corrupt and political institution, that thinks of itself has a separate power rather than a service organization to its memberfship. I find it scary that our governments. except for President Bush, allow that happen. But as I say, I do not really think the very powerful, whoever they are, who are making events happen plan to be subordinate to a UN. So I don’t know what that means. Which raises the question of Agenda 21 – the planned environmental planning of all of our countries. California has already signed on to that. Now a developer or planning district approving anything has to do a “climate change assessment of the project.” And if there is any adverse affect on climate, the developer must find a way to mitigate. This is all something as a joke as the state has not yet been able to figure out how to do a climate change assessment and has issued no guidelines. Additionally, state law says by 2020 each planning district has to be down to 1990 carbon emission levels. I’m not sure anybody knows what those were, but more important, many places which were farmland in 1990 are now industrial parks or people filled suburbs. I don’t know whether the planning districts or supposed to raze the buildings or kill the people.

        But UN or no UN, I think Agenda 21 is in our future. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, it’s online. Google UN and Agenda 21. The UN is proud of it.

        On the back of the ideologues and control freaks who are orchestrating whatever they are orchestrating, are riding opportunists who are pushing the AGW scare because they can make money through offsets trading, subsidies, counter=productive wind farm development, climate change consulting, climate change monitoring, etc. It is probably mere coincidence how many family members and cronies of politicians have alternative energy interests.

        And on the back of the foregoing, are the fanatic greenies, who will actually state “humans are a cancer on the planet.” The Obama Administration are full of those, including John Holdren, a main advisor who in the 60′s was writing about over-population and advocating forced abortions and sterilizations. Medical ethicists at major universities now talk about “after-birth abortions” (formerly known as homicide or infanticide.)

        And finally, are the silly hippy types, who spend their time with their Macs and cell phones, but don’t like all this consumerism. They have jetted down to the Amazon and seen the rain forest and believe in the noble savage, back to nature way of life. If you ask them whether people actually like living in hot humid, insect and disease ridden jungles as opposed to nice suburbs, they don’t know what you are asking. If you ask them how they would have internet or computers or that advanced medical treatment they might need in their back to nature utopia….well, I have never had one answer that yet.

        Probably much more that you wanted, but you said you were interested in my political views of the environment and climate.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Joe V

      Oops! Please ignore that downtick msher.. Another case of smart phone finger. I look forward to hearing more from such a considerate contributor.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      msher

      To moderator

      Thank you for the heads up. I may get into trouble on terminology. In my part of the world, libs are the left, and in my view present mainstream establishment conservatives are the wimps, trying so hard to be perceived as “nice” they let the far left get away with murder. And in Britain the Conservative party is virtually indistinguishable from the left. Go tea party movement, go! No wimps, they.

      So I might mix up terminology. If I use “liberals” with a small “l” would that be understood as left? If not, what are a generic, non-party specific termx for left and right?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        … what are a generic, non-party specific terms for left and right?

        One major party is Left of Centre and is run by the unions, and the other party is Left of Centre, and is delusional, in that it thinks that the Unions do not run the country.

        As a non-Australian, it took me a while to realise that the government in Canberra primarily looks after Foreign and International affairs, and the Defence Forces, (and a burgeoning public service that takes its own growth hormones). That is all it does. Most of the public services in Australia are run by the various States, with far less scope for taxation than the Federal Government.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      Correction of MOD OGGI’s comment:

      Here in Austraila the Nationals are the socialists, the Liberals are the lefties, Labor are left of the lefties, and the Greens are the port outrigger on the canoe.

      There is no “conservative” party in Australian politics today.

      .
      Hi msher – welcome to Maison de Jo.

      [Touche'. Mod oggi]


      Report this

      00

      • #
        msher

        MV

        A lot of the issue on Delingpole isn’t even mods. It is the damm software. It can’t handle links and html, and especially not both in the same post. I believe passionately in defeating this AGW propaganda and remedies monster. I don’t just write to moan and groan or for recreation. I appreciate the quality of this blog and I will post here. But this is a war I am fighting in various ways – it is my chosen civic contribution. Delingpole’s blog also reaches an audience – and many more Americans than this one does. You are a superb writer. Please just copy your posts there too. I feel so strongly because I want to win this war and every advantage, every tool we have I want to be the best – and you are the best. I can’t stand what the Delingpole blog has become and the infestation by trolls and the guillibity of skeptics in responding to pointless barbs. But that just makes it more important that there also be good posts, not that something has chased the best posters away, Couldn’t you just copy whatever you post here that isn’t only Australia specific on Delingpole too? And if it gets mangled, it gets mangled. But at least one of the best posters would be putting material there where a lot of Americans look.

        Nor is there a conservative party in Britain, except the UKIP, which the Brits are too passive to make into anything, nor is the Republican establishment in America conservative. Tea party movement, yes. Only hope for the country to not be hijacked by the pervasive subversion of institutions and media of the hard left.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Jesus saves

        And Jo Nova and her acolytes are [SNIP Jesus, this was just useless harassment. Try harder would you?] ED.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Joe V

    Just heard the news, about Neil Armstrong.
    An iconic legend from that age of achievement & exploration has passed on.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      msher

      Yes. indeed sad. Many of us are old enough to have watched live the landing.

      But what has NASA let itself become since, with the likes of Hansen? The president head, whose name I forget, gave an interview on al Jezeera where he said Obama put as one of his 3 priorities outreach to countries of the religion of peace to explain to them the contribution to science they have made. Once the guy gets past – is it the zero or the decimal point, I forget? – borrowed from the Hindus, I think he is out of things to talk about. So those outreach sessions must get very awkward.

      I don’t know Armstrong’s age, but I suspect as a man of such glorious past that involved being a fit man and a man of action, that he perhaps did not fear death if he could no longer function as he once did.

      What he made of the present NASA, on the one hand going to Mars and on the other, involved in the AGW scam, I have no idea.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been called a fraud over this Moon landing when I say I can remember exactly where I was.

        I was at the RAAF Base at Forest Hill undergoing trade training as an electrician. It was Monday 21st July 1969, and we were all watching it in grainy black and white on a small TV set up in the classroom, and even in 1969 setting up a live broadcast like this from another Country was no easy thing.

        As soon as I say that date and time, people automatically say that it was the 20th July, and snicker at me for telling such a blatant lie like this.

        Then of course I tell them that while the landing is credited at the date and time in Houston or The Cape (20th July), it was actually the following day here in Australia because of the time difference.

        Tony.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          Think yourself lucky Tony.

