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



Lewandowsky — A paper of questionable ethics, approved in a last minute switch

Prof Stephan Lewandowsky had to make an ethics committee application in order to survey anti-skeptics to “find out” whether skeptics are conspiracy mad nutters (as you would). Simon Turnill launched an FOI to ask for information and has received some  information.  Turnill wondered why the application seemed so unrelated to the survey. I pointed out that  I’d seen a different Lewandowsky paper that fitted the description in the application. Simon hunted and found Popular Consensus: Climate Change Set to Continue (where Lewandowsky shows people in the Hay St. Mall, in Perth, some “stock market” graphs and asks them to extrapolate the trend).

Lewandowsky appears to have obtained an ethics approval for this bland paper, and then put in a last minute request for a “slight modification” which was for an entirely different survey for a different purpose and an unrelated paper, and which, as it happens, uses an internet survey rather than a face to face one. But apart from that… it was nearly the same.

Worse, Turnill found that by the time Lewandowsky was finalizing the ethics application in August 2010, he’d already done that bland survey fully 7 months before, and the paper was almost finished. The submitted paper was received on Sept 7th 2010 (the day after he started sending emails to skeptics under the name of his assistant Charles Hanich). Turnill notes that Lewandowsky refers to “The Survey” in the future tense and as if there was only one survey.

The 40 new questions and all the other changes were approved by the Ethics Committee in less than 24 hours.  (This is the same ethics committee that apparently took days to decide whether there were privacy issues preventing Lewandowsky from publishing the names of the skeptic leaning blogs and emails which he had chosen to approach in the name of his ARC taxpayer funded research. Hmm. Could those bloggers be offended by being approached by UWA? Really? It was never a privacy issue, it was something that should have been in his published methods).

This is the same ethics team which approved him hiding his name from skeptics (but not from believers) — allegedly because I had written this post where I point out Lewandowsky uses name-calling and logical errors to stop people discussing evidence.

Steve McIntyre writes  that Lewandowsky justified withholding his name for fear that he would contaminate the results. “Nonetheless, Lewandowsky’s name was prominently displayed at some of the anti-skeptic blogs. Lewandowsky’s fears that the survey would be contaminated seem to have been justified.”

Simon has gone into details of the ethics of human research.

He notes that one of the duties of a researcher is to “ensure that respect for the participants is not compromised by the aims of the research”.

Simon Turnill wonders how much respect Lewandowsky can give:

“Does the research raise questions regarding “respect”? Given Prof Lewandowsky is on the record, well prior to the research being carried out, that he was of the opinion that climate scepticism was linked to far-fetched conspiracy theory ideation (see here), it could be argued that there was a substantial risk of humiliation or disrespectful treatment of participants, given that it may be argued that the intention of the research was to make that link – which in itself is objectively demeaning (either to the participants or a subset of the “wider community”). Even if it did not reach the threshold for “harm” could be regarded at least as a “discomfort”.

There is something creep-wrong about paying a scientist to study people he hates.

Ethically, the benefits of the research are supposed to outweigh the risks.

“What benefits did the research provide? Evidence that climate sceptics have a psychological inability to accept climate science, linked to an acceptance of wacky conspiracy theories? It would be easy to reach the conclusion that the purpose of the research was simply to confirm a belief already held and portray sceptics in a negative light, in order to make a political point.”

Simon Turnill makes some excellent points, and I recommend reading it – especially his thoughts on the ethical requirements in the second half of the post.  Please drop in and thank him…

Lew v McIntyre again?

For those who are interested, Lewandowsky has unwisely entered the Hockey Stick debate (just after he makes it onto Steve McIntyre’s radar). Steve McIntyre replies: Lewandowsky and “Hide the Decline”.

Stephan, apparently, has no idea what he is in for – defending Michael Mann and the “replications” in Inferential Statistics and Replications. My favorite part is how replicating the global temperature of the last thousand years is like testing gravity by dropping a glass… this is vintage Stephan: No matter how complicated the world is, there is a black and white answer, and his gift is to see it. He thinks the difference lies in the error bars.

But when the decline is hidden, it doesn’t really matter what the error bars were. There is no defending tricks that hide data.

The FOI application and related correspondence is copied on Australian Climate Madness – PDF.

Comments about the details of the ethics approval seem the most useful. Sorry I haven’t had time to compile the best responses of WUWT, ClimateAudit and Australian Climate Madness (part I and II). There are many sharp brains at work.

 

REFERENCE (for the record)

Lewandowsky, S. (2012) Popular Consensus: Climate Change Set to Continue, Psychological Science, April 2011 vol. 22 no. 4 460-463  [abstract]

Abstract

Most domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions cause anthropogenic global warming (AGW), reflected in increased global temperatures during every decade since 1970. Notwithstanding, some public figures have claimed that warming stopped in 1998. In a large experiment (N = 200), participants extrapolated global climate data, presented graphically either as share prices or temperatures. Irrespective of attitudes towards AGW or presentation format, people judged the trend to be increasing, suggesting that presentation of climate data can counter claims that warming has \stopped.”

 Related post (and last word here):

Lewandowsky gets $1.7m of taxpayer funds to denigrate people who disagree with him

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (53 votes cast)
Lewandowsky -- A paper of questionable ethics, approved in a last minute switch, 9.3 out of 10 based on 53 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/m2t8kle

148 comments to Lewandowsky — A paper of questionable ethics, approved in a last minute switch

  • #
    Grant (NZ)

    large experiment (N = 200)

    Now I can sort of see how 396ppm seems like a very high concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. I would have thought 2000 respondents would have been a large experiment.


    Report this

    100

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      He would argue that, if you used 2000 respondents it would considerably increase the work load and you would get the same results within and acceptable margin of error as using the smaller group.

      Of course, by that argument, he could reduce the survey size to 20, and still be within an “acceptable” margin of error, depending on how he defines what is “acceptable” for his purposes.

      He could even reduce it to 2 people (not wanting to introduce gender bias) if his margin of error remained “acceptable.”

      It all comes down to what is “acceptable” for the purposes of the survey. I will leave it to you to guess what the purpose of the survey might be.

      Alternatively, Lewandowsky could be developing a new set of statistical methods, that seek to reduce the potential error rate by preselection of subjects based on their known or likely biases.


      Report this

      120

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        I think the conclusions were based on a sample of one.


        Report this

        140

      • #
        Streetcred

        Bugger it, he can dispense with surveying any sceptics and just make it up !

        Oh, he did that already ? Sorry.


        Report this

        80

      • #

        When evaluating an “acceptable margin of error“, there is a huge conflict of interest here when discussing one’s own work. It is along the lines of:-

        - a business determining their own accounting rules after the figures are available
        - a pharmaceutical company deciding the criteria for testing whether a product is safe.
        - somebody with an expense account determining the rules for claims
        - a high school student determining the pass mark for their final examinations after they have seen the results.


        Report this

        00

    • #

      I found an oddity with that all important figure of 394 parts per million for the concentration of CO2 in the overall atmosphere.

      As you know, I’ve been at this for more than four and a half years now, and mainly concentrating on the aspects associated with electrical power generation, and when it comes to The Science, I am not all that confident to speak with much authority, but when compared with average people, I find my level of knowledge on that science is at a level much higher than that average person, but again, I am no authority.

      Not long after I started, I found a small anomaly in the way that figure of CO2 concentration is perceived.

      People have no real concept of what that really is, and please forgive me for (way way) over simplifying this, but I can only go on what I have found, as anecdotal as that may be.

      Not long after I started, I would ask people about that CO2 concentration, family members at first and then anyone who was inquisitive, after they found out that I was a ‘blogger’, and what I was writing about.

      My stand by was a $50 note. I would ask people that if that 50 was the whole Atmosphere, then what was the monetary value of the CO2 component. Not one person ever came close. I had answers as high as $15, and very few people went lower than $2. One young lady showed me she could think on her feet and replied with $1.96, which intrigued me, so I asked her how she could be so specific. She said that the CO2 concentration was 392ppm (this was a few years back remember) and as this was a 50, then 392 was $3.92 for a hundred, then half of that (my 50) was $1.96.

      Every single one of them was astounded, and here I mean that literally, astounded, when I told them it was just less than 2 cents. Some even told me I was making it up.

      See the point here. They read what they read, and they are told that level is so high, and that’s what they take in. That 394ppm (now) is totally meaningless, because no one can equate it with the overall Atmosphere.

      I was even in a Specialist’s rooms having some tests done, and again, this was a woman, in her mid 40′s and obviously trained in Science, as she was a medical specialist. That CO2 content was the last thing from my mind at the time. What I did notice was the literally huge amount of electrical equipment in her rooms. All of it was connected to three of those 8 outlet boards, only these ones were the good ones with surge protection and the works. I mentioned that there was a lot of equipment in her room, and she then said with a smile no less, that yes, they were big Carbon emitters. I then asked her if she knew what that Atmospheric CO2 content was, and she answered correctly, again, one of the few who actually knew, replying that it was 392ppm.

      I asked her, trying to keep it casual, if her room was the whole Atmosphere, then what part of that room was that 392ppm concentration wrt the room. She thought for a few seconds and replied that it was from the front of her desk to the wall and up to the ceiling, which was quite a large volume. When I mentioned that it was (and I had to look around) about the same size as the pillow on the small bed thing in the far corner of the room, she too was astounded, and had that look on her face, you know the one, the one that says (bovine waste).

      The point I’m trying to make here is that just asking the average person 200, or even 2,000 of them is actually meaningless, because they cannot equate the actuality of it, and will just say that it is high. All this makes me think that Lewandowsky’s survey is anecdotal at best, and cannot be taken as anything more than that. Yet, he will have it published and that of itself then makes this survey published peer reviewed fact to add to all their other stuff.

      As to 394ppm (now) one of the other things I would do was to mention that Atmospheric water vapour was at a concentration nearly 50 times higher than for CO2, and to a person, every one of them said that water vapour was not a greenhouse gas, and even when I mentioned that it was, some replied that water vapour was not a problem like CO2 was.

      So, when I see serious surveys like this one of Lewandowsky’s, I can refer that back to what I know from what all those people have said to me.

      Again, I’m no authority, but I can ask the same questions. People have no concept of what the carefully worded questions mean.

      It’s like asking the average car driver what the final drive ratio is on Mark Webber’s Formula One racing car. They might be interested to hear, but it means nothing to them.

      Tony.


      Report this

      290

      • #
        ExWarmist

        I say to people the following.

        Imagine putting 10,000 ping pong balls into your pool – you get 4 out and paint them red – put them back, stir well, and then play spot the red ping pong ball.


        Report this

        130

        • #
          John Brookes

          Or that 550 ppm of hydrogen cyanide is lethal.

          But I wholeheartedly approve of argument from incredulity. If you can’t believe it, it can’t be true.


          Report this

          119

          • #
            John F. Hultquist

            “But I wholeheartedly approve of argument from incredulity.”
            [John Brooks #1.2.1.1 @ 9:37 pm]

            Quite so. And that makes me wonder why you even bother to state something about yourself that is obvious.

            Take your statement about the 550 ppm of HCN. What does this have to do with anything related to climate? – not that this post is about climate as the topic started out considering ethics and survey research.

            But insofar as you brought up the notion of lethal concentration, it made me wonder what the lethal dose of CO2 might be. One source claims a maximum safe level of 30,000 ppm (3%), while 100,000 ppm will cause death in 30 minutes.


            Report this

            50

          • #
            John Brookes

            Well Mr Hultquist:

            Take your statement about the 550 ppm of HCN. What does this have to do with anything related to climate?

