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



Full UnCut video now available – “I Can Change Your Mind” Evans, Nova, Minchin & Rose.

Thanks to Frank Brus, at least one camera is now on YouTube in full, with sound. :-) Many thanks to other skeptics who volunteered with other helpful suggestions and ideas: to J.J., Ruth, Jim, and Raymond. Thanks to Steve for info about bit-torrent (at least we don’t have to go there this time).

An excellent talent pool out there. I didn’t even know some people had access to post Very Long Movies on Youtube (1 hour 56 mins.) Some of my favourite points are at the end. Check out the last 15 minutes.

There were two cameras recording at the same time:

 View 2 (Front more distant camera)


OR (UPDATE)  View 1 (Back camera view) closer.

 Thanks to Barry Corke for driving hundreds of kilometers with his high tech equipment to record this for no fee at all!

 

The original post has all the background and information on this video:  ABC Doco “UnCut”: Evans, Nova, Minchin and Rose — the full unedited video. Look for the moment when Anna is surprised we agree with CO2 being a greenhouse gas: “How can you be skeptical?” Notice when she describes David’s modeling work as “data entry”.

The videos posted there both had sound glitches after 26 minutes. Thanks to Frank, I think we have fixed it here. If a Youtube becomes available for the other view, I shall add it.

Thank you also to the many people who made a much appreciated Christmas contribution — of all sizes. No tip is too small. I am grateful.

Compare that to the final ABC-Smith&Nasht version that went to air

In the end the “Jo & David segment” was only four minutes long. If they were impartial they would not have spent so much of that four minutes on the “paranoia” and the extra camera-man. Instead they would they have spent, say, two whole minutes showing four graphs, and another minute showing that Jo and David are volunteers, that the big money is on Anna’s side of the debate? What matters more to the Australian debate about whether every family should spend something like $1,000 this year on taxes and fees to reduce the global temperature — the failure of the climate models, or the ABC’s spin on those who resist the government agenda?

Does the Australian taxpayer get value for money with this production, or did they unknowingly fund propaganda and advertising for Labor Party policies?

Would the narrator sum up with the key point that the difference between alarmists and skeptics is that skeptics want observations while the alarmists rely on models? Or that fueling the skepticism is a wealth of data from NOAA, NASA, the Hadley Centre, Argo and weather balloons? Would they have spent 10 seconds explaining that while Jo and David are not climate scientists, David has six degrees in maths and stats including a Phd from Stanford, and both of them won prizes in their areas in university?

Could the doco makers have used proper images of graphs, or did it help the public understand the skeptic case by briefly showing an oblique shaded image, and not explaining the significance of the graph (including that the pre-Argo data is near worthless)?

PS: From comments on the other thread, I may not have made Nick Minchin’s role clear. He was approached to do the show as the skeptical anchor, got assurances it would not be hostile (yes, he was suspicious), and asked David and me to help him try to convince Anna Rose. He’s a well versed skeptic. I was impressed with his affable, yet well informed demeanor and patience with Anna.

Anna, on-the-other-hand, came with petty Desmog attack points and no awareness of what skeptics argued. She ignored every point we made. Look for the insightful bit where, after an hour and 38 minutes of debate, it starts to dawn on Anna that it isn’t going the way she’d imagined. Anna checks that “yes” we understand CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes warming, and that “yes” we agree levels of CO2 are rising — and she simply cannot understand why that isn’t the end of the argument. Flummoxed. Completely clueless, non-quantitative, and ignorant. Yet skilfully cashing in on the government propaganda wave, doing much better than David and me in the climate money and government-approval stakes. (In her eyes, she is doubtless winning: she gets the money, accolades, the radio interviews, and the meeting with the PM. Skeptics get next to no money, plenty of bully-boy-scorn, and are shunned by anyone who’s, you know, “really important”. Doubtless Anna is being groomed to be an ALP/ABC candidate for parliament, long may she rule over us.)

 

Transcript of the broadcast. With a few thoughts from David, annotated.

Transcript of the interview. The dialog that made it to the finished documentary that was broadcast is highlighted in blue. Note the fancy cut and paste job they did to make David appear something he did not, so as to conceal the fact that we presented four bits of evidence, not one and the dodgy thermometers.

——————————

And GregB (who is in that same kitchen pictured above right now) says hello to Trish in NZ :-)

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.7/10 (89 votes cast)
Full UnCut video now available - "I Can Change Your Mind" Evans, Nova, Minchin & Rose., 8.7 out of 10 based on 89 ratings

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

185 comments to Full UnCut video now available – “I Can Change Your Mind” Evans, Nova, Minchin & Rose.

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Jo says…

    (Doubtless Anna is being groomed to be an ALP/ABC candidate for parliament, long may she rule over us.)

    That is my impression as well. Groomed yes. But will she be able to make it – is yet to be seen. The monetary forces at work in the world today could well shift her whole paradigm under her feet, and leave her stranded holding an ideological position that no longer is relevant.


    Report this

    330

    • #
      MudCrab

      I see her as running more running Green then Red.

      My pet Greenie friends can’t stop gushing over her.


      Report this

      151

    • #
      cohenite

      The ALP is so good at grooming its female politicians:

      Gillard
      Roxon
      Plibersek
      Macklin
      Wong
      etc


      Report this

      180

      • #
        cohenite

        I now see that an ABC executive has come out in support of William’s pedophillia slur.

        That being the case what I would like to see is a group of prominent sceptics – Plimer, Carter, Franks, Ridd, Salby, Stockwell, Jo and David, O’Brian, McClean, Jensen, Minchin etc – bring a joint defamation action against Williams and the ABC which, given their outrageous support of this man, means they are not just innocent diseminators but complicit in the imputation contained in William’s statement.

        The point about this is that it would establish parameters for the alarmists who are now acting without restraint.


        Report this

        300

        • #
          inedible hyperbowl

          Yep, a high profile defamation action would be good. Followed by prosecutions for fraud for those who have tortured manipulated data to gain financial advantage.


          Report this

          120

        • #
          Alice Thermopolis

          The ABC-Williams issue, while important, unfortunately drew attention away fron the interview with Lewandowsky. Williams’s uncritical acceptance of such nonsense should have attracted more attention.