          The nearest thing to that in my generation is hearing the Berlin Wall was being knocked down.

          Perhaps next greatest, in my mind anyway, is Yves Rossi flying a microjet-powered wing over the English Channel in 2011. Not exactly flying like a bird, but close.

          The first private suborbital space flight of White Knight was also quite exciting a few years back.

          In terms of bad events, I think Australians can all remember exactly where they were and what they were doing the moment they first heard the awful news… that Hey Hey It’s Saturday had been cancelled. :D


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Winston

          You are correct Tony. It was my lovely wife’s 9th birthday that 21st July morning as we viewed live pictures of the landing. I have no doubt Armstrong was the first man on the moon, however I do believe it is open to debate that the pictures we saw were genuine or simulated. They were under such a tight timetable I do wonder if they cut a few corners, and I note a lot of that iconic footage has allegedly, perhaps conveniently been lost.

          Either way, Armstrong is a true and incredibly modest hero, and it reminds me of a time when mankind was briefly no longer timid and ventured beyond our earthly realm, aiming for the stars. A pity, we had such promise as a species then.


          Report this

          00

          • #

            I get the same with the Kennedy Assassination. I was 11 and it was a Saturday Morning, and I was playing Junior Tennis, as I did every Saturday Morning.

            Rod Flaxman, our Coach came out of the viewing room on the balcony. We were lucky, as those Queens Park Courts at the bottom of Queen Street in Southport had 8 courts and our team was on Court One, directly below the balcony.

            Mr Flaxman called out that President Kennedy had just been assassinated. We all stopped, shocked at the news, even as young children, right up until the point we all looked at each other, and asked, ….. “Who’s President Kennedy?”

            I still remembered it though, as I soon found out.

            The same happened four years ago, as I constructed a large photo album for my grand daughter. I included images of her mother (our daughter), my good lady wife, of me as her Poppy, and of her, spanning the ages from all our youth to current times.

            I am 8 years younger than my good lady wife, and she was bringing in the images. I scanned them, worked on them in the Adobe Business program for images, and then resized them all. Then saved them, took them to a photo outlet and had them printed up for inclusion into the by now very large album.

            My good lady wife brought me one image of her daughter as a new baby, and I asked her for some info to place as text with the image.

            She had no real idea, but came back a minute or so later, saying that as her Mum came into the room with the camera, she mentioned that President Kennedy had just been shot.

            Again, that gave me an exact date and even a rough time, early AM on that Saturday morning. I placed that text with the image and our daughter looked at the image in the final album, knowing it was her, but puzzled as to how I knew the day, date and even the time. I told her, and the first thing she mentioned was that she thought it was on a Friday afternoon that he was shot.

            Again, I had to explain the time difference, and it always gets me questions as people are so sure of the day date and time, and saying it was on a Saturday morning sounds odd until you explain the time difference.

            Odd how different people have different ‘World stopping’ moments in their lives.

            I only have four. Kennedy, that Moon landing, Harold Holt’s disappearance, and Gough getting the chop.

            Hey, sorry to go so far off topic here.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Your theory about the pictures being faked is addressed quite comprehensively in this documentary.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            msher

            Tony from Oz

            Up until 9/11, if any American alive at the time of the Kennedy assassation and old enough to understand events asked another such American, “where were you when?” the sentence didn’t have to be completed. Such Americans knew exactly what the “when” was.

            Now there has been 9/11 which was an equally shattering and horrifying day (and I worked for many years in New York City right across the street from the World Trade Center, and had I still been in New York, I would have been in the lobby of the North Tower on my way to my building just about the time the plane hit). I don’t know if “where were you when” still evokes the Kennedy assassination. But there is no equivalent question about 9/11. I have never heard anybody ask “Where were you when you heard what was happening?” Or “Did you see the second plane hit live on TV?” Or “Where did you watch the news?”

            —————

            Re question of faked moon landing:

            This doesn’t prove whether or not the landing was a fake filmed on a soundstage somewhere, but I have friends whose husbands worked on the project and were either at Cape Canaveral (spelling is wrong, I think) for the lift off or Houston Mission Control for the landing. None of them believe it was a fake, but I concede that isn’t conclusive. Aside from point by point analysis of what the claimants that it was fake point to, it seems like an awfully risky ploy for the U.S. to undertake. Had it been a fake and somehow been found out or confessed to by a participant, it would have damaged the U.S. severely in its fight in the Cold War = which was what the moon landing was all about. As a long-time hobbyist of espionage and other things Cold War, I don’t think it would have been worth the risk. We had already seen what a fiasco Bay of Pigs unsuccessful attempt to oust Castro had done to our reputation. A found-out fake moon landing would have been disastrous. And this was about the status in the Cold War, not about going to the moon.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Winston

            Msher,
            I actually don’t believe the landing was faked, or that they never went, just that it was a propaganda exercise and visual evidence was therefore a non-negotiable must, but if film on site on the lunar surface had failed the Americans would not have been believed and alot of face would have been lost. I think they would have had to have had a backup just in case, simulating the Sea of tranquility with a mocked up lunar module in case pictures were too grainy or indistinct. With the delay in transmission, any activity could then be acted out to shadow their movements with the real voice over spliced in. Now that may or may not have happened, quite frankly I think that would have been the smart thing to do, so they could wave their superiority right in the Russian’s face. That was part of the point, wasn’t it?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            msher

            Winston

            Yes, that was the point. I could go with what you’re saying.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          rukidding

          Hi Tony
          Saw it in the crew room 2OCU with 3 weeks to go to discharge.And I heard about Kennedy’s assassination while fueling my car at the canteen at Wagga.Not bad bookends aye.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Len

        Neil Armstrong was 82.


        Report this

        00

    • #

      Yes the world lost a good man yesterday.
      Murphy gets us all in the end. (Poul and Karen Anderson’s 1969 story “Murphy’s Hall”)


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Deniers? Hunt in packs?? Talk about projection!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    what a misleading headline and article on the CAGW-promoting Sky News. too ridiculous to even excerpt but the headline would have people thinking abbott wasn’t going to repeal the carbon dioxide tax, wouldn’t it?

    26 Aug: Sky News: Abbott to retract carbon tax calls- Swan
    http://www.skynews.com.au/national/article.aspx?id=787982


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    wow!