            I was replying to a couple of comments that implied that 394ppm of CO2 couldn’t possibly have any effect. They did not justify this in any way, but simply said that it was such a tiny amount that it couldn’t do anything. This is a common “skeptic” attitude. The reference to 550ppm of HCN was to show that very small concentrations of substances can have dramatic effects. Clearly you have to look at the actual effect to see if a particular concentration will matter. Argument by incredulity does not actually work ;-)


            Report this

            07

          • #

            So John, you say here:

            I was replying to a couple of comments that implied that 394ppm of CO2 couldn’t possibly have any effect. They did not justify this in any way, but simply said that it was such a tiny amount that it couldn’t do anything.

            Currently, (other than your own first Comment) there are seven other Comments.

            Might you point out for all of us where it is that any of those Commenters mentions that 394ppm of CO2 couldn’t possibly have any effect.

            Now, while I understand the meaning of the word implied, I don’t think the intent of what was said implied anything. The inference was that people have no concept of what that figure of 394ppm actually means and then translating that to it’s actual size by volume, actually meaning that people have no comprehension of the Maths relating to that volumetric size. All they understand is an arbitrary figure, that most cannot relate to, and all they hear is that that particular level is high, so then they understand that 394ppm is a high amount, or as most understand, a very (and very very very in some cases) high amount.

            It was you who then told us what we were thinking when we mentioned that, as if we were somehow subliminally trying to get the point across that is was so low, and then adding what we:

            simply said that it was such a tiny amount that it couldn’t do anything.

            We didn’t say that. We didn’t mean that. What I was pointing out was that people equated 394ppm with high, very high, extremely high, and did not know what that figure actually means.

            Tony.


            Report this

            60

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Hi JB,

            What Tony said.

            I was neither thinking that 392 PPM of CO2 has no effect, nor was I implying it. I was providing a metaphor of scale. My comment was what it appeared, on its face, to be – a simple and straight forward comment without any special or secret agenda, or implied meaning.

            Do you often assume that you can read other peoples minds?

            Is that assumption just like your assumption that CAGW is true – untested, unchallenged, unquestioned?

            Next time you should have the decency to ask what another person intended before you cast aspersions and insult people.

            (Huff…)


            Report this

            10

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi John F

            You ask what might be the lethal dose of CO2.

            Luckily I have already answered that on a number of occasions here in the past, but for now lets look at normal respiration.

            Apparently we exhale 40,000 ppm CO2 and normal air available to breathe is 350 to 500m ppm CO2 depending on the time of day and where you live.

            Going to a crowded location like a theatre can be much higher and living for weeks on end in a

            submarine in an environment of 8,000 ppm is reported to be survivable.

            From a broad sweeping perspective anything under 40,000 and you might have a chance of survival so

            the estimate of 30,000 you quote sounds reasonable.

            Not being much of a dietician it could be broadly seen that vegetable and meat based on Carbon and

            hydrogen ingested and processed in our bellies would be up for removal after it had done its job of

            delivering carbohydrates, complex amines and minerals etc for assimilation. TTTTOMHH.

            Excess carbon is combined with oxygen in the blood and removed through the lungs EWTTTTTMHH.

            If carbon is not removed we clog up and die. Obviously where that saying: “Full of Sh$t “came from.

            So the bigger the differential between 40,000 and our air intake the better for survival; but for one thing.

            If there is no CO2 in our blood stream we die.

            CO2 is an essential component of our blood and it acts as a neural regulator of our breathing impulse.

            You mention that “100,000 ppm will cause death in 30 minutes” but the other end of the spectrum is

            important too.

            If the blood reaches a zero concentration of CO2 then the trigger for the next breath does not happen

            and you die.

            The moral of the story is that we face greater danger from an absence of CO2 in the

            bloodstream than from excess CO2.

            Prior to death, Cheyne-Stokes breathing can reduce CO2 to zero and cause cessation of breathing

            impulse in 15 minutes.

            The dangers of high CO2 levels are highly overrated.

            If you ever feel a bit down in the dumps or panicked just start singing and the breathing pattern

            needed will bring about a very beneficial and calming increase in CO2 to your bloodstream.

            KK :)


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Debbie

            John,
            it is pointless to argue about something that wasn’t said.
            That tactic of yours is becoming tedious.
            Can you see your way clear to make comments and ask questions that are at least relevant?
            Please?


            Report this

            10

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    It is vitally important that a precedent be set that sends a strong message.

    That poor science will be found, exposed, and held up to ridicule and due process by academic institutions.

    This is what they are paid to do and expected to do by the taxpayers.

    Furthermore the cost of processing the Lewandowsky “indiscretion” needs to be publicised.

    Just what costs has the UWA incurred in handling this increasingly embarassing scam?

    KK


    Report this

    260

  • #
    Bite Back

    If I did research for a living (which I do not) and if I wanted to be accused of trying fake up support for a preconceived result, I would certainly design my research the way Lewandowski did.

    It’s also evident that Lew, as some so “fondly” call him, is a bit lazy (more than a bit). And his department is even worse. They’re clearly used to operating this way in my opinion.

    The public should not be feeding these people and demanding back nothing of benefit. I can give you a long list of things on which the money could be better spent, including not taking it from the taxpayers in the first place (yes, leave it with those who earned it). Just because some academic wants to look into something is not enough justification for spending money on the research, be damned to the publish-or-perish paradigm.

    And I think it’s time to say be damned to the dishonest everywhere, academia, politics and business. The world is in too much trouble now to go on tolerating you.


    Report this

    190

    • #
      Streetcred

      Do you remember the “Wild Woman Surfboards” research grant for that loser at Byron Bay ? Pork barreling from Hawke’s and Keating’s days.


      Report this

      30

  • #

    Unfortunately for UWA and psychiatry as a whole, Lew is now their untreated sucking chest wound. Perhaps the one bastard who won’t get away with it …

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/the-real-bastards/

    Pointman


    Report this

    120

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Germany should not feel that what happened in WW2 is any different from what is happening now in climate change.

      Every country has its moment of deception by the ruling classes.

      As you say; we are led by our betters, and they should have exercised more of their intelligence and humanity

      in their decisions.

      Frightening – and so the collective nightmare continues.

      Very few people can say that they were on the outside looking in at a world wide Grand Mal like this, but we can.

      In the past everyone has been caught up in it.

      Whole counties “believed” that the only solution was war and in WW1 and WW2.

      In hindsight a better solution may have been to shoot the leaders, but it is more complicated than that.

      The human capacity to Reason has brought us to this juncture of Climate Madness which infests every level of

      our lives.

      Reasoning is not about truth or reality; it is about finding a way of creating an accommodation.

      From outside we can see that Reasoning is useless WITHOUT SCIENCE.

      kk


      Report this

      101

      • #
        John Brookes

        Fail. Brought up the Nazis.


        Report this

        118

        • #
          Heywood

          Fail. Commented full stop.


          Report this

          41

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Fail.

          Brought up ordinary people following a Cult Figure or Concept.

          It’s still happening John.

          Save the Planet! Yes; but meaningless Cultism.

          Cut CO2 Emissions. Why; This a a dud idea worthy of the best Cults.

          Carbon Sequestration. Stand to attention and acknowledge the wisdom of WWF, the IPCC Clowns and Juliaer.
          Sequestration is the ultimate lunacy.
          If you are going to do sequestration then use Natural Sequestration and
          grow more TREES.

          Still playing follow the leader?

          KK


          Report this

          21

      • #

        It’s always the alarmists who invoke Godwin, as if they think such a significant political movement can simply be excluded from any discussion. What’s really telling is the unconscious racist undertone of JB’s comment – KK mentioned Germans, not Nazis. ie when JB reads Germans, he automatically thinks Nazis.

        The real reason is that they find the parallels between the Nazis and eco-fascists too accurate.

        http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/if-all-else-fails-just-intimidate-them/

        Pointman


        Report this

        80

    • #

      Hi Keith. Within the context of the Milgram experiment, what’s always concentrated on is finding explanations for the teachers who were brow-beaten into delivering lethal voltages. What never seems to have had much attention is the teachers who refused to continue doing it. Some of them even slugged the researcher, because they wanted to go to the aid of the learner. Recognize the type?

      Pointman


      Report this

      70

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi Pointman

        Had a quick scan through your long, detailed post over there and will go back to read it when there is more time.

        In relation to your teacher sluggers, there have been a number of high profile people from USA whose refused to accommodate AGW and were given the door for their trouble.

        KK


        Report this

        50

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        Pointman, I read the wiki entry for the Milgram Experiment. I can’t figure out what point your trying to make with your reference to the teacher slugging the reseacher.

        One point that occurs to me while reading about the experiment is that; the teacher was a volunteer; and he would have known that the learner was also a volunteer. If I was sitting in the chair pressing the button, I believe I would act differently knowing the learner was there by choice, as opposed to being an unwilling participant. I can’t guess how I would have acted as a teacher in the same situation, or how long I would have let it go on.

        I believe the “knowing” is different in the Miligram experiment to what the German officers would have experienced. They themselves often got killed for disobedience.


        Report this

        20

        • #

          You’re trying to do logic. The sluggers were doing humanity and to hell with the “experiment”. If you can’t see that distinction, I’m not about to start drawing diagrams.

          Pointman


          Report this

          40

          • #
            ExWarmist

            The bottom line of the Milgram experiments is that there are always people, typically very ordinary, your neighbour next door types, who will happily shoot you in the back of the head and push your bleeding corpse into a pit – if they have been told by someone in authority that it is the right thing to do.

            The lesson for us all is to be aware of the latent desire for moral and intellectual enslavement present in some (perhaps many) people.

            Another good example of a related effect is detailed in the book “The Lucifer Effect” by Philip Zimbardo who ran the famous Stanford Experiment where it was demonstrated that once given authority, there is a marked tendency for abuse.

            The bottom line is that those in Authority are not to be trusted. The normal parameters of authority are abuse and corruption. Which is why a society that intends to be free – must enforce strict restrictions on when and how authority is given, exercised, and taken away.


            Report this

            30

    • #
      Mark D.

      Pointman, Sucking chest wounds HAVE to dealt with. The options are very limited if the patient is to survive.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Pointman,

      What scares me is how easy it is to fall into the trap that would make us one of those real bastards.

      No matter who you are that temptation to want the world all your own way is there. Thankfully most of us don’t act on it. But we all know some who have.


      Report this

      30

      • #

        I was never any good at those “what would you do if … ” type questions. Problem is that as I get older my answers seem to becoming more and more radical. The average guy (whatever that means) is being screwed by governments and by self interested bureaucrats – large dollops of money to the Lew’s of this world but nothing for the local lass so disadvantaged that she needs a specialist wheelchair. Billions on wind-farms and pseudo climate control but bugger all, in comparison, for clean water and electricity in poor nations. Government paid so-called scientists (my taxes) refusing to reveal source data and the Universities of Shame supporting their stance.
        Yesterday I leaned that the son of a dear friend of mine was, for no reason, attacked in the street and kicked in the head so badly that his brain and his limbs are no longer connected. A pacifist by nature I am appalled at my reaction which is that the sixteen year old main culprit should be chemically castrated so his faulty genes cannot be passed on. Democracy isn’t worth stuff all if we cannot walk safely down the street; have food in our bellies and can afford the keep ourselves warm.


        Report this

        80

        • #
          Gnome

          “… chemically castrated…”?- you see poxy, you’re still constrained by your civilised nature.