          Lewandowsky seems obsessed with using subliminal psychological techniques (brainwashing with “facts”, etc) to make sceptics change their minds.

          Will they be exiled to “de-biasing” gulags especially designed by schools of psychology for all promulgators of “denials, dodges and pseudo-scientific studies”?

          Here they will spend years in Orwellian programs of cognitive modification, self-criticism and re-education. Welcome to the realm of post-modern (social) “science”.

          As for defamation action, perhaps international signatories to a recent open letter to Ban Ki-Moon on climate change should start the ball rolling?

          In his post on The Conversation on 7 December 2012, Lewandowsky smears them as “cranks from central casting” who “inhabit a fantasy world of climate denial.”


          Report this

          30

      • #
        John Brookes

        What is your point, Cohers?


        Report this

        08

    • #
      Jaymez

      Her husband of ‘GetUp’ fame Simon Sheikh is running as a Greens candidate in the Senate at the next election: http://act.greens.org.au/content/community-campaigner-simon-sheikh-contest-humphries%E2%80%99-senate-seat

      No doubt with one eye on that cushy lifetime penshion!


      Report this

      140

      • #
        gnome

        A bit of heartwarming news- The likelihood of a Greens Party candidate getting up (get it?) in the ACT is about as close to zero as my chance of winning a super lotto jackpot between now and 2013.

        (And it won’t increase a lot, even if someone buys me a ticket, unlikely as that might be.)

        Somehow though, I would have thought Simon Sheikh should be aware of that, and running for the Green Party is unlikely to increase his chances of preselection someday for a winnable seat for a mainstream party. It is puzzling to me why he would willingly forever destroy his political future.


        Report this

        30

    • #
      gary turner

      Speaking of grooming …

      I realize this is petty, really off-topic, and makes me sound like a catty valley girl, but where did she find such an ill fitting skirt? Was it a K-Mart blue light special?

      Sorry, now back to your regular programming.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Albert

      Anna’s husband, Simon Sheikh from GetUp will be a Senate candidate for the ACT in the next Federal election


      Report this

      10

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Excellent work Jo, David, et al.

    The sins of omission of the ABC (an the Warmist thought process) are crystal clear.


    Report this

    180

  • #
    Thumbnail

    Anna Rose kept repeating what she has been told. She does not understand the science. I would like to see a proper scientific debate between one or two knowledgable people on the skeptic side, and one or two qualified climate scientists on the other side.

    A scientist debating with a layman just puts Anna in the position of having to launch ad hominem’s to balance the scales, because she is totally unschooled in maths, statistics, empirical data and scientific method.

    When she started by saying she felt that being filmed was ‘creepy’, I thought oh, here we go.

    Well done Joanne and David.

    Thank you from the bottom of my Queensland heart.


    Report this

    310

  • #
    Bulldust

    I have read the transcript and am quite appalled. I am curious whether the new media overseers Labor want should be reviewing the blatant bias in this doco butchery … yes that is rhetorical.

    It seems to be about half a step up from cutting and pasting individual words to make up statements altogether. Why not just edit it to have Jo and David say:

    “We … believe … the … IPCC… we … have been …. so … very … foolish.”

    I mean seriously.


    Report this

    410

    • #

      GetUp Anna has complete faith in her religion. Al bless her. I just watched the uncut version of the doco and am astounded at the blind faith she has in the modelling and the climate clergy.

      I could see from very early on she would never be convinced.

      To be honest, watching her blindly and naively putting her complete trust in the church made me sick.


      Report this

      210

  • #
    Mike

    Am I the only one who finds that editing not just fake and dishonest, but actually quite nasty? No wonder I don’t watch TV any more.

    Anna is young and has been taken in by the lies. I think it’s horrible in this society the way people use the young to further their lies.


    Report this

    360

  • #
    Thumbnail

    I forgot to mention that I have donated to JoNova, and hope my little bit helps. Think for a moment if we did not have the voices of Joanne and David. I can’t bear it.

    ——————
    Thanks :-) – Jo


    Report this

    150

  • #
    handjive

    Quote Ms. Jo:

    “Could the doco makers have used proper images of graphs, or did it help the public understand the skeptic case by briefly showing an oblique shaded image, and not explaining the significance of the graph (including that the pre-Argo data is near worthless)?”
    .

    (?) Could the doco makers not used the footage of AnnaRose slouching around outside (2.08 min, ABC edited video) saying that “she would really like to do this entry with out this loopy, paranoid stuff going on.”

    There. Got that ad hom in early, ABC. Now we have set the scene & decided who is “loopy & paranoid”…

    But, the “loopy & paranoid stuff” is to be found at the 5.33 minute, when AnnaRose proudly claims, “…the consequences are that we will destroy the whole planet!”

    At this point, Ms. Jo has a guffaw, and AnnaRose, says “I don’t think it’s funny!”

    No, you wouldn’t AnnaRose.

    Predicting the end of the world in the way distant future unless we pay an atmospheric tax now is serious stuff!

    Quite so.


    Report this

    320

    • #
      MudCrab

      “…the consequences are that we will destroy the whole planet!”

      With an earth shattering kaboom??

      Seriously Anna, even if your wildest fantasies come true and the temp does increase it is hardly going to ‘destroy the whole planet!’

      Change? Probably

      Destroy? Me thinks you have been eating dodgy salmon again.


      Report this

      150

  • #

    From the transcript:

    Anna: Well I’m not a scientist but I think I’m smart enough to listen to the majority of scientists.

    There’s the problem.


    Report this

    350

  • #
    connolly

    Rose and her husband are part of the new nomenklatura of climate alarmism. Basically they are just crude propagandists on the make. Hats off to Jo and David for wasting an hour or so of their valuable time to expose Rose as a jobbing hack. Nice cameo from Frank as well.