    25 Aug: NYT Business Day: Robert H. Frank: Carbon Tax Silence, Overtaken by Events
    Robert H. Frank is an economics professor at the Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell University
    DON’T expect to hear much about climate change at the Republican and Democratic conventions…
    Many climate scientists, however, are now pointing to evidence linking rising global temperatures to the extreme weather we’re seeing around the planet…
    With distressing images of weather-related disasters saturating the news media, climate change no longer seems such a distant and abstract worry — except, perhaps, in Washington…
    Mitt Romney, for his part, has been equivocal about whether rising temperatures are caused by human action. But he has been adamant that uncertainty about climate change rules out policy intervention. “What I’m not willing to do,” he told an audience in New Hampshire last summer, “is spend trillions of dollars on something I don’t know the answer to.”
    Climatologists are the first to acknowledge that theirs is a highly uncertain science. The future might be better than they think. Then again, it might be much worse. Given that risk, policy makers must weigh the potential cost of action against the potential cost of inaction. And even a cursory look at the numbers makes a compelling case for action.
    ***According to the respected M.I.T. global climate simulation model, there is a 10 percent chance that average surface temperatures will rise by more than 12 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. Warming on that scale could end life as we know it…
    The good news is that we could insulate ourselves from catastrophic risk at relatively modest cost by enacting a steep carbon tax. Early studies by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that a carbon tax of up to $80 per metric ton of emissions — a tax that might raise gasoline prices by 70 cents a gallon — would eventually result in climate stability. But because recent estimates about global warming have become more pessimistic, stabilization may require a much higher tax. How hard would it be to live with a tax of, say, $300 a ton?…
    ***A carbon tax would also serve two other goals. First, it would help balance future budgets. Tens of millions of Americans are set to retire in the next decades, and, as a result, many budget experts agree that federal budgets simply can’t be balanced with spending cuts alone. We’ll also need substantial additional revenue, most of which could be generated by a carbon tax…

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/business/carbon-tax-would-have-many-benefits-economic-view.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    fixing CAGW:

    22 Aug: Herald Sun: AAP: Carbon tax implementation smooth – AGL
    ENERGY supplier AGL Energy says the Federal Government’s carbon tax has been implemented smoothly.
    Managing director Michael Fraser said today there had been no drop in the household consumption of electricity arising from the introduction of the carbon tax on July 1…
    Mr Fraser said softer demand for electricity was partly a result of the impact of the high Australian dollar on the manufacturing sector…
    Demand had also been softening before the introduction of the carbon tax as consumers responded to tariff increases driven by higher network charges…
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/companies/loy-yang-buy-hits-agl-profit/story-fndgp8b1-1226455501497

    spruiking for AGL:

    22 Aug: Motley Fool: Mike King: AGL’s carbon scheming
    To offset direct emissions costs of around $650m and a total cost uplift of near $1 billion as a result of the Carbon Tax, AGL has raised prices and invested heavily in renewable energy generation – solar, dams and wind farms. Additionally, the company will receive government transitional tax assistance and expects the carbon tax to be earnings positive in the 2013 financial year…
    http://www.fool.com.au/2012/08/investing/agls-carbon-scheming/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    the unashamedly pro-ETS Reuters Point Carbon doesn’t allow u to read their articles without paying of late. guess they worked out the public were on to them cos the MSM certainly wasn’t publishing any of their negative stories. some headlines i haven’t seen in the MSM:

    24 Aug: Reuters Point Carbon: EU CO2 registry flaw sparks liquidity worries
    A fault in the design of the EU’s new carbon registry means traders, utilities and factories are unable to check which company has delivered carbon credits to their accounts, a flaw experts say threatens liquidity in the bloc’s $148-billion emissions trading scheme.

    remember the following CERS were supposed to be banned:

    24 Aug: Reuters Point Carbon: The U.N. has received requests for 4.7 million Certified Emissions Reductions to be handed out next week, including one for 1.5 million credits from the owner of a Chinese HFC-23 project, data showed.

    24 Aug: Reuters Point Carbon: Industry resistance delays Rio carbon market start to 2014

    24 Aug: Reuters Point Carbon: CCAs slip 4 pct in “healthy” August trading
    California carbon allowances (CCAs) for delivery in 2013 slid 65 cents from their price one week ago the end Thursday at $16.75 per tonne as a steady flow of CO2 permits changed hands this week.

    u can access the following on regular reuters, but note how bullish the article is compared to the Point Carbon reality 2 days later which i’ve posted above:

    22 Aug: Reuters: Rory Carroll: California CO2 market players eyeing nuclear plant woes
    Newly announced major layoffs and a prolonged outage at a major nuclear power plant have raised concerns that the price of carbon allowances for California’s forthcoming cap-and-trade program will rise sharply, market participants said Tuesday.
    Southern California Edison (SCE), owner of theSan Onofre nuclear power plant in southern California, announced on Monday night it will lay off 730 employees this year to cut costs, a move that comes as the plant’s owners acknowledged that it will be a long time before the carbon-free nuclear plant will fully return to service…
    The 2,150-MW San Onofre plant has not produced electricity since January 31, when a radiation leak was discovered in one of the plant’s two units.
    The outage has been a major driver of California carbon allowance (CCA) futures prices on exchanges this summer because SCE has been forced to fire up older, carbon-emitting natural gas plants to replace the lost electricity…
    “San Onofre is the big wildcard in the CCA market right now,” said Jeff King, managing director of environmental markets at Scotiabank.
    “If that plant stays down for an extended period of time, it means higher compliance costs for the rest of California,” he said…
    “I would say a longer shutdown is bullish,” a broker said Tuesday…
    “The steam generator issues at SONGS also require that SCE be prudent with its future spending while SCE and regulators review the long-term viability of the nuclear plant,” it said.
    PROLONGED OUTAGE
    “The reality is that the Unit 3 reactor will not be operating for some time,” it said, referring to the unit where the leak was discovered earlier this year.
    The closure of the 2,150-megawatt SONGS, which typically supplies the state with about 8 percent of its electricity, has at times strained the power grid during the warmer-than-usual California summer.
    Grid operators have fired up some vintage natural gas-powered facilities and asked Californians to conserve electricity during peak hours to prevent rolling blackouts…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/22/us-california-carbon-idUSBRE87L06720120822

    00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      California has screwed itself royally and the voters have their heads where there’s no sunshine. When things really boil over it will be too late to undo all the damage in time to save the state from economic chaos.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    pat says here:

    The closure of the 2,150-megawatt SONGS, which typically supplies the state with about 8 percent of its electricity, has at times strained the power grid during the warmer-than-usual California summer.
    Grid operators have fired up some vintage natural gas-powered facilities and asked Californians to conserve electricity during peak hours to prevent rolling blackouts.