          Report this

          10

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Hi Apox

          Sad story but in Newcastle a fairly frequent occurrence; all victims of political correctness which says

          that we are all victims of our upbringing and so are not responsible for our actions.

          A society in which discipline is not enforced looks pretty much like present day Australia.

          There is no policing; all we have are legal response units.

          Heard on the radio today of a NSW policeman who was suspended for pushing a young tough up against a wall.

          What hope have we got when safety on the streets that was once a given is now only a pipe dream.

          How did our thinking become so twisted that we are prepared to see Aboriginals drunk and in a huge mess

          living in shanty towns when we weep crocodile tears for the poor and starving and mistreated OVERSEAS.

          We send truckloads of money overseas but cant spend a few dollars organising a decent community life for Australians.

          The compassion industry is alive and well and the profits are large.

          KK
          KK


          Report this

          60

          • #
            ExWarmist

            In my book – genuine compassionate action empowers others to become independent and capable of compassionate conduct.

            I never see that from the “compassion industry”, what I see is the opposite. A system of cultivated dependency that traps people in perpetual misery and incompetence, that allows the perpetrators of abuse to continue their organized and state sanctioned abuse under the guise of “compassion”.


            Report this

            20

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            That’s it Ex.

            You have condensed it all well.

            KK


            Report this

            10

  • #
    cohenite

    I think the gravity analogy used by lew is a great one; it obviously reflects what is going to happen to AGW, which is the glass, and people like lew are the vino in the glass.

    If lew had a sense of humour or any sense of irony, well, he wouldn’t be writing what he writes.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    pat

    why should should UWA worry about ethics, when Lewandowsky is still getting MSM attention? naturally the political lies are all Republican:

    15 Oct: Huffington Post: Douglas LaBier: Why People Believe Political Lies — And Why They Stick
    (Douglas LaBier.Business psychologist and psychotherapist; Director, Center for Progressive Development)
    So, what happens within our minds and emotions that make us receptive to lies, and then resistant to information that exposes the truth? A study led by Stephan Lewandowsky of the University of Western Australia explains part of what may happen. The researchers found that “Weighing the plausibility and the source of a message is cognitively more difficult than simply accepting that the message is true — it requires additional motivational and cognitive resources.”
    If the subject isn’t very important to you or you have other things on your mind, misinformation is more likely to take hold, according to the researchers. They point out that rejecting false information requires more cognitive effort than just taking it in…
    “This persistence of misinformation has fairly alarming implications in a democracy because people may base decisions on information that, at some level, they know to be false,” Lewandowsky states…
    “At an individual level, misinformation about health issues — for example, unwarranted fears regarding vaccinations or unwarranted trust in alternative medicine — can do a lot of damage. At a societal level, persistent misinformation about political issues can create considerable harm. On a global scale, misinformation about climate change is currently delaying mitigative action.”…
    The researchers offer some guidelines that may help people focus on information that is true and accurate. For example, providing people with a narrative that replaces the gap left by false information; emphasizing the facts you want to highlight; keeping the information you want people to take away simple and brief; and strengthening your message through repetition…
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-labier/politics-lies_b_1967265.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

    what a load of crap!


    Report this

    51

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Agree Pat

      a load of

      KK


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Sonny

      Actually Lew is correct: he understands the power of propaganda but is using it to exploit people.
      He is obviously on the dark side as far as “climate change” goes. So following my conspiratorial logic (which first got me to investigate the Apollo 11 Hoax) bases on Lew’s Claiming it was not a hoax:

      From this point I think I will make a point of:

      1. Never being vaccinated (again) or having my children vaccinated.
      2. Always trying alternative medicines first.

      As far as repetition is concerned try this one for size:

      CLIMAYE CHANGE IS A MASSIVE SCAM.
      ITS NOT ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT. ITS ABOUT POLITICS, POWER, MONEY AND TWISTED ANTI HUMAN IDEOLOGY.

      As fa


      Report this

      23

      • #
        Mark D.

        Sonny, I love you man but:

        he understands the power of propaganda but is using it to exploit people

        Is a big DOH moment. Please re-read/rethink.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          It is no longer possible to judge whether Sonny is saying what he believes or whether he is making a sarcastic parody.

          Maybe I’m getting confused with some other commentator, but I was under the impression Sonny was German. In that case it’s worth remembering “propaganda” is the German word for advertising, with no sinister connotations to it.


          Report this

          10

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Could you expand on this?

        “From this point I think I will make a point of:

        1. Never being vaccinated (again) or having my children vaccinated.
        2. Always trying alternative medicines first.”

        KK


        Report this

        20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Unfortunately there is, I think, some grain of truth in Lewandowsky’s point. He’s certainly not making honest use of that truth but it’s there nonetheless.

      I posted this a few days ago just for fun. But the people interviewed in the video nicely illustrate the point that, failure to stay engaged with the world, failure to question what you’re told, failure to cross check sources, failure to develop, in short, any critical thinking ability leads to what we see today.

      At the bottom line I think life in western society has become so easy that we’ve taken too many things for granted for so long that we were not watching the gates when the thieves sneaked in.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    pat

    in fairness, i should post this Courier Mail correction to a water story i posted in the comments of the “australian sea level” thread. this is the same URL but the story has changed:

    15 Oct: Courier Mail: Tuck Thompson/Mark Solomons: Water Minister Mark McArdle denies plan to ease water restrictions despite statement saying review underway
    WATER Minister Mark McArdle has distanced himself from a report the Queensland Government has a plan to ease water restrictions to raise revenue and said it was not the government’s responsibility anyway.
    That was despite his office telling The Courier-Mail last month that permanent water restrictions were “under review, with regard to water availability, climatic trends and future demands”.
    “Increased water use would help pay for the massive debt on the SEQ water grid,” his office told The Courier-Mail in a statement on September 21. Scroll down to read the Minister’s statement.
    He told ABC Radio this morning that the government ”has no authority to reduce or impose water restrictions or permanent water conservation measures”.
    “That role sits with the Water Commission,” he said.
    The Water Commission, which is being abolished on January 1, was taken back into Minister McArdle’s department in July…
    A spokesman for Mr McArdle said today that the Water Commission’s powers to decide water restrictions would be transferred to the new merged bulk water entity at the end of the year.
    Previously Mr McArdle’s office said restrictions would end with the demise of the Commission on 1 January…
    Mr McArdle told ABC Radio this morning that he had “not sought formally any advices as to whether or not the permanent water conservation measures should be removed or in any way weakened”.
    He acknowledged he had sought advice on the future of the $2.5 billion recycled water plant and $2 billion desalinated water plant.
    “I’ve got a report on my desk that covers a range of options in regard to both the desal and the corridor pipeline,” he said.
    “I’m looking at what we can do but by no means am I saying we’re going to shut them down…
    (READ THE FULL STATEMENT Q&A) The statement from the Office of the Minister for Energy and Water Supply …
    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/newman-government-turns-taps-back-on-to-raise-cash/story-e6freon6-1226495751510


    Report this

    20

  • #

    There could be some similar thinking behind the following online survey, which forms part of a Ph.D student’s project with Chris Daniels at the University of South Australia. They are “undertaking research into the Ecological Literacy of the adult population of South Australia”. Many of the questions are based on assumptions about global warming, with the implication that anyone who doesn’t share these assumptions is less ‘ecologically literate’.

    https://www.research.net/s/unisa-eco-literacy-survey

    Their promotional circular stated that

    Ecological Literacy is one of the most important requirements for a functioning, sustainable society in the 21st Century and a growing worldwide concern is that increasing ecological illiteracy threatens the capacity of humankind to achieve a sustainable future….
    This research is enthusiastically supported by leading local and international authorities in the field.


    Report this

    110

    • #
      Mark D.

      Very scary.

      Somewhere I read that you must reduce your foes to sub-human before you can induce allies to willingly support atrocious acts against the foes.

      QED


      Report this

      60

      • #
        ExWarmist

        That’s correct, in fact the same images are used over and over again by opposing sides. REF Sam Keen

        Basically the propaganda aspects of dehumanizing your opponents are a sort of pornography of hatred – kinda like some people calling other people “deniers”.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      John Brookes

      Bloody hell! I started doing the survey, and then realised I didn’t know anything. The questions are weird though. I think there are implied values behind some of the questions, so that if you don’t share the values, you’ll choose a “wrong” answer. In many cases several of the choices are basically true – so how do you decide which one to choose?

      Anyway, the conclusion I come to is that I don’t know much…


      Report this

      81

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Anyway, the conclusion I come to is that I don’t know much…

        We already knew that, John.

        Now if you’ll answer a question: Being so ignorant why do you say so much on this blog?


        Report this

        30

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          John, I don’t know much about the ecology of Australia either so don’t feel too bad.

          I did look over the survey and it’s quite obvious that some of the questions are “loaded”. The implications of this are that the answers of people who have no way to be really well informed on the subject are probably going to end up being used as an excuse for some additional government excesses and restrictions. Or the intent could be to put one more indoctrination subject into the school curriculum.


          Report this

          30

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          And then there’s the problem that this is an online survey with no way of knowing anything about the population answering the questions except what they say about themselves. Apparently I could have completed it and if I could fake whatever they want as substantiation that I live in SA they would accept it.

          At the bare minimum I would want a page up front that would ask for something identifying the respondent as actually living in South Australia. Wouldn’t you?


          Report this

          30

          • #
            John Brookes

            At some point, it did ask for your postcode. The neat thing it did is ask you at the beginning about your knowledge of the environment, and then it asked the same question again at the end. On a scale of 1 – 5 I chose 3 at the start, but dropped myself down to 2 at the end of the survey. The questions made me realise just how little I understand about ecology.


            Report this

            04

  • #
    pat

    David Cooke -

    Govt of South Australia: Adelaide & Mt Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board 2010
    Board members
    Chris Daniels (presiding member) Professor of Urban Ecology for the School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia – Community engagement, science, communication and business administration
    http://www.amlrnrm.sa.gov.au/Aboutus/TheBoard/Boardmembers.aspx

    AMLRNRM:Profile: Professor Chris Daniels
    He also has management expertise and is an award-winning science communicator with regular sessions on 891 ABC Radio…
    ‘Of course it’s a swinging door,’ he says, describing the Board’s role as a conduit between government and the community, consulting with one and advising the other. ‘It’s unusual that the Board has got that dual role: consultation with the community and the responsibility to ensure the correct scientific decisions are made and implemented.’ http://www.amlrnrm.sa.gov.au/Portals/2/NRMGroups/ChrisDanielsProfile.pdf

    cute!