    Report this

    250

  • #
    connolly

    Keith I am old enough (and maybe you mate?) to have seen this before. Youthful opportunists jumping on a lucrative gravy train on the way up to fame and fortune. Take heart. I can just imagine the youthful Rose in her mature years fronting up for a fossil fuel company against the workers in the next incarnation of the employment court (currently Fair Work Australia) in her middle years, when the blush of youth has left her and after the warming scare has been thoroughly put to the sword. They come and go mate. They come and go.


    Report this

    150

  • #
    Jim from Brisbane

    Evans and Nova UNCUT!
    Got a great ring to it guys!
    I have told the kids this is mandatory viewing ; might as well make full use of of totalitarian opportunities whilst they are at my disposal……
    And perhaps “Media Studies” in Year 12 next year might be all the better for it.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    AndyG55

    Hi Jo, David..

    I still think you need to get into the hydrology/atmospheric physics of the issue a bit more. Once you do this, you will realise that once the sun’s energy gets into the atmosphere, there NOTHING that can happen that can cause other heating, bar the energy of the Earth itself.. The energy must come from somewhere. Convection, due to the pressure gradient within the atmosphere, controls the release of heat from the surface and the atmosphere, and the concentration of CO2 can NEVER have any affect on this convective/conductive heat transfer (except to speed it up by a very tiny amount).
    So-called back-radiation, or any form of energy for that matter, CANNOT be trapped in the atmosphere except for a short time and ONLY by a molecule that can actually store latent heat.
    Think of the heat released by bushfires, it doesn’t get trapped or accumulate in the atmosphere, because the atmosphere compensates using convection… so why would the tiny amount, if it actually exists, of CO2 warming get trapped.

    Sorry, but the whole concept of CO2 warming is a furphy !!


    Report this

    170

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Very nice piece Andy.

      Well said.

      KK :)

      One of my pet concerns is the occasional assessments given by both sides of the capacity of CO2 to cause

      temperature increases and the effect of “doubling” CO2.

      The Skeptic side seems to be falling in to a Warmer trap in even commenting on the “Doubling gives x Deg C

      increase” meme.

      There are many issues, and you have indicated the basic physics of convection dwarfing any CO2 effect but there is also the obvious fact that the term “doubling” of CO2 is fraught with problems.

      First, man made CO2 is about 4% of ALL CO2 so when we double what are we doubling?

      Doubling man made CO2 would only increase our share to 8% of total.

      Doubling ALL probably would mean that super abnormal volcanic activity had occurred.

      Doubling CO2 gives @ degrees C increase is a meaningless, poorly defined concept for discussion.

      KK


      Report this

      80

      • #
        AndyG55

        “basic physics of convection dwarfing any CO2 effect ”

        KK, its not that it dwarfs any effect, its that it IMMEDIATELY counteracts it.


        Report this

        60

        • #
          AndyG55

          A little exercise for those CAGW fools that think convection doesn’t “rule” within the atmosphere.

          Light a candle, stand it upright.

          Now see how close you can get your finger to the sides of the flame (radiation and air conduction)

          Now see how close you can get your finger to ABOVE the flame (convection).

          Many of the CAGW bletheren that sometimes frequent here, are just stupid enough to try this ! :-)


          Report this

          30

      • #
        AndyG55

        “Doubling ALL probably would mean that super abnormal volcanic activity had occurred”

        In our life times, yes probably the only way a decent amount of CO2 could be released from burial.. But remember that there is an enormous amount of carbon that USED to be in the atmosphere a long, long time ago.

        Levels up to 10, 20+ times what we have now have existed in the distant past, when the planet was at its most plant life abundance stages.

        Hopefully, in due course, man will gradually release enough of this carbon to bring the Earth back to the green plant it once was, but we have a long way to go !!!


        Report this

        70

        • #
          AndyG55

          “green plant” = “green planet” .. and I proof read it twice.. !


          Report this

          60

          • #
            Dave

            .
            AndyG55

            “green plant” = “green planet”

            That comment stand alone is worth 50 thumbs up.
            But the CAGW want $23 per tonne of CO2 to fix everything.

            Photosynthesis is just amazing – it fixes CO2 in so many different pathways.

            The CO2 Tax pathway is the road to ruin.


            Report this

            100

          • #
            AndyG55

            Dave, I was wondering the other day just how much energy has been consumed by the expanded (measured) worldwide biosphere growth over the last few decades or so, since plant life has had access to slightly raised levels of CO2.

            CO2 + H2O + nutrients + Sun’s energy = FOOD !!


            Report this

            50

          • #
            Dave

            .
            AndyG55, tonnes of CO2 beyond measure, all those trillions upon trillions of molecules of carbohydrates being made every day by every plant world wide, on land and in the ocean and then how much energy (sun) has been absorbed? What a wonderful world. The CAGW crowd can’t see the beauty for the money. In this video is what we should be saving – not the garbage Anna raves on about.

            They forget the cliffs of Dover (all Chalk) are a result of plankton (majority plant) formed over 150 million years ago, the Himilayas only formed 50 million years ago (when India crashed into Asia) and the biosphere has probably never been healthier – but this will cease because all the research is going into environmental destruction delivering renewable energy and collecting money to keep the Annas and Parncutts happy in this world. All fools.


            Report this

            90

          • #
            AndyG55

            Dave, if you study “food/survival” scenarios, you soon realise that for a very long time (100,000s of years) the biosphere has been balanced on the edge of survival: plant stomata jam packed, CO2 levels at around 240ppm, just above plant life viability.. a tenuous balance !!

            Humans are finally bringing real life back to the planet by releasing a small amount of the long buried carbon, and these moronic idiots want to stop this. FOOLS !!!


            Report this

            120

          • #
            Dave

            .
            AndyG55,
            I’m also sure that the C4 & CAM pathways require sodium Na as a mirconutrient for both those pathways – evolution through fresh water shortage or saline adaption. Stomata adpation is another of the many smart adations that the CAGW crowd can’t buy for $23 per tonne.


            Report this

            20

          • #
            AndyG55

            Dave, yep, C4, CAM seem to be older types adapted to higher ancient CO2.

            C3′s seems to have adapted to cope with lower CO2 levels, so don’t get the full benefit when CO2 is restored to a more viable level.