    It only takes one major plant to go off line and the resultant serves as a stark example of what life will be like without that major power.

    South Australia take note, with Summer coming on, and Greens gloating as plans for the shutdown of Northern and maybe even Playford are discussed.

    Just see how that green Wind performs if that comes to pass.

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      This points out a danger in nuclear power — when something does go wrong it can put a plant offline for a long time. Fukushima is another example.

      There never seems to be a good solid backup plan.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        The information I had at the time of the disaster, from two (geographically) separate sources was:

        1) The root cause of the failure was that the reserve generators, needed to pump coolant water, were outside of main building, which is an old design. The newer plant, just down the road, was also hit by the Tsunami, but escaped infra structural damage.

        2) Major maintenance planned for the site, to bring it up to modern standards, was objected to, by a consortium of Japanese green organisations, and had been before the courts for some considerable time. TEPCO were dragging their heels because of the litigation costs of answering the challenge.

        3) Radiation from the site came from two sources:

        a) Radiation released when the reactor coolant (water) overheated due to the pumps being inoperable, and the external power supply being disrupted This radiation consisted of Iodine-131, which has a half life measured in hours, and Caesium-134, which is soluble in water and hence becomes disbursed in the ocean; and

        b) Radiation from spent fuel rods that were being stored outside of the main building, in “cooling ponds”. These ponds are designed for temporary storage while awaiting transportation of the rods to an off-site facility that can reprocess them. The transportation of the spent rods was also objected to by the same consortium of Japanese green organisations, who had won a victory in having a transportation ban put in place.

        Conclusion: Solid, engineering, and science based, risk management and backup plans were in place, but were prevented in their execution, by a group with a political agenda and deeper pockets then TEPCO.

        The shut down at Fukushima is celebrated by green movements world-wide, for its propaganda value (along with Chernobyl) in removing Nuclear power from all future planning considerations.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Exactly my point, Rereke. But the backup plan I’m thinking of is to have enough excess capacity available so you aren’t limping along asking people to conserve, much less really hurting when some generators go south.

          When I was a newlywed the rate went down as you used more kWh. The utility knew it was in business to make money and they were anxious to sell their product. Now the regulators have us all in a stranglehold and the rate goes up the more you use. And soon enough to go up according to the demand on the grid or just time of day; and worse, probably also to go up if you put too high a load on the system — 400W, pay $0.10/kWh; 4kW, pay $0.30/kWh for example. And the smart meters can do this kind of thing.

          This whole thing is madness.


          Report this

          00

          • #

            Interesting, Roy.

            Prior to the recent election in Queensland, Anna Bligh’s Labor were either considering or planning to radically change the way people paid for their electricity consumption, and this was directed mainly at the residential sector.

            For large power consumers, the plan was to have them on not one account, but on two, in other words, charging people for two separate connections, even though the power was supplied through the one connection, as all homes are connected, so it wasn’t a case of running two lots of wires to your home, but just to charge you for the two connections. That would be two separate connection fees up front, and the second connection would be charged at a higher rate, and that was for all power consumption above a certain amount, calculated at what information I could find as the average for Queensland consumption.

            Now here we are specifically looking at homes with items that are large consumers of electricity, pools, eg the pumps, and air conditioning units reverse cycle, so cooling in Summer and as heating in the Winter.

            This was an absolutely iniquitous proposal that went largely unheralded, mainly because those reporting on it had no clue as to what it really meant.

            The supply of electricity was becoming a ‘cash cow’ for a Labor State Government who thought that they could get away with anything provided the right message was put out there.

            And yes, smart meters are not designed to be smart, as that is just the propaganda word that they use for them. They are there to monitor your consumption and act as easy isolation methods in the event that the grid reaches capacity with no more plants left to come on line.

            As Roy says ….. madness ….. absolute madness.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    I agree Tony. SA has 31% of capacity from wind turbines, way past the danger point of 17% acknowledged by Denmark and Spain. Yet both those countries are interconnected to the rest of Europe.

    Denmark is favourably placed with more than 3 times capacity of their total electricity located in Norway, and access to Germany with 12 times their capacity. They can buy electricity when they want it; all they have to do is pay for it. Spain is less favourably placed, although it has nearly 9% capacity in hydro, with access to more than that in Andorra. The line to France can also bring nuclear power, but not enough to bail Spain out if there are too many problems.

    Poor old SA has no hydro, no readily available hydro from neighbours, and only a smallish line to Vic, which has run at capacity in summer these last few years. All this wind and no conventional stations being built means blackouts will occur as soon as there is a hot summer.

    I am thinking of a generator, if I can find somewhere to place it, but then you have to replace your switchboard etc. to isolate your house from the grid when you run it.

    But fear not for SA, we have an excess of stupid politicians; if only we could build up an export trade. After all camels and sheep aren’t much more intelligent than our pollies, and you can sell those overseas. Perhaps if we stuffed them (a neat reversal!) and sold them as souvenirs to tourists?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Boadicea

      Graeme N0 3

      We are exporting them already.

      Hadnt you noticed that via the courtesy if his mate Bob Carr, now the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mike Rann has been appointed Australian High Commissioner in the UK.

      One down a few hundred to go

      Rann must be fuming over the failure of BHP to go ahead with the Olympic Dam.

      However rumour has it that the straw which broke the camels back was the issue of BHP’s own gas powered power generation at Roxby which I understand the wanted to be separate to the Grid, but the Laborite Loonies wanted it connected, and further BHP to buy green energy from the wind and solar producers. It all got just too hard


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Rob Moore

    Brilliant No3-

    But fear not for SA, we have an excess of stupid politicians; if only we could build up an export trade. After all camels and sheep aren’t much more intelligent than our pollies, and you can sell those overseas. Perhaps if we stuffed them (a neat reversal!) and sold them as souvenirs to tourists?

    ——————————————————————————–
    Jo – a great article published and I can’t believe that we are still talking about this lunatic swindle after at least two years pulling it to pieces.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ian Hill

    Tony, I’m glad summer’s approaching as I’m fed up with winter. It seems to be the coldest and wettest one we’ve had here in SA for ages, although I haven’t checked the numbers.

    A couple of months ago I drove to Port Augusta from Adelaide via a more roundabout route which took me to Waterloo, a small town with a wind farm which made the national news a while ago and a place I wanted to check out of curiosity, and then on to Jamestown via Burra and there were hundreds of wind farm monstrosities tucked away from the main drag, but completley spoiling the natural beauty of the lower Flinders Ranges.