    Adelaide Mountain Bike Club: Eco-Literacy survey
    14 Sept: Rabbit: We all love wasting time on a good survey.
    Try this one. https://www.research.net/s/unisa-eco-literacy-survey
    They’re looking at finding out what South Australians know about the environment. I figure we spend so much time out in it, p’haps we might know something. No matter if you don’t, that’s what they’re trying to find out.
    5-15 minutes, anonymous, prizes at the end.
    comment: 5-15 minutes? If you work for DENR maybe.
    18 Sept: Rabbit: Yeah, we’ve been talking around the office about how crazy hard it is. My theory is that there’s questions in there that are easier (relatively), and questions that are damn near impossible (such that I reckon there’s no right or wrong answer), and the survey’s designed to split everyone out. Completely. As opposed to spit everyone out, which is kind of how it felt.
    The survey’s got nothing to do with us here, but you’re right, answers would be nice. Not so much for scores (though I acknowledge we’re all competitive), but just for the sake of knowing. I’ll get onto the author and request that they post the answers somewhere once the survey is over.
    18 Sept: Rabbit: Just spoke with the survey designer, who says that it’s not meant to be easy (we can all breathe a sigh of relief). Worth battling through, though, it’ll help her get a real idea of what we really know. Or don’t.
    And yes, answers will be provided at the end of the survey period.
    http://ambc.asn.au/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4580


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    uhoh…here we go again:

    16 Oct: Sydney Morning Herald: AAP: Antarctic climate facing ‘rapid’ changes: chief scientist
    Australia’s chief Antarctic scientist says claims by climate experts about environmental changes in the southern continent are not alarmist.
    The Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) told a Senate estimates hearing today “rapid changes” taking place across the icy land mass would have significant impact on global climate.
    Changes in ocean flows and shifts in Antarctic ice cap levels were occurring at rates faster than at any other time in history, chief scientist Nick Gales said…
    “That is the engine room of a large amount of world climate, so changes there are important.”
    He dismissed suggestions the claims were alarmist, adding scientists were “by definition” sceptics and based their conclusions only on testing data.
    Australian scientists “overwhelmingly” report on the basis of their findings, and strive to make clear statements about uncertainties.
    There was “no doubt” scientists were observing rapid environment and climatic changes in Antarctica, Dr Gales said…
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/antarctic-climate-facing-rapid-changes-chief-scientist-20121016-27ohg.html

    not striving hard enough, Dr. Gales, if there’s “no doubt”.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Manfred

    The Minister of Climate in NZ (re)assures the intellectually challenged deniers that no less than the science academies from nineteen countries, in addition to the IPCC assessment reports, collectively consider that the scientific evidence confirms that human activity is causing climate change.
    The shift from AGW to climate means that any putative aspect of human activity from eating to flatus, factories to emissions, population to exhalation, ALL are potential targets of save the planet interventions (taxation).

    This is we all know is official policy, sanctioned by official science, funded by official policy…….ad nauseam, ad infinitum.

    Keep exposing the drama, the corrupt university academics and dubious, box-ticking ethical processes. Thank you Jo, for many things, not least your tenacity.

    Call it how you see it.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    val majkus

    Off topic but horrifying! NIWA is apparently asking for $118,000 costs. See http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/10/government-against-the-people/
    I’ve made a lengthy comment there

    As Richard Treadgold says in his blog post

    NIWA has reported to the Court that their costs were $118,000, but that’s 50% above the normal scale. Why? It’s nothing less than a punishment, and the crime, of course, is daring to challenge the government. Whistle-blowers aren’t welcome with NIWA. They can pursue tobacco barons to within an inch of the law, or let them investigate fracking, or lunge at the throat of the Ministry of Social Development for breaches of privacy, but don’t you dare ask reasonable questions of us or suggest we perhaps should use a properly accepted scientific method of adjusting temperatures.

    In its Court pleadings NIWA’s scientists claimed through their lawyers they are the final arbiters of the science they use and nobody can tell them what to do. I happen to agree that they should have that right, subject only to the usual journal-borne scientific challenge and verification, but when they adopt that attitude in their relationship with society it becomes no more than hubris and they turn from useful scientists into something unattractive. How unpleasant they become when a disagreeable, bureaucratic arrogance makes them take up strong-arm tactics against honest citizens.


    Report this

    60

    • #
      anthony cox

      Val, in respect of costs Venning J’s judgement said something which was crucial; in his Judgement Venning J. allowed the challenge in principle because NIWA was a Crown research Institute and no other method of challenging it was available. In effect while Venning J. agreed the NZTR was not a public record [paragraph 38] the Public had a right to challenge actions of NIWA such as producing a NZTR.

      Given this I don’t see how NIWA can sustain their claim for costs.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        val majkus

        Thanks Anthony, I’ll pass that on but costs have been ordered against the plaintiff and it will come down to quantifying them – what NIWA are currently claiming is I believe absolutely excessive


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Peter Miller

    “Irrespective of attitudes towards AGW or presentation format, people judged the trend to be increasing, suggesting that presentation of climate data can counter claims that warming has \stopped.”

    There are a number of problems here that Lewandowski does not consider – why should he? After all, he obviously considers himself to be a very important man and therefore well above having to respond to any valid criticism; this is sometimes known as Goremann Syndrome.

    1. Are we discussing actual climate data, or the usual stuff which has been homogenised/tortured/manipulated to grossly exaggerate the mild impact of AGW?

    2. Almost all sceptics believe AGW does exist, but that it is relatively unimportant when compared to natural climate cycles.

    3. Sceptics repeatedly state logically and demonstrate clearly that CAGW does not exist.

    Alarmists, who typically like to distort the facts, do so here by muddling up the subjects of AGW and CAGW together.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    HAS

    I have commented elsewhere (but can’t recall where – if it was Lewandowshy’s blog it will no doubt have been snipped) that “NASA faked the moon landing. Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax” L. et al (the second study) was facilitated by a Discovery Grant from the Australian Research Council to L. (This has been noted previously by our hostess).

    The conditions attached to that grant (http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/DP12/DP12_Funding_Agreement.pdf) offer rich pickings for those that feel L. et al lacks something.

    Section 18 is a good place to start in light of the ethics stuff discussed here, and L.’s obvious conflict of interest on matters to do with climate change (think pro-lifers doing abortion research). Worth an FOI to find out if anything has been done under 18.4 to manage L.’s bias, and if not whether 5.3 should be triggered.

    The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2007)http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/r39.pdf incorporated via 18.6 offers further meat around conflicts and ethics etc – among others 4.4 and 4.12 of the Code have probably been breached.

    For those that believe in full disclosure of methods etc section 20 is worth a read, and perhaps some questions.

    Finally for those that have complained about the research might look at 32 and check this has been complied with.

    Perhaps the ARC could be persuaded to cut L. loose, not for his beliefs but for his poor scholarship.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    pat

    NIWA’s a disgrace.

    meanwhile, keeping up with the carbon cowboys & girls:

    CO2 price support plan to divide EU Parliament
    LONDON, Oct 15 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Once seen by many as a given, EU Parliamentary support for the EU Commission’s plan to shore up carbon prices in its ailing Emissions Trading Scheme appears to be on the wane
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2022150

    EUAs down 2 pct as offsets near record lows
    LONDON, Oct 15 (Reuters Point Carbon) – EU carbon lost around 2 percent on Monday as traders reacted to a two-year trough in German power prices, while offset prices dropped over 10 percent to near all-time lows.
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2022243?&ref=searchlist

    Camco seeks name change amid record low CER prices
    LONDON, Oct 15 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Camco International, one of the biggest developers of projects through the Kyoto Protocol, said on Monday it will change its name to Camco Clean Energy as part of the company’s strategy to reduce its exposure to the carbon market amid record low prices.
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2021691?&ref=searchlist


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    a cautionary carbon tale:

    25 Nov 2011: ProactiveInvestors: Camco International looks forward to a “favourable future” for the carbon market
    Camco develops these carbon projects “at risk”, which means working with the project owners and sharing the profits in much the same way as a property developer. It then earns its payback from revenues generated by the projects or by banking valuable carbon credits; the creation and commercialisation of carbon credits is an important part of this business…
    http://www.proactiveinvestors.com.au/companies/news/22654/camco-international-looks-forward-to-a-favourable-future-for-the-carbon-market-22654.html

    9 July 2012: Businessweek: Matthew Carr: Camco Appoints Marren as CFO After Shares Drop 76%
    Camco International Ltd. (CAO), a London- based developer of clean-energy and carbon-offset projects, appointed Jonathan Marren as chief financial officer and board member starting today, after the company’s shares dropped 76 percent in the past year…
    The company lost 29.2 million euros ($36 million) in 2011 after writing down the value of its credits by 21.7 million euros.
    Credits plunged 63 percent in the past year, as Camco received a record delivery of offsets of about 12.8 million metric tons, up 58 percent, according to the annual report published last month. The resulting loss prompted Scott McGregor, chief executive officer, to waive his bonus and long- term incentive entitlement for 2011…
    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-09/camco-appoints-marren-as-cfo-after-shares-drop-76-percent

    21 Aug 2012: REG – Camco International – Receipt of $6m clean energy grant
    Camco International Limited (AIM: CAO), a global developer of clean energy projects and solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, is pleased to announce that its US operation has received a grant from the US Treasury of approximately $6m.
    The grant has been awarded in connection with the construction of its 4.5 MW anaerobic digester, completed on time and ahead of budget earlier this year, at a 15,000 head dairy farm located in Jerome, Idaho. The digester produces biogas from cow manure that is then used to produce renewable electricity.
    The grant was received under the federal grant programme funding established by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
    The majority of the funds received will be used to repay a loan which was used to fund part of the construction of the project…
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/21/idUS45547+21-Aug-2012+RNS20120821


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    15 Oct: Bloomberg: Stefan Nicola: German Renewables Fee Rises 47%, Opening Government Rift
    Germany’s power grid operators boosted the surcharge consumers pay for funding renewable energy to a record, triggering a rift between two ministers in Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Cabinet.
    The four grid companies set the fee paid through power bills at 5.28 euro cents (6.8 cents) a kilowatt-hour in 2013, up 47 percent from 3.59 cents now. Economy Minister Philipp Roesler wants to lower a federal electricity tax to help counter the increase, he told reporters today in Berlin. Environment Minister Peter Altmaier wants to offer consumers free advice on saving energy instead…
    Merkel’s government is seeking to prevent a voter backlash against raising energy costs before the next general election in the autumn of 2013. Last week, Altmaier set out plans to cap subsidies for wind, biomass and solar power that have surged since 2004 when the government guaranteed above-market prices for electricity generated from clean sources…
    The total subsidy next year will amount to about 20.36 billion euros, which is paid for by consumers through their power bills. The fee increase will raise the bill of the average German household with 3,500 kilowatt-hours of consumption by 59 euros a year. That impact was inflated by exemptions for big industrial users and leftover costs from the previous year, the operators said…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-15/german-renewables-surcharge-rises-47-opening-government-rift.html


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Note where pat says here:

      The four grid companies set the fee paid through power bills at 5.28 euro cents (6.8 cents) a kilowatt-hour in 2013.

      The average cost per KWH for power in Germany is currently 27 cents per KWH, so this new cost of 7 cents per KWH represents a total impact of 26% for renewable power on the total electricity cost.

      Now, some may point out that the total renewable power delivery in Germany is just on 19%, and having said that, it’s an easy thing to say. In that total they include Hydro power. Back in 1993, almost 20 years ago Hydro delivered 19,000GWH. In this last year, Hydro delivered 19,000GWH of power for consumption.

      The only difference now is that over those 20 years the only increase in renewable power delivery have been in Wind, Photovoltaic power (not concentrating solar) and Biomass.

      Take away the Hydro element of Germany’s power, (5%) and you are left with around 14% of power delivery coming from those three main renewables, and a couple of other almost insignificant extras.

      So while renewables deliver only 14% of the power, the cost for consumers is 26% of their total power bill.

      That’s the cost paid by the public, not just on that residential power bill, but for Industry and Commerce as well, costs then passed down to consumers in increased costs for goods that consumers purchase. Now, as I have mentioned often, part of the contract agreement when a new renewable plant goes in is that the Government subsidises up to half the production cost of the power so the plant sells its power to the grid for only half of what it costs to generate, otherwise, no grid in its right mind would purchase power for twice the price (and more) that they can then sell it at retail. Even so, that cost is barely break even. The grid buys the renewable electricity for around the same price it then sells it at retail. Thank heavens for coal fired power, which averages around 3 cents per KWH to generate.