            Report this

            50

      • #
        John Brookes

        A very important point kk. All good “skeptics” should keep in mind never to concede *anything*. Some weak minded “skeptics” have gone as far as to agree that the world is warming, that it is caused by CO2, and that the extra CO2 does come from human activity. All they have left is arguing about the amount of warming caused by a doubling of CO2. This is not a position of strength.

        Good “skeptics” need to cast doubt on every aspect of the case for AGW. The temperature record, the basic greenhouse effect, the CO2 level, where the CO2 comes from, climate sensitivity, ice melt etc etc etc.

        Never concede anything, and if you do, always remember that you can go back later and pretend that you never conceded.


        Report this

        25

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Johhny,

          That was very convoluted but let me see if I can piece it all together.

          First I have Never suggested that any one should concede anything that isn’t true.

          So if you read my original, what I am saying, is that I think that Skeptics who say that a doubling of

          CO2 gives 2 deg C increase in temp are in fact not really up on the science.

          They are just as wrong as the warmers.

          I am saying that they need to review the idea of this doubling concept because it is Unscientific.

          John, in order to make it simple for warmers I have broken the analysis down into manageable bits.

          To the best of my knowledge there is no scientific analysis that provides data showing world atm temp varying specifically with CO2 levels in current times.

          When someone has quantified and extracted the effects of the 500 or so additional variables, besides CO2, that influence world atm temp then I will believe we have something to discuss.

          At the moment no one has extracted the CO2 signals from the morass of driving forces that affect world atm temp.

          NOBODY. Not even Pachauri!

          So two strikes:

          1. No measured correlation. Any “apparent” correlation is sure to be due to others factors such as
          orbital effects , vulcanism or Galactic effects or perhaps even sparrow farts.

          2. No identified theoretical mechanism that could possibly lead to CO2 driving world temps.

          KK :)


          Report this

          30

        • #
          Chris M

          Look Johnny, it really would be appreciated if you would leave the inverted commas off the word sceptics, as you are insulting us by implying that our scepticism about AGW is not sincere. You can save yourself a few keystrokes into the bargain. How would you like it if I did the same to ‘administrative officer’, leaving the reader to wonder what sort of work you “really” do?


          Report this

          30

          • #

            you are insulting us

            Dunno who you mean by us but leave me out of it.

            Look ‘Chris M’, i don’t get to see John in person. I don’t get to hear the tone of his voice nor his facial expressions when he speaks. The only expressions I get to see are the ones like the inverted commas he uses which tell me quite a bit about John and his character.

            Yet you want John to stop giving us these gems of indicators because you are offended and insulted?

            Get over it ‘Chris’


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Chris M

            Oh here we go, another aggro ocker. Look mate, I was very likely born well before you, in Queensland as it happens, and have seen your type many times before. John has never offended me, and I am happy to debate robustly and fairly with him – he seems to reciprocate. You are entitled to your nastiness, and I am entitled to my opinion. As things stand I would much prefer to have a beer with John than with you. Let’s leave it at that.


            Report this

            20

          • #

            John has never offended me,

            John doesn’t offend you, you only claim he insults you and presume to claim he insults others. ergo

            ..as you are insulting us

            I am happy to debate robustly and fairly with him

            So long as he leaves out the inverted commas.

            another aggro ocker….have seen your type many times before.

            Ya think we should leave out the labels?

            As things stand I would much prefer to have a beer with John than with you.

            But I don’t use inverted commas to insult you. I just tell you straight to get over it. Maybe I should have put the ‘get over it’ in inverted commas.

            Shucks, I’m in Brisbane, we could have ‘had a beer’ at the next IPA meeting.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Baa

            John was commenting on one of my posts and decided to add a twist of his own about conceding points on science.

            I answered this with a bit of push and shove relating to the science.

            Chris M then made a comment that suggested that John was insulting Chris and myself.

            I would have thought that the people referred to as being insulted were those in the thread?

            You have jumped in very late apparently carrying some sort of aggro from another non related set of comments.

            Despite your earlier insistence I firmly believe that the year 10 student who threatened suicide was a victim of “free speech” and in the context of an earlier suicide by a year 9 girl his threat was a big talking point for a long time. Environment matters.

            Free speech should carry with it certain responsibilities towards the community but I know you disagree about this.

            I am here to debate and learn and must admit I have learned a lot here, it’s a great site but
            having someone keep telling me I am wrong without seriously addressing the issues I raise suggests that that person does not want to learn or investigate; just dominate.

            KK


            Report this

            20

    • #
      MaxL

      Spot on Andy!

      Understand the water cycle and you understand the weather and through that, the climate.


      Report this

      70

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      I just have two questions for all you Slayers.
      Do you accept that water vapour is a greenhouse gas?
      If so, why do you not accept that CO2 has a ‘greenhouse’ effect (albeit weaker) ?
      Just one coherent explanation will do.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        gnome

        Before we do, so we know what we are responding to, can you let us know what relationship CO2 has with water vapour?

        (Hints for future questions- water and water vapour aren’t interchangeable terms. If you look up at the sky sometimes you can work out if there is more or less water in the atmosphere.)


        Report this

        01

      • #
        AndyG55

        Both act to cool the surface of the planet. H2O cooling is just rather more complicated, and efficient, because of the possibilities of 3 phases, latent heat etc at normal atmospheric temperatures. Because of this, H2O is a far better surface coolant than CO2.
        The amount of energy that H2O can deliver from the surface to cloud level is enourmous !!

        So, in what way can either be defined as a “greenhouse gas” ?


        Report this

        00

      • #
        AndyG55

        ps.. CO2 cools the surface because it is part of the atmosphere, and that’s what the atmosphere does.. regulates the surface temperature..

        but it also allows radiative cooling at the top of the atmosphere.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        AndyG55

        oh.. and what is a “slayer”? sounds like you are using it as a derogitory word,

        like ‘denier’, or something the CAGW brigade might say.


        Report this

        33

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          The term Slayer was invented by a leading Slayer to describe the group of people who don’t believe in a greenhouse effect, I.e. it included himself.
          It is not possible for Slayer to be derogatory any more than ‘Aussie’ or ‘Protestant’ can be derogatory, as it was invented by the same people it labels.