    I think the state needs to suffer a major power failure, in summer, before people will say “enough is enough”. Being without electricity for a few days, in hot sunny weather on windy days will have people demanding to know why the wind farms are failing us and all those solar panels are useless.

    One thing, we will be able to truthfully tell our children and grandchildren that this was planned for their benefit, so they better get used to it. I doubt they’ll be impressed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    One small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind.

    We lost one of our great men yesterday. He was one of my heros.

    Rest in peace, Neil Armstrong.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Colin Henderson

    Perhaps the “pack” reference stems from Manne not dealing with a full deck!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    sophocles

    The Cult of Climate Science also, according to a wit at WUWT,
    The Church of Climatology
    …quite appropriate …


    Report this

    00

  • #
    msher

    Re threatened Michael Mann-hockey stick litigation.

    Are you Aussies following events in the U.S. with regard to litigation Mann is threatening?

    A number of U.S. skeptics (National Review, Mark Steyn, Chris Horner and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Investors’ Business Daily and perhaps Climate Depot) appear to be intentionally baiting Mann into actually suing them for their statements about fraud and the hockey stick, and he appears to be taking the bait. (His very expensive lawyer’s response is on Mann’s Facebook page.) I might be wrong, but on the very sketchy info so far available (google Mann and litigation, or look at ClimateDepot), this feels different to me than any previous attempt to get at Mann. This feels coordinated, well planned and meant to be taken all the way. Which I assume means they have funding for very expensive litigation already in place and can go all the way.

    Mann is, under U.S. defamation law (U.S. Supreme court ruling, New York Times v. Sullivan), a “public figure” and can only win against the “press” if he can show their knowledge of actual untruth in their statements or reckless disregard as to truth or falsity. Unless he gets a Soros-financed judge, he cannot prevail in showing that, and there will be discovery of his data, records, communications and how he spent grant money. There will be found a way to drag the CRU emails and programmer’s notes and Mike’s Nature Trick in. (Technically, much of CRU material is hearsay.) Others have backed off when he threatened, but based on the sketchy info I have and the number of people/organizations involved, as I said, I think they have their funding in place and are saying: “Bring it on.”

    I assume the rest of the AGW community is watching in horror, as is his university. University doesn’t care about the fraud allegations. They care at a time when public is furious at the ever rising cost of tuiton about disclosure of all the junkets, perhaps by private jet, to Rio, Bali, Cancun, etc. And probably as in all grants and funding, expenses were padded and money used for things other than stated. Mann brings in money, so the University doesn’t care about the substance of any of that, but it does care greatly about public exposure.

    The allegations of fraud have never hurt the AGW community since their government funders and the foundations giving grants want an AGW result. (Although agreed Climategate sure disrupted Copenhagen.) But just some more allegations by some skeptics, big deal. Hansen and Jones and others must be scared stiff and I imagine the pressure on Mann to back off is huge. But, as I said, he may have gone too far to do so.

    We’ll see if someone somehow forces Mann to back down. (Who is willing to fund him under the circumstances is a mystery to me.) Let’s hope I’m right about the skeptics having funding in place and Mann doesn’t.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    pat

    23 Aug: AP: AP Exclusive: Energy loan watchdog an Obama donor
    A veteran Wall Street executive who performed an independent review that exonerated the Obama administration’s program of loans to energy companies contributed $52,500 to re-elect President Barack Obama in the months since completing his work, according to an Associated Press review of campaign records…
    The campaign contributions to Obama started just weeks after Herbert M. Allison Jr., in congressional testimony in March, minimized concerns that the Energy Department was at high risk in more than $23 billion in federal loans awarded to green energy firms. Two weeks later, Allison began giving to the Obama campaign. His contributions to Obama and the Democratic National Committee totaled $52,500 by last month. Allison previously was the former head of the government’s mass purchase of toxic Wall Street assets.
    Allison did not make any Obama donations during his four-month review of Energy Department loans, and he has a long history of working with and giving money to both political parties. However, Republican Party officials and congressional critics of the energy loans said Allison’s donations to Obama raise doubts about his objectivity and highlight his decision not to assess multimillion-dollar loans to two companies that later went into bankruptcy – the troubled Solyndra solar panel company and Beacon Power, an energy storage firm.
    Allison’s report, completed in February and touted by the White House, acknowledged that the Energy Department could lose as much as $3 billion in loans, but it concluded that was far less than the $10 billion set aside by Congress for high-risk companies. The review did not assess the two bankrupt firms because those loans were no longer current…
    Allison said he made his decision to support Obama after he saw “his administration in action and decided that I believe broadly in the things he’s trying to accomplish.”…
    Allison has donated money to both parties, but his gifts in the past have tended to be much smaller than his current contributions, typically no more than $1,000 or $2,000, according to Federal Election Commission records. Allison explained his larger donations to the Obama campaign by saying “there’s a hell of a lot more money in politics today than in years past and I decided I could go this route.”

    Allison has given to GOP figures such as Rep. Peter King of New York and Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and to Democrats such as Rep. Carolyn Maloney of New York and former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey. Allison’s presidential preferences have been mostly Republicans – Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas. He also gave $2,300 to Obama in 2008, a year before Obama appointed Allison as an assistant treasury secretary…
    A former Merrill Lynch executive, Allison worked for several Republican administrations and earned a reputation for tackling troubled federal programs. During McCain’s failed 2000 presidential run, he served as national finance chairman and was rumored to be McCain’s choice to become treasury secretary if he had won.
    Allison was named by President George W. Bush to head Fannie Mae after the quasi-government home lending agency was placed in conservatorship in 2008 following the Wall Street collapse. A year later, Obama named Allison as an assistant treasury secretary to oversee the Troubled Asset Relief Program that Bush had created to stabilize Wall Street banks and investment houses reeling with toxic debt…
    Allison left the Treasury Department in 2010 but returned last year to head up the review of energy loans. The White House agreed to the review in the wake of mounting Republican criticism after Solyndra, a California firm, went belly up. The bankruptcy cost U.S. taxpayers $528 million in lost loans.
    Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., who chairs the House Energy Committee’s oversight subcommittee, said Allison’s donations to the Obama campaign back up GOP warnings this year that the White House review was suspect…
    Allison declined to say whether he will keep donating to Obama. “Next time around,” he said, “I might support a Republican.”
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_OBAMA_DONOR?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE =

    cronies, one and all.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    read all:

    25 Aug: UK Telegraph: Christopher Booker: The tangled tale of Lord Deben and a dodgy Severn barrage
    A proposal for the biggest infrastructure project in British history has shaky foundations but some powerful friends
    At the centre of the picture is David Cameron, who last month nominated Lord Deben (formerly John Gummer) as the new chairman of the influential and supposedly “independent” Committee on Climate Change, set up to advise government on energy policy under the Climate Change Act. This is despite the fact that Lord Deben’s array of environmental business interests includes chairmanship of Forewind Ltd, a consortium of four energy firms planning the world’s largest, and most heavily subsidised, offshore wind farm in the North Sea…
    Mr Cameron has also lately taken a very active interest in a new £30 billion project for a tidal barrage across the Severn estuary, which he discussed at Downing Street last month with the former Labour Cabinet minister Peter Hain, acting on behalf of a consortium organised by a tiny Welsh company, Corlan Hafren – of which Deben was until very recently a director.
    Attention has lately been drawn to the declared business interests of both Lord Deben and Mr Yeo – who last year earned more than £200,000, on top of his MP’s salary of £80,000, working for companies mostly involved in “green” energy schemes. The apparent exception was his role as “environmental adviser” to Eurotunnel, by whom he was paid up to £1,000 an hour. But Eurotunnel, it turns out, is planning to run a £220 million “interconnector” power cable through its service tunnel, to provide back-up from French nuclear power stations for the times when our wind turbines don’t supply enough power to the national grid…
    Turbines – of the type that earn Mr Cameron’s father-in-law, Sir Reginald Sheffield, £1,000 a day on his Lincolnshire estate – are so unreliable that they could never hope to meet our EU obligation to source nearly a third of our electricity from “renewables” within seven years. That is 10 times more than wind power generates at present…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9498568/The-tangled-tale-of-Lord-Deben-and-a-dodgy-Severn-barrage.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    get CAGW/ETS out of our farms:

    27 Aug: Food Mag: Edward Barbier: Carbon farming: a solution to global land degradation and poverty?
    The rural poor clustered in fragile environments could improve their livelihoods through carbon farming. This is a payment scheme that allows farmers and land managers to earn credits by storing carbon or reducing greenhouse gas emissions on their land…
    The Australian government may get a powerful political force – Australia’s farm lobby – to support the carbon policy while at the same time justifying a new subsidy for Australian farms on environmental grounds…
    ***Nearly half (AU$201 million) of the budget for the Carbon Farming Futures plan will fund research into new ways land managers can reduce emissions and store soil carbon.
    Second, even with a generous carbon credit, many Australian farmers may not participate. A study in southeast Australia found a relatively high carbon credit of $AU200 per metric ton of carbon sequestered induced small changes in farming practices…
    http://www.foodmag.com.au/news/carbon-farming-a-solution-to-global-land-degradati

    or we’ll end up with the following, which i gather is even worse than when this was reported a year ago:

    Aug 2011: Bloomberg: Seth Lubove: Being Like Soros in Buying Farmland Reaps Annual Gains of 16%
    A fund controlled by George Soros, the billionaire hedge-fund manager, owns 23.4 percent of South American farmland venture Adecoagro SA…
    So many investors have rushed to capitalize on food prices in the past three years that they may be creating a farmland bubble.
    “Yes, farmland will be a bubble again; all agricultural products will be in a bubble again,” says Rogers, who is an investor in Agrifirma Brazil Ltd., a South American farmland owner.
    Hedge-fund manager Stephen Diggle calls farming the ultimate safe haven…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-10/being-like-soros-in-buying-farm-land-lets-investors-reap-16-annual-gains.html


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Myrrh

      I’ve just posted on this in another discussion – storing carbon in soil is just what they should be doing, healthier plants and more:

      If you want to improve your soil, dig in some charcoal.

      “Terra Preta
      Magic Soil of the Lost Amazon
      by Allan Balliett in Acres USA, February 2007
      It’s like finding a lost chapter from Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird’s Secrets of the Soil—terra preta (literally “black earth”) is a manmade soil of prehistoric origin that is higher in nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and calcium than adjacent soils. It controls water and reduces leaching of nutrients from the rhizosphere. Rich in humus, pieces of pre-Columbian unfired clay pottery, and black carbon, it’s like a “microbial reef” that promotes and sustains mycorrhizae growth and other beneficial microbes, and it has been shown to retain its fertility for thousands of years.

      In university trials, terra preta has increased crop yields by up to 800%. It regrows itself when excavated. It is even possible to produce carbon-negative useable energy (such as diesel or hydrogen) while making the major input (bio-char) for terra preta on the farm.
      If these amazing properties haven’t convinced you that terra preta is important to eco-agriculture, then consider this: experts say that terra preta sequesters carbon at such a high rate that, in the near future, farming with this technique could be eligible for lucrative carbon credits.”

      Yeah, and find some way to continue screwing us with carbon credits..

      Anyway, that’s from: http://www.carbon-negative.us/soil/TerraPreta.htm

      And there’s John D Hamaker’s work on remineralisation of the soil:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Hamaker

      “According to his writings, in 1976, Hamaker spread rock dust on part of his 10 acres (40,000 m2) in Michigan. The following year, his corn produced 65 bushels per acre, compared to yields of under 25 from other local farms, and also tested higher in many minerals. He calculated that remineralizing the soil with river, seashore, mountain and glacial rock dust, would enable American agriculture to produce four times as much food or the same amount with a 25% reduction in cost, without the need for pesticides or chemical fertilizers.”

      Wiki page on Terra preta:

      “Terra preta (Portuguese pronunciation: [ˈtɛʁɐ ˈpɾetɐ], locally [ˈtɛhɐ ˈpɾetɐ], literally “black earth” in Portuguese) is a type of very dark, fertile anthropogenic soil found in the Amazon Basin. Terra preta owes its name to its very high charcoal content, and was made by adding a mixture of charcoal, bone, and manure to the otherwise relatively infertile Amazonian soil. It is very stable and remains in the soil for thousands of years.[1][2] It is also known as “Amazonian dark earth” or “Indian black earth”. In Portuguese its full name is terra preta do índio or terra preta de índio (“black earth of the Indian”, “Indians’ black earth”). Terra mulata (“mulatto earth”) is lighter or brownish in color.[3]
      ..
      Terra preta zones are generally surrounded by terra comum ([ˈtɛhɐ koˈmũ] or [ˈtɛhɐ kuˈmũ]), or “common soil”; these are infertile soils, mainly acrisols,[4] but also ferralsols and arenosols.[5]

      Terra preta soils are of pre-Columbian nature and were created by humans between 450 BC and AD 950.[6][7] The soil’s depth can reach 2 meters (6.6 ft). Thousands of years after its creation it has been reported to regenerate itself at the rate of 1 centimeter (0.39 in) per year[8] by the local farmers and caboclos in Brazil’s Amazonian basin, who seek it for use and for sale as valuable compost.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta

      And a p.s. for any farmers/gardeners/carbon credit scammers, good page on trials in Australia: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/enriching-soil-with-biochar/3010620


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Graham

    Off topic I admit but too good not to share.