      Even so, as you can now read from what pat says here, they are still bumping up the price of renewable power to all consumers.

      If renewable power had to survive on its own, eg no (half the total up front cost) subsidies at the construction phase, and no subsidies for the sale of the electricity, then no one in their right mind would ever construct one of these plants. They do not do it from altruism, or even for some esoteric Climate Change reason. The only reason they construct them is to get their hands on dedicated huge amounts of Government money, and then find private suckers to fund the rest.

      Renewable power is a dud of the highest order.

      Germany knows this now as they move, flat out, into construction of new coal fired power plants.

      Tony.


      Report this

      110

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Renewable power is a dud of the highest order.

        Tony,

        Is the right word maybe, rip-off? That’s just plain highway robbery.


        Report this

        10

      • #
        Streetcred

        Sounds like they reverse-engineer the forecast cashflow to achieve guaranteed IRR on their 50% investment (non-recourse 50% public equity being the subsidy. So the big-green heavies can syphon out enormous commissions from the phoney cashflow to support their personal wealth creation scams and the public makes up the difference to the guaranteed IRR. Anywhere else, people go to gaol for this stuff.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Streetcred

          Why does Al Gore immediately come to mind?

          PS. error correction above: (non-recourse 50% public equity being the subsidy).


          Report this

          10

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Yep.

          No green-renewable business is ever actually “operational” or running.

          They are either in start up mode, applying for the grant or subsidy, or in shut down mode.

          The in-between bit is where the Board of Directors and associates get paid large stipends to preside over it all.

          Sorry. Also forgot compensation for early termination. Mustn’t have any hurt feelings there.

          As you say; all legal – just criminal and unethical.

          KK


          Report this

          10

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Well at least we know where to go to for the next generation Coal Fired power technology when we wake up and start building more coal fired power stations in this country.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    pat

    16 Oct: WaPo: Charles Lane: Liberals’ green-energy contradictions
    Al Gore is about 50 times richer than he was when he left the vice presidency in 2001. According to an Oct. 11 report by The Post’s Carol D. Leonnig, Gore accumulated a Romneyesque $100 million partly through investing in alternative-energy firms subsidized by the Obama administration.
    Two days after that story ran, Mitt Romney proclaimed at a rally in Ohio’s Appalachian coal country: “We have a lot of coal; we are going to use it. We are going to keep those jobs.” Thousands cheered…
    As the Democrats become more committed to, and defined by, a green agenda, and as they become dependent on money from high-tech venture capitalists and their lobbyists, it becomes harder to describe them as a party for the little guy — or liberalism as a philosophy of distributive justice.
    Gore’s sanctimony doesn’t help. The erstwhile Tennessee populist bristles at any suggestion that his climate crusade is about money. And, no doubt, he cared about the planet before he got rich. Still, his investments, including in such flops as Fisker, the maker of $100,000 plug-in hybrid cars, create a patent conflict of interest. This hurts his credibility — if not about climate change per se, then certainly about the particular solutions he advocates…
    Green energy is not cost-competitive with traditional energy and won’t be for years. So it can’t work without either taxpayer subsidies, much of which accrue to “entrepreneurs” such as Gore, or higher prices for fossil energy — the brunt of which is borne by people of modest means…
    For a sense of where this may lead, look at Germany, whose crash program to replace nuclear power with wind and solar is boosting electricity rates. Der Spiegel reports that 200,000 long-term unemployed lost power in 2011 because they couldn’t pay their electric bills…
    Small wonder that the United Mine Workers of America — a core Democratic constituency if there ever were one — has refused to endorse Obama in 2012 as it did in 2008. The union hasn’t backed Romney, but he is campaigning hard for rank-and-file votes. That a private-equity baron is getting a hearing in the coal fields should give liberals pause…
    Meanwhile, Gore and his partners carry on rent-seeking…
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-lane-liberals-green-energy-contradictions/2012/10/15/8c251ba2-16e6-11e2-8792-cf5305eddf60_story.html?hpid=z3


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      And, no doubt, he [Gore] cared about the planet before he got rich.

      Just my opinion but…

      I’m doubtful Pat. The whole thing is more like he was looking for a way to get acclaim and approval. He was a completely unsuccessful man, noteworthy for absolutely nothing until…enter James Hansen…and the rest is history. If money was to be made, so much the better. And nothing corrupts like the opportunity to manipulate a cause so as to pour money into your own pocket. In it for the money now all the way.

      I interpret his recent meltdown not as anger over the failure of his righteous cause as he claims but as anger over the loss of his former position and prestige, not to mention probable loss of ill gotten gains.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Shevva

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again this is simply a man whose intellect doesn’t marry up to his ego so he must lie, cheat and steal to make up the short fall, reinforced by a corrupt academia (surprise, surprise).


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    16 Oct: Climate Spectator: Tristan Edis: Treasury’s carbon price fantasy
    Government public servants are continuing to put on a brave face about forecasts for the carbon price under questioning from parliamentarians at Senate Estimates.
    The Secretary of the Department of Climate Change, Blair Comley, is still defending the 2011 modelling undertaken by Treasury, claiming its forecast of a global carbon price of $29 per tonne of CO2 by 2015 is “not implausible”…
    The European Commission has since decided that it needs to change a single line in the Directive, so we’re now stuck in a lengthy process that requires agreement and coordination between the Parliament, the Council, as well as the Climate Change Committee.
    At present the single line amendment is stalled in the European Parliament’s Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee (different to the Climate Change Committee), and so a vote on the amendment is not due until February 19, 2013. According to Deutsche Bank analyst Mark Lewis, it’s likely that the Climate Change Committee would not vote on the regulations until the parliament had approved the Directive amendment, so this would add further delay after February 19.
    So we’ll be waiting a while before we know whether to expect even a mild recovery in the carbon price.
    And as for the longer-term fix, we’ll be waiting even longer. According to Jos Delbeke, the Director General for climate policy in the European Commission, it’s highly unlikely policy changes could be implemented by 2014. At a conference on October 5, Euractiv reported him as saying:
    “Let’s get real: We won’t be able to do everything by 2014 like we did on the climate and energy package in 2009.”
    Observing on the difficulties encountered from the set-aside initiative he added:
    “When I see what a limited proposal of a one-lime amendment provokes in terms of emotions, then I’m losing hope that by 2014 we could come forward with a comprehensive climate and energy package”
    Sure there’s a chance that we could have $29 carbon price by 2015 – Buckley’s chance.
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/CLIMATE-SPECTATOR-Treasurys-carbon-price-fantasy-pd20121016-Z4W55?opendocument&src=rss


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    the lunatics are running the asylum:

    16 Oct: Australian Financial Review: Marcus Priest: Banks buy up carbon permits
    Major banks are offering to buy some of the 27 million carbon permits given to Australia’s biggest emitters by the federal government, as companies look to increase cash flow or pay off higher electricity costs.
    The Australian Financial Review understands that at least four banks – Commonwealth Bank of Australia, National Australia Bank, Macquarie and Westpac – are looking to snap up the free permits given to emissions intensive trade exposed companies at rates higher than available through the government. The companies can then buy them back at their full price when they need to pay off their carbon liabilities next year.
    The purchase is, in effect, a corporate loan and the price of the permits reflects a company’s credit risk; margins range from 150 to 400 basis points. In contrast, the government applies a fixed discount rate if businesses want to sell permits back early.
    “Businesses can potentially do better elsewhere, and indeed, what’s happening is that some trade exposed businesses are looking to the banks,” Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox said…
    “The recent activity is evidence that the scheme is operating as it was designed,” a Westpac spokeswoman said.
    “Westpac is one of a number of banks supporting companies in the market and we see this as an important part of our role as a financial market intermediary.”
    So far, free permits worth $620 million have been allocated to 12 trade-exposed companies.
    A spokesman for Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said as the carbon market continued to develop, the government expected such secondary financial products would expand and increase carbon market liquidity.
    “These permits cover both direct emissions the companies are liable for but also electricity cost increases which are passed through the electricity market,” the spokesman said.
    “Accordingly, assisted firms were always expected to trade permits to offset their electricity costs.”
    But Greens leader Christine Milne said it was evidence the government handouts were “too generous”.
    “If these companies, which lobbied so hard for more permits, were worried about the price on pollution, they’d be saving the free permits, not selling them,” Senator Milne said…
    Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt said while banks were looking to make money from the carbon tax, it all “added up to higher electricity prices”.
    Meanwhile, the secretary of the Department of Climate Change has offered a lukewarm endorsement of Treasury’s prediction of a $29 carbon price by 2015.
    Giving evidence to a Senate estimates inquiry on Monday, Blair Comley said the decision by the government to link to the European emissions scheme and place a cap on the use of so-called “Kyoto units” by Australian companies of 12.5 percent of total liability, made it “more likely” the Treasury modelling was correct…
    $50 a tonne not inconceivable, $29 Plausible
    He said it was not “inconceivable” that the price in 2015 could be $50 and highlighted actions the European Union was looking to take to bolster its emissions trading scheme.
    “When you look at what the Treasury modelling was trying to do, it is still the best information we have available,” Mr Comley said. “You are talking about a price which is three years away…
    He also said placing a limit of 12.5 per cent on Kyoto permits would limit the downside in the domestic price of carbon.
    “In a large-scale modelling exercise there can be variations from when you do the particular exercise, [but] I’m not aware of particularly large variations that would give you cause to be concerned about the general story that is being told by the Treasury modelling,” Mr Comley said.
    “If anything, I would describe the 12.5 per cent cap [as] meaning the likely price path forecast by the Treasury modelling is actually more likely than it otherwise would be.” http://www.afr.com/p/national/banks_buy_up_carbon_permits_pM9TpeCQPxY8iRG20LapUK


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    I like the way the “skeptics” pick targets and attack them. Al Gore, Michael Mann, Phil Jones and now Stephan Lewandowski. When you have an opponent who annoys you, just get stuck in and attack them.

    Pointman, Sucking chest wounds HAVE to dealt with. The options are very limited if the patient is to survive.

    How tasteful.


    Report this

    012

    • #

      Yeah, I object!

      Picking on Al Gore just because he’s found a way to make multi millions is a cruel rotten nasty thing.

      Leave him alone.

      Go pick on someone else.

      Umm, like Gina Rinehart, like Twiggy Forrest, like Clive Palmer.

      Tony.


      Report this

      130

    • #
      Mark D.

      Great comment coming from the guy that speculates about “Emeritus Syndrome”.

      And that wouldn’t be an “attack”…….


      Report this

      50

    • #
      memoryvault

      I like the way the “skeptics” pick targets and attack them. Al Gore, Michael Mann, Phil Jones and now Stephan Lewandowski. When you have an opponent who annoys you, just get stuck in and attack them.

      Right on John. We only do it because we’re a belligerent bunch of buggers.

      The fact that each of these guys has been caught out lying, cheating, fraudulently feeding off the taxpayer teat and disseminating misinformation that will ultimately lead to the loss of tens of millions of lives has no bearing on our motives whatsoever.


      Report this

      201

      • #
        John Brookes

        Yeah mv, so why don’t you guys pick in his lordship then? He regularly tells whoppers. And then threatens legal action when he gets caught out. Or do you, like me, have selective morality?


        Report this

        19

        • #
          Shevva

          I liked it when you where more sciency and less trolly.

          Then again the Catastrophic AGW sciency hasn’t been doing to well the last decade.