          Report this

          30

  • #
    MaxL

    Great stuff Jo,

    Next step an Evans, Nova documentary?

    Animations, graphs, photos, videos – Some of which could be obtained freely from Wikimedia Commons or YouTube.

    I’m sure many of your regular readers would freely contribute their time and effort (if not their limited money).
    I know I would, just ask. :D


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Steve

      Yes this is a good idea.

      It is quite expensive and time consuming however.

      The names bring additional media attention but perhaps it would be better for someone with more time to produce and direct the documentary and interview Jo/David in an unbiased manner (this time).

      There is also the possibility of of additional interviews as part of the documentary. Lot of money and time and travel too if it comes to multiple interviews.

      I totally think it’s worth doing.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Richard111

    I am unable to believe that there is any such element/material on this planet that qualifies as a ‘greenhouse gas’. There are most certainly radiatively active gasses in the atmosphere. Namely carbon dioxide, CO2, and water vapour, H2O. Water vapour, which is rarely discussed for some wierd reason, is many, many times more active in the infrared electromagnetic bands than carbon dioxide. Water vapour has properties that allow it to remain in the atmosphere in both the solid and liquid phase. This has a huge impact on the temperature lapse rate up the air column. CO2 has no effect on the lapse rate. Increase or decrease CO2 levels in the lower troposphere and all that happens is the extinction level rises or lowers. CO2 can only absorb the avialable energy radiated from the surface. EXTRA CO2 CANNOT absorb energy that is NOT THERE.

    CO2 has the most effect in the upper troposphere and above the tropopause where H2O has effectively vanished due to cold. CO2 is radiatively active down to -80C. In the very thin atmosphere near and above the tropopause radiation from CO2 escapes mainly to space.

    CO2 is thus the prime COOLANT of the atmosphere. N2, O2, and Ar, 99.9% of the atmosphere, CANNOT RADIATE infrared radiation so can only lose heat to space through the presence of CO2.

    If the upper atmosphere was unable to cool to space there would not be a lapse rate and surface temperatures would very soon be unliveable. This is NOT how a greenhouse works.


    Report this

    150

    • #
      Popeye

      Richard

      Extremely good (and probing) comment.

      I am always astounded at the very thought of the earth maintaining a greenhouse effect as if our planet was COMPLETELY surrounded by a blanket of glass (as in a REAL functioning “greenhouse”).

      That NOT being the case, how ANYONE can think that a minute thin layer of CO2 (a life essential trace element) could HEAT the planet is EXTRAORDINARY!! (Why would they even contemplate that the extra heat might escape out into space through the imaginary blanket? – doh!!)

      I find this as absurd as the people who shout out loudly that we must “save the water” and “don’t waste water”. WTF – where is the water going FFS?

      EVERY DROP of water that was here when the earth formed is STILL here now – it’e just been pre-used and discarded over the millennia by a few woolly mammoths and some sabre tooth tigers.

      These people have NO SHAME!!

      Cheers,


      Report this

      110

      • #
        AndyG55

        ““save the water” and “don’t waste water”’

        When they say this, they are meaning to be careful in the use of the STORED fresh water.

        It is a storage issue, that’s all, exascerbated in Australia by our highly variable and unpredictable rainfall.

        Stored water is relatively cheap, water from other sources (desal for instance) is just the opposite.

        In Australia’s climate we do have to be a bit careful about our use of stored fresh water, or just do the logical thing and build more storage. Its all about decent planning, and getting people like the Greens (with their moronic No Dams agenda) out the way.


        Report this

        100

        • #
          AndyG55

          I should have said “storage and supply” of fresh “drinking quality” water.


          Report this

          50

        • #
          Popeye

          AndyG

          Totally understand and agree with what you’re saying – was using a bit of “tongue in cheek” so to speak.

          But we SHOULD tell the Greens to RACK OFF and build about 40 new dams all over Australia so we can use the water as WE want to.

          Cheers,


          Report this

          110

          • #
            AndyG55

            “But we SHOULD tell the Greens to RACK OFF ”

            No arguement about that Popeye !!


            Report this

            60

          • #
            AndyG55

            The Greens should have stuck to being real environmentalists, never politicians.

            No environmentalist could EVER condone the use of wind turbines, knowing the damage they can do to avian life and damage done in situ. (Think Scotland , where forests have been chopped down to make way for wind turbines, environmental vandalism, not only condoned, but encouraged.)
            But a politician could, if it suited their agenda.

            No environmentalist could possibly argue against increased CO2 in the atmosphere, knowing it is the gas essential for plant life.
            But a politician could, if it suited their agenda.

            No environmentalist could possible condone the cutting down of rainforest to grow biofuels, or the diversion of food growing land for biofuels. But a politician could.

            The destruction of the real environmental movement, by the political arm of the Green agenda, is a great pity. The corruption of Greenpeace and WWF by political purposes is a shame, they could have accomplished so much, but are now heading in totally the wrong direction. :-(


            Report this

            60

      • #
        old44

        Wasted water goes into a drain and then into a river as opposed to The Greenies releasing water from a dam so the river can use it.


        Report this

        40

        • #
          AndyG55

          old 44..

          In Sydney, a lot of the releases into the Hawksbury River are now not from storage, but from A grade treated stormwater and sewage water from the Windsor Richmond area treatment plant. This water is probably cleaner than releases from Warragamba.

          A very sensible solution to two problems. :-)


          Report this

          50

      • #
        AndyG55

        Popeye, I think you need to realise that fresh drinking water is an issue for many of the big cities. Theproblem is that there have not been any major dams build for a long time, and populations continue to grow.
        Goulburn did actually run out of water due to bad planning, and in 2007 Brisbane’s drinking water supply was in real trouble. (then it started raining again, then 2011 !…..) that’s Australia for you.

        We do need to be more careful with our use of stored water, and try to plan for what we think the natural Australian climate can dish up.

        There will be bad droughts in the future, that’s the Australian climate. That is a certainty !
        How bad? Well, with only a couple of 100 years of data, we can only really guess.