    I read this statement this morning: “It’s all too easy to take a phase of the cycle and extrapolate it ahead as a new trend.”

    No! not about climate but about investing and the death of equities (as investments) which has been predicted from time to time.

    If investors can recognise this fundamental truth why can’t climate alarmists?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Craig Thomas

      Graham, you seem to be describing those who claim, “cooling since 2001″, by using the well-documented La Nina cycle.

      The current warming trend is long-term and not linked to any documented cycle.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Graham

        Craig, I am not describing or alluding to that at all.

        However it does seem quite common for alarmists to carefully select the starting/end points ie a phase or phases of climate cycles to support their arguments.

        The fact “cooling since 2001″ has been happening, despite rising CO2 concentrations, seems strong evidence that the climate models are wrong and therefore useless as a prediction tool.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Craig Thomas

          “The fact “cooling since 2001″ has been happening, despite rising CO2 concentrations, seems strong evidence that the climate models are wrong and therefore useless as a prediction tool.”

          False.

          A/ Cooling ended in 2006.

          B/ A 5-year “trend” is pretty unremarkable variability

          C/ There is nothing whatsoever in any climate model which would suggest an end to variability.

          D/ The long-term trend is warming, not cooling.


          Report this

          00

          • #
          • #
            Roy Hogue

            A/ Cooling ended in 2006.

            Craig Thomas,

            I’ll be polite but direct. Who says so and what is the evidence for this statement?

            Here we like to look at numbers along with all the detail surrounding their collection and analysis. You can end all this discussion in heartbeat with some real data supporting what you say.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Craig Thomas

            Roy, the exact same data (mis-)used to give “Cooling since 2001″ give you “Warming since 2006″.
            They also give you “Warming since 1998″, which, I guess, is the reason we no longer hear “Cooling since 1998″ which some people were so fond of for so many years.
            In fact, those data now give “Warming since….” every single year in the recent past, bar 2001, which proves fairly conclusively that the “Cooling since 2001″ was an example of bare-faced cherry-picking.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            The data, Craig, along with your analysis of it — hey, some graphs and their source, maybe.

            But probably not, huh?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Craig Thomas

            Are you serious, Roy? You don’t have access to the recent temperature record?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Which temperature record, Craig? There are several you know.

            You can say anything. But backing it up is a little harder. Where is your evidence to back up what you’ve said?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Craig Thomas

            Go to your favourite temperature record, change the trend start date from 2001 to 2006 and tell me what you see….


            Report this

            00

      • #
        memoryvault

        The current warming trend is long-term and not linked to any documented cycle.

        Don’t ya just love it.
        And they call us the “deniers”.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Craig Thomas

          Remind us of Muller’s recent results….?

          When even the denialists agree it’s warming, where does that leave you, “memoryvault”?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            memoryvault

            When even the denialists agree it’s warming, where does that leave you, “memoryvault”?

            “Muller”? “Denialists”? “Warming”?
            In the same sentence?
            It just gets better and better.

            What’s next?
            Global warming causes global cooling?

            Where does it leave me?
            Right about where I started.

            With a short little fat non-entity climastrologist who spent over a decade trying to crack a place on “The Team”, with no success, who then expressed his chagrin by ripping into Mann after Climategate, accidentally discovered his fifteen minutes of fame in the process, then dug his own Grand Canyon credibility gap attempting to expand his moment in the limelight into a half an hour of fame.

            More to the point, Craig, where does it leave you, having to use Muller as an example of “conversion to the cause”?

            What a joke.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Craig Thomas

            “short little fat non-entity climastrologist ”

            Geez, Memoryvault, if you have a problem with his facts, just say so…


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Mark

    The “Goz” has yet more on the moon-screaming, barking-mad German Greens.

    http://notrickszone.com/2012/08/26/german-green-pols-forget-their-biofuels-implementation-now-propose-powering-society-with-herbal-fuels/

    It surely defies belief that they believe everybody will just forget their previous statements.

    Submission to collective amnesia must be an “essential requirement” for membership of the Greens as well as the other two mentioned above.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    any comments? this will be in all MSM within hours no doubt:

    27 Aug: Brisbane Times: Ben Cubby: Arctic ice cap shrinks to lowest level yet recorded
    The ice cap had contracted to just over 4 million square kilometres, about 77,000 square kilometres smaller than the previous record low in 2007, data from the International Arctic Research Centre and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency indicates. With two to three weeks of warm temperatures to come, the area covered by ice may fall further, to below 4 million sq km.
    It means that, unless the Pole grows dramatically cooler, the Arctic ice cap is very likely to vanish entirely during summer by the middle of this century.
    ”This is significant, because the trend is strongly down and it is consistent with the polar amplification effect,” said the executive director of the Australian National University’s Climate Change Institute, Will Steffen.
    ”Polar amplification is where the Arctic is experiencing about double the temperature rise of the global average, because as the ice melts it uncovers darker water beneath, which traps more heat – it creates feedback. We can expect to see an ice-free Arctic at about the middle of this century.”…
    Read more:
    The US National Snow and Ice Data Centre, which keeps separate satellite records of the extent of sea ice, is expected to publish further results next week…http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/conservation/arctic-ice-cap-shrinks-to-lowest-level-yet-recorded-20120826-24ukq.html


    Report this

    00

    • #
      AndyG55

      Meanwhile the actual temperature is…. pretty much normal

      http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2012.png

      its Sea temperature ie. warm currents.. NOT atmospheric temperature.

      I think the current melt is more to do wth the temperature during the Arctic winter, which was above normal (because of warm sea currents) meaning the temp never got below -40c for any extended period.
      Look at an ice phase chart, and you might figure out what this means.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      I noticed something the other day when I was reading some info on this umm, diminishing North Polar Ice, and I wish I had actually saved it for later reference, because it’s sometimes easy to say these things.

      They mentioned that this was the lowest satellite recorded ice coverage ever.

      Note how the brain sort of skips over that word satellite, when the emotive statement is lowest ice coverage.

      Just how long have satellites been recording Ice coverage then.

      Clever, aren’t they?