          Report this

          70

        • #

          John, you are blessed not just with selective morality, but selective memory too. When Abrahams attacks Monckton, Monckton methodically stripped him in a 400 point reply. Perhaps you didn’t read it? Abrahams didn’t even try to reply. Which of those points Monckton made should I admonish him on?


          Report this

          201

          • #
            Brian of Moorabbin

            Hope you weren’t really expecting an answer from John on that one Jo.

            Not only does he suffer from selective morality and selective memory, but he also has selective reading ability; regularly skipping over posts where he is asked to elborate on his posts, or answer questions relating to the (increasingly) wild claims, exaggerations, and innuendo he posts.

            His frequent claims that Monkton has been “debunked” are simple examples of JB bleating the latest GetUp/WWF/Greenpeace meme. If he actually bothered to do any research into Monkton and his ‘skirmishes’ with Abrahams (what am I saying.. if JB did any research into any part of the AGW scam it’d be a first!) he’s soon learn that Lord Monkton has yet to be found incorrect with his comments, whilst simultaneously thoroughly drubbing his AGW-supporting adversaries.


            Report this

            41

          • #
            John Brookes

            Jo, Monckton’s reply was rubbish. If you want to see Monckton’s “presentations” taken apart, have a look at potholer54′s youtube videos.

            Monckton seeks to mislead. And he does it by citing a paper, and then saying that it found “x”, when in fact it didn’t. When challenged, he ultimately backs down. See the potholer54 videos.

            That his lordship is thin skinned and litigous suggests that he shouldn’t be throwing stones.


            Report this

            17

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          What are you doing here John?

          I know I’ve asked you this before but?

          Seriously, I’m curious as to why someone would do what you are doing.

          A radio item yesterday described Trolling and it sort of fits but it sounds really sad.

          I know from what goes on here that most of these posting want to explore how the world works and gain

          some genuine understanding of science and necessarily, politics as it is the basis for CAGW or Death by CO2.

          I can see and understand James who is being used by those getting rich on AGW, youthful innocence, but for you there is ???

          Why don’t you get a hobby that involves you in real life.

          Suggestion: get a pile of rocks and stand by the road side.

          Throw a rock at every red or white car that passes. See what happens; you will learn something.

          What you are doing here is not healthy John. Get a life.

          Maybe you and Gee Aye could get a court together and play tennis?

          KK


          Report this

          30

          • #
            AndyG55

            KK,
            I have come to the conclusion that JB is actually a skeptic, putting on an act to try to make climate disciples look extremely dumb, ignorant and stupid.

            I mean, can you really accept that JB is as dumb in real life as he comes across on this forum.. NOBODY is that stupidly moronic, are they ?
            I’ve taught low IQ teenagers, and they would be genius level compared to JB.

            It can only be an act.


            Report this

            52

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Yes Andy there is something unusual there.

            It may be the result of prolonged exposure to a virtual academic environment like the one that Stephan Lewandowsky inhabits or perhaps its just information overload and he has gone off the deep end?

            Gee Aye might have some thoughts on it?

            KK


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Gee Aye

            Well if you mention me every 5th time you comment I’ll write something eventually.


            Report this

            02

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Well done Gee.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Streetcred

            Andy … I thought that JB was a strawman put up by Jo to stimulate discussion. LOL !


            Report this

            10

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Or a reasonably sophisticated bot. Turing test anyone?

            Nah… he’s apparently a real person and has a Facebook account, and there are no bots on Facebook…?


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Flannery broke his brain in a great fall,
            Gore still has one but it is small,
            Hansen’s is quite peculiar,
            Mann’s always wants to sue yuh,
            but poor old Brookesy’s brain never works at all.


            Report this

            10

        • #
          memoryvault

          so why don’t you guys pick in his lordship then?

          Simple, John.

          Nothing Monckton has ever said or done has been responsible for a single child going to bed hungry, because what should have been their dinner was turned into ethanol to satisfy some crazed cutlist’s concept how things should be.

          Nothing Monckton has ever said or done has been responsible for pensioners spending the whole day riding the streets of London or Berlin on a bus because they couldn’t afford to heat their home so some other Lord could make a killing off the subsidised rent paid for allowing useless windmills to be erected on “his” land.

          .
          Want more examples?
          I’ve got plenty.


          Report this

          111

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Johnny boy, these guys hand out lots and lots of rope. We just show them how the hangman knots are tied …


      Report this

      60

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      I like the way the “skeptics” pick targets and attack them. Al Gore, Michael Mann, Phil Jones and now Stephan Lewandowski. When you have an opponent who annoys you, just get stuck in and attack them.

      And of course, your side of the issue has never done that, right?

      Don’t answer that. Your nose will grow longer if you do.


      Report this

      30

    • #

      Skeptics don’t “pick out targets” and attack them. Al Gore, Michael Mann et al put themselves in the spotlight and declared themselves to be the arbitrators of climate change truth. They painted the target on themselves. Don’t blame skeptics for taking on the loudest and proudest first–that is the appropriate way to deal with deception and bad science. It’s pretty much pointless to attack “Arturo Buckman” (fictional name) who wrote a paper in a professional journal that only a few have read. The ones up front making the most noise are the ones volunteering to be taken on. If they can’t deal with it, then they should not have come out as leaders and experts in the first place.
      (Note: I do not agree with everything someone like Monckton says and will say so when it comes up. It’s unlikely I agree with everything any skeptic says. For skeptics, the science is not settled and all ideas can be challenged. It’s what makes skeptics different from climate “scientists”.)


      Report this

      50

    • #

      John Brookes,

      What part of “Abrahams didn’t even try to reply.” did you miss?


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Bob Massey

    I don’t know if anyone has said this before or pointed it out to the good doctor. But his surveys and theories will always now be tainted because like Heisenberg’s principle the mere fact of him being involved will alter the result. He might as well hang up his hat and go do something useful instead of spending our money.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      That’s brilliant Bob but it would probably go right over the heads of our Global Warming Associates who post here.

      They don’t do Heisenberg in year 10 high school.

      KK


      Report this

      10

    • #

      I believe Heisenberg only applies to quantum physics, not the macro world. Yes, psychics, psychologists and others are known to try and sneak that by, but Heisenberg is about sub-atomic particles. In psychology, it is known and understood that observation, if detected, can change the outcome (observer affect).


      Report this

      20

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        That’s true Sheri , about the observer effect, seems logical.

        Our comments were a joke; extending something meant for particle interaction to the macro world.

        KK :)


        Report this

        00

        • #

          I thought perhaps they were in jest. However, I have seen very sincere statements to the same effect. It’s really a problem at times for the field of psychology–and it sounds so logical, if you don’t think about it very hard. :)


          Report this

          10

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            I did the first three years of the Psych degree at the local Uni and was very impressed with the

            coursework, the professionalism of the staff and cannot speak too highly about their efforts to

            present a good product. Not all staff got through their work without stumbling but bye and large.

            The so called Psychology publicised in the Lewandowsky episode is an appalling misrepresentation of Psychology which is about How we think and react, Not about the Content.

            Lewandowskies work? was basically about the relative merits of one idea over another in the way a foot

            ball match decides a winner. No psychology content there at all.

            Crazy stuff to be anointed by the senior staff at UWA.

            KK


            Report this

            10

  • #

    “There is something creep-wrong about paying a scientist to study people he hates.”
    First, scientists, real ones anyway, probably don’t hate very many groups of people (maybe religions, not sure). Yes, they are human but they tend to not be like the general population in forming emotional responses rather than looking at the facts. Hatred is more generally formed from an emotional reaction to facts, which is counter to science.
    Second, If this were a TRUE scientist, whether or not he hated the people he studied would not make as much difference as we see here. This is not scientific research, it’s a vendetta. I’m not fond of some behaviours in society today, but if I were to study the groups, I would make a concerted effort to be fair and have someone who liked the group participate. Whether or not I like the subjects or the answer I get, the goal was to increase mine and other’s understanding of a particular behaviour or event. Again, if it were a TRUE scientists, we probably would not be having this discussion.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Neville

    This is O/T but just like to link to Bob Tisdale’s 2nd video on ocean temps and ENSO’s role in climate.

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/part-2-of-we-now-control-weather-extreme-heat-events-dirty-weather-climate-disasters/

    His excellent first video is also available on youtube.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    16 Oct: Toronto Star: Thomas Walkom: McGuinty resigns: The self-inflicted death of Dalton McGuinty’s bold agenda
    McGuinty is quitting as premier. More important, he’s proroguing the legislature indefinitely — a desperate action that suggests that there are still more scandals, as yet unrevealed, waiting to torpedo the minority Liberal government…
    But the real question — for both Ontarians and the country — is what happens to the McGuinty agenda…
    But the centerpiece of the McGuinty agenda was his controversial green energy policy.
    The idea here had three parts. First, electricity consumers would subsidize new forms of power generation, such as wind power, through their hydro bills. Coal would be phased out as a source of electricity generation and replaced by natural gas…
    Second, these green power generators (all private, incidentally) would buy their equipment from Ontario manufacturers.
    Third, to encourage foreign multinationals like South Korea’s Samsung to locate their windmill manufacturing plants in Ontario, the provincial government would offer generous subsidies.
    For a premier who prided himself on caution, the green energy policy was a remarkably daring attempt to use the power of government to rebuild Ontario’s tattered manufacturing sector.
    But like the rest of the McGuinty agenda it soon ran into trouble — from rural residents worried that windmills were making them sick, from suburbanites who didn’t want new gas turbines built near their homes, from hydro users angered by their rising energy bills…
    So he announced his resignation. In doing so, he took his government’s entire agenda with him.
    http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1272015–walkom-mcguinty-resigns-the-self-inflicted-death-of-dalton-mcguinty-s-bold-agenda

    maybe the mocking comments of this Toronto Star editorial the previous day, sparked the opposing view above:

    15 Oct: Toronto Star Editorial: Dalton McGuinty resigns: Premier leaves a solid legacy
    The pundits will pore over the whys of McGuinty’s surprise decision, but none of that should detract from his role in the longer sweep of events. Because despite his evident shortcomings, the fact remains that McGuinty was on the right side of the big issues for Ontario throughout his nine years in office. He has a legacy to be proud of…
    McGuinty’s government took important steps towards securing Ontario’s energy future and safeguarding its environment. It established the greenbelt around Greater Toronto, curbing endless suburban sprawl. It slashed coal-fired generation and invested in the province’s electricity system after years of neglect by other governments. Hydro bills are higher, but we no longer worry about a rickety power system leaving us in the dark…
    http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/1272013–dalton-mcguinty-resigns-premier-leaves-a-solid-legacy


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Lewandowsky is still maintaining that his study has something to say.

    Let us now illustrate the specifics of the process of replication within the context of one of my recent papers, with colleagues Klaus Oberauer and Gilles Gignac, which showed (among other things) that conspiracist ideation predicted rejection of a range of scientific propositions, from the link between smoking and lung cancer to the fact that the globe is warming due to human greenhouse gas emissions. This effect was highly significant but the possibility that it represented a statistical fluke—though seemingly unlikely—cannot be ruled out.

    That is if you get a large sample of people, split 50/50 between ardent “acceptors” and ardent “rejecters” of climate science. Solely on information about their beliefs in conspiracy theories would enable one to score significantly higher than flipping a coin.
    My analysis of the questionnaire results says that this is utter rubbish. Only 2% of respondents (23/1145) were net non-climate conspiracy theory believers. The only two conspiracists who also were strong “rejecters” of climate science were “scam” responses. Any alleged link is from including “anti-science” conspiracies (climate is a hoax) but not including any of the alarmist conspiracies (people being paid by big oil to lie). Lewandowsky is employing the conspiracist’s methods in his paper.