        Report this

        50

        • #
          AndyG55

          popeye, I was typing this went you posted your reply above.


          Report this

          10

        • #
          old44

          You are correct about no major dams being built for a long time, in Melbourne no catchment dam has ever been built by a Labor government, the best they can come up with are storage dams, pipe lines from existing country storages and unbelievably expensive desalinisation plants while locking up a river (the Mitchell) which has flooded three times in recent years.


          Report this

          80

        • #
          Another Ian

          Andy,

          A friend of years agone reckoned that the solution was to make it mandatory that urban water intakes had to be downstream of them


          Report this

          30

          • #
            AndyG55

            One thing we seem to be doing a lot better at nowadays is water treatment.

            The thought of taking water from downstream of a modern sewage plant outlet isn’t really an issue any more, because the water let out from those plants is so very close to drinkable already.

            For instance, Canberra takes water from the Murrumbidgee, but has to return, after treatment, something like 80% of the amount they take out (iirc). This water flows to places like Wagga Wagga, where the water is used again, down stream. This happens in many country areas. The water put out by the Canberra sewage plant is actually of FAR BETTER quality than is initially taken out of the river.

            Natural water flow is also very good at cleaning water.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Debbie

            What an absolutely stirling idea Another Ian!
            I imagine that would rather quickly force people to pay more attention to the ‘common sense’ aspects of water management that AndyG55 is explaining.


            Report this

            10

    • #
      Konrad

      Yes, the empirical experiment I am running at the moment indicates that CO2 acts as a weak coolant in our atmosphere. For an atmospheric column heated conductivly at the base, radiative cooling at altitude is critical for maintaining vertical conductive circulation. Without this circulation rapid warming occurs. Radiative gasses cool our atmosphere. AGW is physically impossible.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Richard111

      Thought I’d add this link for interest.

      Thinning thermosphere gives satellites a boost

      Nov 28, 2006

      Carbon dioxide released through the burning of fossil fuels is cooling the upper atmosphere, says a group of physicists who believe that a coherent pattern of global climate change in Earth’s upper atmosphere is emerging after more than 15 years of study and debate. Falling temperatures are also lowering the density of the upper atmosphere and causing it to contract towards Earth. This is good news for low-Earth-orbit satellites like the International Space Station, which are remaining in their orbits for longer because of reduced atmospheric drag (Science 314 1253).


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Doug UK

    How twee that Anna Rose asks what the extra camera footage will be used for because she fears it will appear highly edited on Jo’s Blogg!

    And then she and her fellow Alarmists do exactly that but on Oz National TV.

    Well done for pre-empting the potential stitch-up.

    Caught them at their own game!!

    And having the full footage portraying the Alarmists obvious dismay is huge bonus.


    Report this

    120

    • #
      Bite Back

      Caught them at their own game!!

      Yes they got caught with their pants down! But it matters only if the comparison between the two can get out into the public eye. If it doesn’t get wide ranging attention it won’t matter.

      This is a real coup de grace for Joanne and the skeptical cause. But now we’ve got to do the work to make it count. YouTube doesn’t reach out and shove its latest hot video in front of anyone. People only go there voluntarily. So they need to know about it and be motivated enough to go look.

      What we need is a PR department.

      BB


      Report this

      60

      • #
        william

        I said as much in reply to Jo’s original thread.What mainstream tv outlet will be willing to air the unedited footage? None in Australia that I can think of! Anyway Australia is small beer on the international stage.The MMGW scam is a world wide problem,so perhaps Anthony Watts, who I understand has a regular TV program on the US cable network would be prepared to telecast the full uncut version, and maybe the ABC’s butchered version as well.International shaming the Warmists and the ABC in this way could be quite useful to the sceptics cause.


        Report this

        20

  • #
    old44

    Listening to Anna Rose towards the end of the video was like listening to my wife when she is on the wrong end of an argument and logic has her bamboozled “YEAH BUT”


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Fred Furkenburger

    Congratulations Jo and David. You managed to maintain (although you can see the frustration building) enormous self control and calm in the face of abject stupidity? more likely ignorance or is it just plain wilfull blinkedness from Anna. You put your position clearly and it was probably the best explanation I have seen coming from the skeptic side as the the issues which are being ignored by too many including our politicians and the MSM.


    Report this

    120

  • #
    Robinson

    Wow. They are shameless, aren’t they? I’m sure you could sue them, if you could be bothered to!


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Chris M

    The green activists are zealots and it is impossible to reason with them. Pointless to even try, really. It is illuminating to contrast Anna’s apparently friendly attitude towards sceptical Nick Minchin with her hostile and dismissive attitude towards you Jo and David. I suggest that this difference is due to a perception of status: Nick as a retired Senator is ‘connected’ and a member of the power elite she aspires to be part of. I doubt very much that climate change will be one of her primary interests five or ten years from now. And yes, as cohenite has already suggested, I suspect that she will end up as a Labor parliamentarian, not a Green, as the former provides more predictable and diverse career opportunities.

    You have much reason to be upset with this episode Jo, but your vindication is not far away and I am optimistic that your goodness, honesty and courage will be rewarded in due course. I sincerely hope that 2013 will be your annus mirabilis!


    Report this

    90

  • #
    Trantz

    Great video, Jo, but no sound after 30 minutes, so I read the transcript. Terrific! Thanks for your efforts during the year. Tip jar fed.

    ——————
    Thanks :-) – Jo


    Report this

    50

    • #
      Allen Ford

      I agree with Trantz, Jo, but for my money, the transcript far outweighs the video. There is not much rivetting action in the video to mantain interest, other than to observe the body language, and the printed word can be studied at leisure.

      One major improvement, if I can be so bold. Could you please embed the graphics in the text at the appropriate places? The arguments would be much easier to follow, particularly for those not so familiar with the issues. It is easy to do, even with Microsoft Word. I would be happy to do it for you if you send me the pix, or if you want to do it yourselves, email me for details.

      Cheers!


      Report this

      50

  • #
    bobl

    Thanks for posting this Jo/David it was most illuminating, and I think Anna has been caught out.