      Tony.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Heywood

        G’day Tony,

        I noticed that too. All to easy to skip to drop that one word to create an alarmist moment.

        From Wikipedia, so take it as is, WRT satellite recording of ice extent, “the practical record begins in late 1978 with the launch of NASA’s Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) satellite”

        So this is the lowest ice extent since 1978 – 34 years. Hardly a large sample of years.

        Didn’t they used to farm in Greenland??

        I’ll save my arm waiving and running around in circles for another day.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        John Brookes

        Tony, the satellites have been going since 1979. The ice coverage has dropped amazingly since then!

        Cheers,
        John


        Report this

        00

        • #
          wes george

          Ice coverage in the arctic sea was as low or lower than today as recently as the 1930′s.

          That’s the problem with the AGW hypothesis. CO2 was about 90ppm lower in the 1930′s but arctic ice extent was just as low as today or even lower.

          If AGW hypothesis was useful, then we would expect arctic ice extent in the past to be always much larger than today. That’s not the case.

          That’s why Michael Mann faked the hockey stick graph of past temperature reconstructed.

          For the CAGW hypothesis to be true this MUST be the hottest decade in the history of the Holocene.

          It’s not.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          John,

          You have seen pictures on this blog of U.S. Navy submarines surfaced at the north pole in the 1960′s, in open water.

          Get a grip, John.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Mark

    I read somewhere that the low reading is a result of violent storms breaking the ice up and that the satellite isn’t very accurate when it comes to these conditions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jesus saves

    So AndyG55, I wonder what could be causing that Arctic temp to rise? Obviously it’s not CO2 so what could it be?

    Furthermore, where did those warm sea currents come from?

    Did you see the “reverse hockey stick” graph of Arctic sea ice over the last 1450 years? Clearly it has been faked, no doubt by Mann (or Manne). The scoundrels. Clearly its gonna be “hockey-stick-in-reverse-gate”.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      wes george

      Jesus Christ, you just blew-up AGW!

      If arctic sea ice has been declining for 1450 years how is that due to modern day industrial human-produced CO2?

      doofus.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      AndyG55

      There are stories of the north-west passage being navigated by sailing ships.. you know,..

      wood !!

      when massive heavy steel, specially designed icebreakers were not required. !!!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      AndyG55

      1. Did you look at that Arctic temperature chart.? What Arctic temperature rise?

      2. Warm currents come from warm waters. Somewhere is probably getting cold currents.
      Current change.. all the time… just like climate does.

      3. Did you look up about ice phase, and understand it ?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Mark D.

      Lets just suppose warming did happen. Then all that warmed water hits the colder poles-you know the northern and southern parts of the planet that cannot ever be warmed by the sun? What do you think will happen to all that warm radiant energy???????where oh where will it go……………


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Neville

    Michael Smith has started to release the documents on the Gillard AWU scandal. See download at bottom of page.

    http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2012/08/the-wa-associations-incorporation-act.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    26 Aug: UK Telegraph: Robert Winnett: Soaring costs ‘will leave families £200 worse off’
    Families will see modest pay rises wiped out by sharp increases in energy bills, mortgages and petrol costs, one of the country’s biggest investment banks (Morgan Stanley) has warned.
    It is feared that if other energy companies follow suit, households in fuel poverty – those spending more than 10 per cent of their income on fuel – could rise from about five million to six million.
    ***Rising wholesale prices and the Government’s “green” taxes were given as the reasons for the rise but the company was accused of profiteering by MPs.
    Consumer groups said the rise would condemn cash-strapped families to a “winter of misery”.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/9500992/Soaring-costs-will-leave-families-200-worse-off.html

    sounds familiar.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Skiphil

    Speaking of leading preachers in the Cult of Climatology, did anyone notice that Univ. of Melbourne’s David Karoly has been appointed to Australia’s “Climate Change Authority” (I haven’t seen this discussed). We are still looking for the corrected version of the Gergis-Karoly paper, when all mention of it seems to be disappearing from the Univ. website (even though previously they said it should be re-submitted by end of July, er Sept.). Perhaps someone can find out what he has done with that historic, unprecedented review of Australasia’s temps. for the past millenium before he is allowed to help set national policy:

    Professor of Climate Science appointed to new Climate Change Authority
    22 Jun 2012

    http://newsroom.melbourne.edu/news/n-834

    University of Melbourne climate change expert Professor David Karoly has been appointed as a Board member of the Federal Government’s Climate Change Authority.
    More information:

    Rebecca Scott
    Senior Media Officer
    University of Melbourne

    Professor Karoly is Professor of Climate Science in the University’s School of Earth Sciences and a world expert on climate variability and climate change. He is one of seven new appointments announced yesterday by the Federal Minister for Climate Change Greg Combet.

    The Climate Change Authority will provide advice on the Australian Government’s policies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to climate change….

    …. [more at link] ….


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    bananabender

    Peter Doherty claimed in todays The Australian that his colleagues have told him the AGW is real and very scary. Doherty has a Nobel prize (in immunology – which is a form of stamp collecting) so it must be true. /sarc


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Barter

    Jesus saves you say

    They might as well publish articles defending a flat earth theory.

    Wasn’t the flat earth theory the consensus of the time. So, if you believe consensus is proof, then you must agree the earth is flat. If you don’t, then the claim consensus is proof is wrong.

    So why should you stop reading the Weekend Australian, afraid you might learn something ?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Congratulations on a great article Jo. However you might want to check the validity of the 31,500 petition. Michael Mann (a jaundiced authority to be sure) claims on page 66 of his latest book that: “The ‘Oregon petition,’ with thirty-one thousand nominal ‘scientist’ signatories, has often been touted as evidence of widespread scientific opposition to the science underlying human-caused climate. However, a subsequent analysis by Scientific American found that few of the signatories were even scientists (the list includes the names of Geri Halliwell, one of the spice girls; and B.J. Hunnicutt, a character from the TV series MASH)”.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      John,

      Those names were long ago removed and Dr. Mann is being dishonest about the few names he cries about.

      It is funny that they can only shoot down about 6-8 names? out of 31147 names on the list.Go ahead and read that silly Scientific American article and you will see they utterly fail to call into question the validity of the list itself just babble over a few names that are no longer on the list.

      LOL


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Forgot the LINK to:

    Global Warming Petition Project

    I know a few of the signatories of the list and at least three of them are members of my climate forum.A few others have told me they signed the petition.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Thanks sunsettommy. I know too much about Mann to trust his word, but it is nevertheless necessary to check some of his bs.


    Report this

    00