    … unlike the real insights provided by science and rational thought, conspiracy theories obsessively focus on selected pieces of — real or imaginary — “evidence” while ignoring mountains of actual data.

    But it gets worse. The public message that Lewandowsky promotes is that skeptics have absolutely nothing to say, because they are a bunch of nutters. This statement could be easily falsified by showing in Lewandowsky’s writings where he gives a modicum of praise to skeptics, or is critical of alarmist views.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Winston

      In view of the above, MBC, I thought I might try to get on the gravy train by conducting my own version of Lewandowsky’s paper, with subtle changes in the thrust of the questions to see if it might give a different result:
      MOTIVATED REJECTION OF SCIENCE -
      “Mankind is inherently evil and is rapaciously destroying the biosphere, therefore CAGW denialism is a hoax, an active rejection of Science by Fossil Fuel Shills : An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science”
      by Winston. MB.BS (Syd)

      1 S Agree 2 Agree 3 Disagree 4 S Disagree
      1. An economic system based entirely upon centrally controlled governance by the state automatically works best to meet human needs while still promoting optimal industrial and technological development
      .
      2. I support environmental sustainability and protection as the over-riding guiding principle, if necessary at the expense of a free market capitalist economy.

      3. Social justice considerations are automatically diminished at the expense of financial expediency in free-market , laissez- faire economies.

      4. Localized environmental concerns are significantly more important than the preservation of the free market system.

      5. Sustainable development poses a threat to free and unregulated market economies.

      6. Unsustainable consumption is actually required to promote a Free market system, otherwise it would eventually collapse.

      7. The Iraq War in 2003 was launched on the pretext of removing WMD from Iraq, but was instead motivated to secure US oil supply, and further the personal vendetta of President George W Bush’s father against Saddam Hussein.

      1 Absolutely True 2 Probably True 3 Probably False 4 Absolutely False

      8. The UN’s plans to overtly provide a global system to ensure maintenance of world peace, environmental sustainability and to alleviate hunger and economic disadvantage in the developing world is being systematically undermined by a vast right wing conspiracy of conservative politicians and Oil companies to further propagate US hegemony at the expense of broader humanity.

      9. SARS and Influenza pandemics are a clear and present threat to the global population and can only continue to be thwarted by eternal and constant vigilance by health authorities.

      10. The US government had no foreknowledge whatsoever about the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, and FDR harboured no desire or alternative to enter the Second World War.

      11. The AIDS epidemic was covered up by the US government authorities in the 1970′s because it only was thought to affect the homosexual community, and was not given appropriate priority as a consequence.

      12. The Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr was the result of a crazed lone gunman, much to the surprise and horror of the FBI and CIA, who enjoyed a cordial relationship and sincere admiration for him and his goals of racial equality.

      13. The Apollo Moon landings were not used for Cold War propaganda purposes, occurred exactly as NASA have stated, and film footage and photography has in no way been altered or otherwise manipulated to enhance their quality. Astronauts have uniformly excellent photographic skills.

      14. The US government and its military and intelligence agencies would be completely open, transparent, honest and above board with the general populace should ever the unlikely event of alien contact occur, instantly alerting them to the occurrence without fear or favour, or consideration of ramifications.

      15. The assassination of John F Kennedy was committed by the crazed, lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, who was then unfortunately shot and killed by a misguided patriot, Jack Ruby, before his guilt could be incontrovertibly proven in an impartial court of law.

      16. The US government were completely open and honest in their inquiry into the 9/11 attacks and there were perfectly reasonable scientific explanations for all the events (including the collapse of Building 7) that occurred on that day. In no way did the US government or its intelligence agencies seek to make political capital out of the attacks to invade Afghanistan or Iraq, nor did they use the attacks as an excuse to increase powers of intelligence agencies, broaden domestic surveillance and increase government controls, or reduce accountability for their actions in enforcing these measures in any way.

      17. The Roswell, New Mexico “UFO incident” was nothing more than debris from a large weather balloon. Eyewitness accounts to the contrary are either due to mass hysteria, recreational drugs, close inbreeding of American country folk, or possibly post-traumatic stress disorder from US involvement in WW2.

      18. Princess Diana’s death was an accident, with no suspicious features or implausible facts whatsoever. In actuality, MI6, the entire British Government and all members of the British royal family could see no potential issue or conflict resulting from the prospect of Diana, Princess of Wales, having another child this time to a father of Islamic faith, who would be half-brother to the future King and head of the Church of England.

      19. The Oklahoma City Bombers, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nicols acted alone out of a sense of misguided angst and rebelliousness against authority, because they came from broken homes, were bullied at school, were now unemployed and because they couldn’t afford cable TV.

      20. Any and every fluctuation or variation in global climate is unequivocally and entirely due to emissions from fossil fuels. Scientists receiving more taxpayer money for climate “research” is totally unrelated to alarmism, or it’s geopolitical implications either.

      21. The Coca Cola company intentionally changed to an inferior formula because it was cheaper to make, and none of their senior management would ever consider drinking it.

      22. I believe that burning fossil fuels has no effect whatsoever upon atmospheric temperature to any even infinitessimal or measurable degree

      1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly Disagree

      23. I believe that the burning of fossil fuels on the scale observed over the last 50 years has increased atmospheric temperature to a catastrophic and irreversible degree, that will cause catastrophic sea-level rise, severe droughts and floods, extreme weather events to an unprecedented degree, and eventually lead to the extinction of mankind as we know it.

      24. I believe that the burning of fossil fuels on the scale observed over the last 50 years will cause serious negative changes to the planet’s climate, unless there is an immediate return of all mankind to a hunter-gatherer existence, with total abandoning of industrial and technological society.

      25. I believe that the burning of fossil fuels on the scale observed over the last 50 years has already caused serious negative changes to the planet’s climate, and compromised our future place as Earthian members of the Galactic Federation.

      26. The problem of CFC’s serious threat to the ozone layer was ploy to allow Dupont Chemicals to substitute with HFC’s once the CFC patents ran out, preserving a $16 billion per annum industry and simultaneously preserve its monopoly.

      27. The problem of acid rain was never a serious threat to the global ecosystem, but it was a good excuse to enhance technology to clean up automotive emissions.

      28. In many ways my life is an unending and unrelenting torture, and the sooner it ends, the better.

      29. The conditions of my life are encumbered by an ever increasing bureaucracy strangling the lifeblood out of society in general.

      30. I am totally at the end of my tether with what passes for an excuse for my life.

      31. So far I haven’t gotten what I deserve in life, because of entrenched malfeasance by business executives who have exploited and cheated loyal workers consistently for generations.

      32. If I could live my life over I would change almost everything, especially for whom I voted.

      33. The SIV virus in monkeys is the precursor of the HIV virus which causes AIDS

      1 Absolutely True 2 Probably True 3 Probably False 4 Absolutely False

      34. Passive Smoking causes lung cancer.

      35. Human CO2 emissions have nothing whatsoever to do with climate change.

      36. Out of 100 homeopathy students, how many do you think believe that they can cure the HIV Virus which causes AIDS?

      37. Out of 100 medical students, how many do you think believe that they suffer from either lymphoma or leukaemia at some time during their studies?

      38. After a general amnesty was declared for scientific malfeasance, and if a secret ballot was taken where no career ramifications or recriminations could occur, out of 100 climate scientists how many do you think believe that human CO2 emissions cause a large or even significant proportion of the observed global warming seen since 1880?

      39. Out of 100 people in your neighborhood, how many do you think wear tin foil hats?

      40. Out of 100 people in your country overall, how many do you think attend swingers parties?

      41. What is your star sign?

      42. What is your sexual orientation?

      43. Can I have your phone number, your social security number and your bank PIN?


      Report this

      60

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        A lot of thought has gone into that catalogue of the human condition.

        Just reading it is exhausting but like life, it has things that are too complex to deal with.

        Time for a drink

        KK


        Report this

        20

        • #
          Winston

          KK,
          It took about an hour all up between patients. So, where’s my $170,000.00 grant, he asks? I think I’ve earned it after all that effort, seeing as I’ve invested my intellectual capital and all.

          Btw Mods, can you correct a couple of typos?
          Q 36. Should read “which causes” AIDS.
          Q 30. Should read “with what passes”

          Anyway, I hope it wasn’t too exhausting but I think a little peer review was in order.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            MaxL

            You’ve convinced me Winston.

            So, where’s my $170,000.00 grant, he asks?

            Please supply your credit card number and the 3 digit access code on the back and we’ll see what we can do. :)


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Winston

            But Max,
            Before I give you that, I need the answers to Q 41 and 42, we’ve only just met! Lol.


            Report this

            20

          • #
            MaxL

            Oh, well that’s easy,

            Torus (the bull)
            North by south-west.

            Now for your numbers please, time is wasting.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Ohhh… you kidding.

            I took your questionnaire seriously until I read you 2nd comment…

            I was really struggling with the tin foil hat question… I’m certain that 99 people (everyone except me) out of the nearest 100 people wear tin foil hats because they believe in baseless conspiracies – I’m absolutely convinced and certain of it. There is no evidence that could be presented that could convince me otherwise…


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Winston

            Sorry Max,
            No can do, I’m Taurophobic.


            Report this

            20

          • #
            MaxL

            Well Winston I’m sorry we can’t come to a (mutually?) financial agreement.
            I’ve heard of a psychologist, Lewandowski, who I think may be able to help you overcome your morbid fear of pseudo-science. He is particularly experienced in such matters.

            Best wishes with your survey. :)


            Report this

            20

  • #
    pattoh

    Not trying to get in on Pat’s contract, but I just spotted this one & I am sure Tony will make a comment:-

    Brownout in coal power squeeze

    A major brown coal power station in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley will cut production by operating only three of its four units, prompting new warnings that the federal renewable energy target is threatening the sustainability of the electricity market, according to The Australian.

    Energy Australia is expected to announce it will scale back electricity generation at the Gippsland-based Yallourn power station. The company says the carbon price, which started on July 1, is driving up operating costs while wholesale electricity prices are weak and demand for electricity is plunging.
    (source – miningnews.net)

    It does not really matter what changes come with new governments. Power is goiny to be far more expensive & less reliable.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      handjive

      Power is goiny to be far more expensive & less reliable.”

      Who is responsible?

      “Australians face a decade of rising electricity prices and the risk of blackouts unless a carbon (sic) price is introduced next year…”

      .

      Well, we have a carbon (sic) tax, or ‘a price’, courtesy of PRIME Mussel Julia Gillard, and we have the blackouts:

      “FAMILIES already suffering from raging energy bills could soon be forced to endure power blackouts as part of a strategy to rein in electricity prices.”

      “At the end of the day, it is how many minutes of interruptions (is acceptable)? You may find your power is out a bit more.”

      .

      It appears that here we have indisputable proof that JuLiar Galah’d has finally delivered on a promise.

      00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Basically what happened is that the Politicians spent the money allocated for the New Power stations and so had to invent a way of jumping up income to cover the shortfall.

        KK


        Report this

        10

    • #

      Just musing here.

      On the Monday immediately following the introduction of the CO2 Tax, every electrical power provider published their new pricing lists. The retail cost of electricity went up by between 2.5 and 3.2 cents for residential consumers, who pay for their electricity at a rate (considerably) higher than for the Commerce and Industrial Sectors. Here you need to realise that consumers in both those other sectors have power bills considerably higher than those in the Residential sector, and here I mean considerably higher.