    Given the unfair portrayal at the hands of Auntie – You are completely justified in posting the full video, You argued from evidence all the way, but all we heard from Anna was “… but the (unnamed) scientists say – the vast majority of….” You should have pointed out Einstein’s statement that it would take just one observation to prove him wrong – or was that Maxwell.

    I think you should produce you own documentary with the footage you got.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Bite Back

    I’m not an expert on body language. On the other hand I have been around for a while. I’ve been in front of groups of as many as 30 people at a time over many years and more than once I’ve seen that telltale superior grin that says, “I know better than you do and I’m going to prove it to everyone.” That expression is all over Anna Rose in every last second of the ABC footage.

    I don’t like making a judgment on so little evidence but her own face gives away her intention. She wasn’t at the Evans home that day to learn anything. Her mind was made up long before.

    BB


    Report this

    80

    • #
      Louis Hissink

      People whose minds are made up could also be described as intellectual fossils. Other than that while I’ve not watched the raw videos yet, I have discovered that the common folk are not so easily gulled by the CAGW priests; this has to be a good sign. (I’m in Sydney with family for Xmas, and back to Perth on Sunday). Holiday reading includes Henry Bauer’s recent book on Dogma in Science etc, (Kindle version), and I am fast understanding what is going on in the science area – due to the policies of the various socialist parties in government everywhere, since 1900, to widen the opportunities of education and higher education, academic standards have been dragged down to the lowest common denominator, associated with competition for grants and the need to produce commercial outcomes as universities. It’s a soft core variation of Lysenkoism or politically correct science.

      Worse still is the lack or perhaps misunderstanding of the scientific method – Bauer, correctly I add, has shown that this hallowed of holies of protocol was ditched decades ago. Most of what passes for science today is better described as technologically sophisticated religion; most people working for universities and commericial scientific organisations are thus not scientists sensu strictu, but highly skilled and competent technicians. However as none use the scientific method, they then certainly cannot be labelled as scientists. This conclusion is inescapable from Bauer’s chapter six.

      So demonstrating the science is not going to work and another method needs to be considered.


      Report this

      100

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        So demonstrating the science is not going to work and another method needs to be considered.

        Louis,

        As you certainly know, I’ve argued that the problem is political for years already. We’ve won the science debate. Now we need to change tack and win the political war. And the suggestion that we need a PR department looks like solid gold. Now how do we get one?


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Albert

      They expected to get away with some slick editing to prove their point. The interview with Professor Lindzen was a farce, MsRose used him just so she could tell him ‘we can agree to disagree’ and her mention of cigarette smoke was to discredit everything Professor Lindzen has done, she was in ‘attack mode’.
      Her superior intellect apparently dismissed the fact that Professor Lindzen has spent most of his life studying Atmospheric Science, she can ask questions (obviously prepared for her) but she can not supply facts to support her argument.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Bite Back

    Your ABC does a good propaganda job. The only appeal to emotion I didn’t see was a Polar Bear stranded on some little shard of ice in the middle of a great hostile ocean.

    I exaggerate a bit but I’ll bet the whole show was a slick PR job from start to finish. Objective not!

    :-(


    Report this

    80

  • #
    PJB

    I detect a crack in the edifice of climatism. :-)

    Those small bites of skeptical, factual, reality being “allowed” in what appears to be the typical alarmist rhetoric is surprising and also indicative of the change in public sentiment.

    Clearly, getting the entire message passed along would have been ideal, but just that tiny seed being planted will provide for an eventual harvest that will dwarf its tiny beginnings.

    Well done, Jo and David. For what they gave you and what you gave them, you did extremely well. Thank you.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Jaymez

    So after being the poster girl for Youth Climate Coalition the best argument Anna Rose can come up with against the avalanche of facts from Jo and David is that she believes in human caused catastrophic global warming because lots of scientist have told her she should.

    It is despairingly clear that Anna Rose hasn’t differentiated between empirical evidence and unproven hypothetical models. She accepts the latter as evidence because the scientists she talks to really believe in them and it confirms her ideological position.

    Unfortunately it appears the editors in the ABC are cast from the same mold.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    FrankSW

    Well we now know that it takes only two bits of information to convince a CAGW proponent that the world is about to end,”Climate scientists say” and “we have computer models” – of course run by those aforementioned scientists who say. Facts we can get, and barter scientists numbers and names is a well known drill, but where do I find easily digestible information on how computer models (don’t) work?

    Any suggestions?


    Report this

    50

  • #

    [...] Nova has just posted for the second time on her interview with ABC. For those unfamiliar with Jo Nova, she is the most [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Drapetomania

    the best argument Anna Rose can come up with against the avalanche of facts from Jo and David is that she believes in human caused catastrophic global warming because lots of scientist have told her she should.

    Bingo…
    Thats why…
    1/cricket noises from the $CAGW$ support crowd here..even they can see she was useless :)
    That they dont have the spine to actually admit it here is par for the course…
    2/Thats also why the $CAGW$ gang..never want to have any form of public debate…. it would be science against appeals to authority and ad hominems.. :)
    same old..same old..


    Report this

    60

  • #
    David Armstrong

    Hi Joe,
    Your uncut film of your discussion with Anna was a revealingly sad reflection of the loss of the inquiring mind of our youth.
    It makes one wonder what on earth our kids are being taught at University? Certainly not “to independently think” on ones own feet any more?
    Anna presents as a “nice person” but in addition is perceived by me as reflecting a classic example of the current product issue from our “new age” universities.
    Shallow in knowledge, appeals to authority, soft underbelly, apostle style duty to save the world’s future children (as if the rest of us don’t care), dishonest public appearance verses private thoughts and preconceived opinion,(doesn’t want to talk to you “cooks” anyway – discussion with Nick just prior to accepting your welcome to your family home)ignorant of facts outside her belief system, immature – and yet afforded HUGE profile and status by the ABC and others as a future Star to be followed?
    I could go on but these traits are all too familiar as I am sure many of your readers will recognize.
    There presently exists a distinct “dumbing-down” of our University output(our kids)as “the left” have overshadowed our Universities in monopolistic fashion to unbalance (some would say unhinge!)the very reason for University existence – that is – to harness the concept of integrity of independent thought within the student population. Teaching kids how to think! This is the real crisis faced by the West. The loss of respect and understanding of independent thought and open minds within our young is a far bigger threat to our future as your film so admirably demonstrates.
    Good on you Joe and David for being so polite and patient with your explanations and conduct during what must have been such a frustrating discussion.