      At the same time as those Residential scales were changed, all cost scales (and there is a number of different scales for those other 2 sectors) for all Commerce and all industry were also changed, and in each case that cost rose so that when extrapolated out, it is actually closer to that Residential scale, so the rises in those other 2 sectors were of a much larger rate than that of the Residential sector. This is probably due to the fact that the impact of the CO2 Tax is around 3 to 3.2 cents per KWH at the power generation end. So, the fractional saving for residential consumers could be spread a little better across the whole range by a fractional increase for those other 2 Sectors, sort of like the classic waterbed principle.

      So now you see the retail price of electricity is around 23/24 cents per KWH.

      Coal fired power has traditionally generated its power for (around) $30 per MWH, which extrapolates to that 3 cents per KWH. The retail price is 23 cents per KWH. The CO2Tax effectively doubles the cost of generated electricity.

      Now while we here in Australia pay that 23 cents retail for electricity, check out this current list from the U.S. The U.S. average is 11.26 cents per KWH, and that’s the average across all States. That’s less than half what we pay here in Australia. Excluding the outlier Hawaii, not one State in the U.S. pays more than we do here in Australia. The highest is a couple of States in the North East, and they import all their power from other States, hence they pay at a much higher rate, still 18% lower than Australia. The lowest cost is a couple of States who pay around 7.5 cents per KWH, less than one third what we pay here.

      Coal fired power costs around the same to generate in the U.S. around that 3 cents per KWH.

      That 3 cents per KWH here in Australia is barely 13% of the current retail price.

      I think I have detailed in many other places what adds to the cost of retail electricity here in Australia. The price is being artificially inflated with the introduction of the CO2 Tax, the added cost for renewable power, the subsidies paid to rooftop solar which are all passed on to every other consumer in every Sector now.

      Renewable power has ramped up considerably in the last 6/7 years.

      6/7 years ago, the retail cost of electricity at the residential sector level here in Australia averaged 11 to 14 cents per KWH, and when Julia Gillard came to office, retail electricity cost 17 cents per KWH.

      6/7 years ago, coal fired power cost 3 cents per KWH to generate, the same as it costs now.

      It only stands to reason that a normal person can actually deduce what has forced the price of electricity up, and it most definitely is not poles and wires, because in fact, the grid is now in worse condition than it was before.

      Incidentally, one of the major reasons that electric power is so cheap in the U.S. is that 22% of all consumed power is generated from Nuclear sources. Prime Minister Gillard is in India flogging off our uranium so India can construct Nuclear Power Plants, and yet we are not allowed to use it for that purpose here. Our coal is being flogged off to China, and everywhere else, but perish the thought that we use it here, and in fact we are told that we need to drastically reduce our consumption. Then there’s Natural Gas. Offshore sales of that has led to talk that it will triple the cost of gas here in Australia, and that’s town gas and bottled gas.

      This Government is making energy consumption almost a luxury these days.

      One last point. If every provider changed their scales on the Monday following the introduction of that CO2 Tax, everything else in the way of explanation for that falls into the Britney Spears diversionary tactic.

      Tony.


      Report this

      60

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Thanks for that outline Tony.

        KK


        Report this

        00

      • #

        There’s something I missed pointing out from that table of costs from the U.S. that I linked to.

        Across the top of the table are three tabs indicating the costs for each of the 3 Sectors, Residential, Commerce and Industrial.

        After you compare the Residential costs with those I have mentioned for what we pay here in Australia, click on the Commerce tab, and then the Industrial tab.

        As you can plainly see, the unit costs per KWH for those 2 non residential sectors are a lot less than for the residential sector, and note how the Industrial sector cost per unit is almost half that of the residential sector.

        There is a similar situation here in Australia, only now, those other 2 sectors have moved a little closer to what the Residential sector pays.

        Now the most eye opening thing to look at on those charts, all three of them is the number of consumers.

        Keep in mind that the ratio split for power consumption in the U.S. is 38% Residential, 37% Commerce, and 24% Industrial, so basically, almost the same total power is being consumed in the Commerce sector as in the residential sector.

        Note the number of consumers and an even better indicator of that is the (average) monthly power bill, shown in the bottom right column.

        Note that for the Commerce sector that Monthly bill is 6.5 times higher than the monthly bill for the residential sector, and the Industrial sector is 70 times higher than for the residential sector.

        Now some of you will say that this is U.S. specific, but wherever there is a constant and reliable supply of electrical power in the Western World, those figures are close no matter what the Country, and keep in mind that this is the average only.

        So, extrapolating from that to the unique Australian position now that the CO2 Tax has been introduced, you can see how the power bills for the Commerce and Industrial sectors here have increased, and where possible, mainly at the retail level, (the Commerce sector) those increased costs per unit of electricity adding to the overall power bill increase will be passed directly down to consumers.

        So, you are not only paying the increase at that residential power bill level, you are also paying extra at every other level, and keep in mind here that only part of the residential sector is being compensated.

        Tony.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    pat

    pattoh – go for it. i sometimes feel bad posting so many stories. however, here’s more:

    16 Oct: Bloomberg: Dawn McCarty/Craig Trudell: Electric Car Battery Maker A123 Systems Files Bankruptcy
    A123 Systems Inc., the electric car battery maker that received a $249.1 million federal grant, filed for bankruptcy protection and said it would sell its automotive business assets to Johnson Controls Inc…
    The 30 largest consolidated creditors without collateral backing their claims are owed a total of more than $161 million, according to court papers. U.S. Bank NA, as trustee, is listed as the largest unsecured creditor with a claim of $142.8 million, according to court papers…
    A123, which received a $249.1 million federal grant in 2009 to build U.S. factory capacity, needed a financial lifeline after struggling with costs from a recall of batteries supplied to Fisker, the plug-in hybrid luxury carmaker…
    A123 has used $132 million of the $249.1 million grant awarded by the U.S. in 2009 toward building the two Michigan factories, the Energy Department said today in a posting on its website. A123 was required to spend up to one dollar of its funds for every incentive dollar received from the government, according to regulatory filings. The company also received a $6 million grant from the George W. Bush administration in 2007…
    A123 has posted at least 14 straight quarterly losses. Its shares had fallen 85 percent this year to 24 cents as of yesterday’s close in New York.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-16/electric-car-battery-maker-a123-systems-files-bankruptcy.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    ratepayers in australia should be demanding their councillors cancel all the CAGW programs too:

    16 Oct: Cambridge City News: Chris Havergal: Global warming ‘may not exist’ says council leader
    Cllr Nick Clarke said on his blog climate change science was “not backed up with facts” after Met Office figures showed there had been no discernible rise in global temperatures in the last 16 years…
    The Conservative’s views were condemned as an “embarrassment” by opposition councillors, and the Met Office said climate change could only be detected over many decades.
    But Cllr Clarke, who represents Fulbourn and has overseen cuts to the council’s climate change activities, attacked the “bullying tactics” of “bourgeois left-wing academics” on the issue…
    Cllr Clarke wrote that the Earth warmed up and cooled down on a fairly regular basis, and it was a “bit arrogant” to claim humans’ ability to affect things was “more significant than nature itself”.
    He said it was “sad” that anyone who questioned the “alarmist doomsday scenario” was “automatically labelled someone who threatens the future of humanity”.
    Cllr Sarah Whitebread, Lib Dem environment spokeswoman, said: “As a former member of UKIP, Cllr Clarke’s unscientific views on climate change are hardly surprising.
    “But that he has deleted the council’s entire climate change function and is publicly peddling this nonsense is still an embarrassment in one of the UK’s most successful centres of knowledge and research.”…
    http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Cambridge/Global-warming-a-theory-by-bourgeois-left-wingers-16102012.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    what is Garnaut saying…that the price rises are good? bad?
    where is australia’s economy heading?

    17 Oct: Australian: ANNABEL HEPWORTH/PIA AKERMAN Brown out in coal power squeeze
    A MAJOR brown-coal power station in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley will cut production by operating only three of its four units, prompting new warnings that the federal renewable energy target is threatening the sustainability of the electricity market.
    The Australian can reveal that Energy Australia will today announce it will scale back electricity generation at the Gippsland-based Yallourn power station. The company says the carbon price, which started on July 1, is driving up operating costs while wholesale electricity prices are weak and demand for electricity is plunging.
    Energy Australia will also warn that the renewable energy target is suppressing wholesale power prices to uneconomic levels and point to modelling that finds the RET will cost consumers $53 billion – almost 50 per cent more than the National Broadband Network.
    The decision means that more than 3000 megawatts of coal-fired power generation capacity has been cut back or closed in recent times…
    Mr Combet said the RET was bipartisan, remained a “very important” part of the Clean Energy Future package and was always intended to work with the carbon price to cut emissions by making renewable and low-emissions electricity generation more competitive…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/brown-out-in-coal-power-squeeze/story-e6frg6xf-1226497360617

    17 Oct: SMH: Peter Hannam: Yallourn cutback proof carbon policies are working, ACF (Australian Conservation Foundation) says
    “Since the carbon price started, 3000 megawatts of dirty, coal-fired generation has been switched off, demonstrating that the carbon price and the renewable energy target are starting the process of shifting Australia from a 19th century dirty economy to a 21st century clean economy,” ACF’s climate change campaign manager Tony Mohr said in a statement…
    “The current design of the Renewable Energy Target threatens the sustainability of Australia’s electricity market and needs to be recalibrated in line with falling demand, easing cost pressures on Australian electricity customers,” Mark Collette, group executive manager, Energy Markets, for EnergyAustralia, said in a statement…
    (Combet) “The bipartisan Renewable Energy Target remains a very important part of our Clean Energy Future package and the range of views on the operation of the scheme are being considered by the current Climate Change Authority review.”…
    ???Australia’s electricity prices have risen more in the past six years than at any similar time in the country’s history or in any comparable developed nation, Professor Ross Garnaut told a seminar in Melbourne on Monday…
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/yallourn-cutback-proof-carbon-policies-are-working-acf-says-20121017-27qbs.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Not totally unrelated:

    Steve McIntyre has an excellent post of how things can totally unravel with bodgy papers.

    http://climateaudit.org/2012/10/16/forensic-bioinformatics/#more-17077


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gee Aye

    The Greens have a clear vision for Canberra

    I just pressed the yellow button on the right hand column that tracks user number. The above quote was the banner advertising on Jo’s stats page


    Report this

    00

  • #

    William M. Briggs writes about Lewandowsky’s Confusion About Statistics

    In his favor, a lot of people who publish too many papers aimed at audiences who are eager to nod their heads sagely at the foibles of their inferiors make the same errors Lewandowsky does. They are widely replicated errors. Which proves that replication in science can often reinforce distortions.

    ENjoy the rest at the linked article.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Barry Woods

    Another mystery to solve, the Lewandowsky et al paper was announced and circulated to news wires, journals, the media (especially the Guardian / Telegraph) as pending publication, back in July.

    http://pss.sagepub.com/content/current

    as there is no sign, now in October, does anybody know what is happening to this, as the press releases and media coverage went far and wide..

    Dr Adam Corner (a phsychologist, that need to be a bit more sceptical?)

    in the Guardian (in July, having been sent it by Lewandowsky):

    “But new research to be published in a forthcoming issue of Psychological Science has found a link between the endorsement of conspiracy theories and the rejection of established facts about climate science.”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/jul/27/climate-sceptics-conspiracy-theorists

    Could someone (who is likely to get a response) ask the journal the status of this..


    Report this

    00