    Report this

    90

    • #
      Gbees

      This dumbing down is rife. I can’t count the number of times I’ve had to undo the job our schooling system has done on our young minds on this topic. Usually I’m greeted with a comment “so we’re not all going to die then?” Dying due to human made global warming is the only takeaway these kids have from there schooling on this subject. Someone needs to be held responsible.

      This argument from authority is wearing so thin. How many real climate scientists are there? Climate science is multi-discipline. The quantitative techniques used in these sciences are the same as in other sciences. If you’re an Economist you’ll be we’ll versed in econometrics, if a health professional you might have studied epidemiology, if a finance expert you would most certainly have used various statistical mathematical approaches likes multiple regression, likewise engineering is full of this stuff. In my own 3 degrees I’ve studied this numerous times. My engineering degree was loaded with it.

      There is no way Anna would even understand this because her training is not like our training. So she defaults to authority, whereas we who have been trained can read and interpret the science for ourselves and that’s why we end up skeptical about CAGW reports, studies and conclusions.

      I don’t believe you can even debate with her because she has no concept of what she is trying to defend. Explaining it to her would be like bashing your head up against a brick wall.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    elva

    Watching the video by Jo and reading the transcript I got the impression that the cameraman was running the show. Was he the director/producer? Anna Rose hardly asked much at all and if she started to bluster the cameraman seemed to stop for people to ‘move’ presumably for a better angle. Yet if the whole interview had been from one angle that would have sufficed.


    Report this

    50

    • #
      Joe V.

      Yes the camera man certainly seems to have been creating the piece and Anna was just a puppet that he managed to make only slightly less dumb by his carefully crafted editing and exceedingly partial narrative.

      Joe & David’s Kitchen needs to now be spread far & wide, both to educate on the essential points of warming and to show up the bias in program making, two quite distinct purposes.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Albert

    Anna is right, the planet is going to be destroyed but by the Sun in about 3 to 5 billion years time. I believe we’ll know by mid century if co2 makes any difference.
    The thought of us destroying the whole planet is hilarious, poor Anna lives in fear for no reason.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    John VaBch

    First off Jo I love you, smart, sexy, and full of fight.

    It always comes down to follow the money. Whether Anna is that poorly educated or whether she really understands the scam is debatable. Facts are facts and after seeing the same info discussed four times it seemed to me like they were hoping to catch one of you in a contradiction. Since your position was based on data and facts that was not going to happen. ABC and the Australian government is in a very sad state. Keep fighting this scam it will collapse they always do just ask the pope.

    John


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Mike More

    Haha. It was great to see David and Jo present evidence and watch the child Anna Rose completely out of her depth. The ABC should be ashamed at the biased woeful editing.


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Jon at WA

      Ashamed?
      Proud!
      To turn a documentary whereby a converted green science journalist cum skeptical blogger and a mathemetician climate modeller cum rocket scientist shred a round-faced concerned zealot with evidence, into a propaganda piece. A powerful hard punching series of images confirming our suspicions that male white haired denialists using little more than a kitchen to prepare their science are conspiring with big-oil to sentence poor little Anna’s yet unborn offspring to fry. And Jo appears to think it’s all a bit of a joke.
      How could the producers themselves, ignore the evidence produced by David and Jo. This is well organised propaganda.
      I would love to see the footage of the team getting together with Anna to organise the whole show! They should be proud of themselves!


      Report this

      02

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        They should be proud of themselves!

        Proud isn’t the word for it! I expect they’ll be standing in front of their mirrors patting themselves on the back over it for quite a while. I don’t know how they avoid dislocating a shoulder. It’s probably a good thing that hats are out of style these days because I think theirs wouldn’t fit anymore.


        Report this

        00

  • #

    It seems to me that Climate ‘scientists’ who believe in models are those that missed the cut in Medicine, Engineering, pure Science and Mathematics, but weren’t dumb enough to be relegated to Journalism School.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Jon at WA

      Probably a little unfair! My impression is the bright students are going to Law and Journalism.
      Sad! Though they are successful in the trough they do not create a better widget. Rome according to Ralston-Saul’s ‘Voltaire’s Bastards’ had the same problem where the educated stop managing their farms and went to enjoy the wealth and power Rome bestowed on it’s citizens.
      To the best of my knowledge, the Universities have lowered standards in the pure disciplines or contaminated them by adding the word ‘Environmental’ onto the course name in order to admit the sheep and attract funding.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        John Brookes

        The bright students go into medicine.


        Report this

        32

        • #
          Jon at WA

          Sorry I left those bright students out as they generally do not give a shit about their fellow human beings. They are excellent at remembering which number to attach to an appointment to gain maximum refund but lack even a small amount of interest in the patient or curiousity as to why their diagnosis and treatment has failed to cure. Next patient please!
          This failure to enquire shows in the support the various medical associations give to the politically correct causes like anthropogenic global warming.


          Report this

          01

  • #

    Say, just for some perspective, how about one small snippet of utterly useless information about CO2.

    Just from the generation of electrical power alone, China emitted 11.7 Million tons of CO2
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    On Christmas Day.

    Tony.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    coge

    Anna Rose, like other members of the green political class, is building a career that wholly depends on acceptance runaway AGW. It’s not something these folk will easily abandon, even as subjective modelled climate predictions continue to part company from reality.


    Report this

    50

  • #

    What I fail completely to understand is how those like Anna Rose et al, all the way up to their political puppet masters, implicitly believe, verbatim, the Science they are fed.

    They give the impression that they have checked it out, and it is no contest.

    Then in the same breath, they haven’t even bothered to check the real truth about their cure for this so called problem, with respect to replacing the largest source of those emissions, power generation.

    Had they sunk the same effort for their AGW belief into finding out the truth about renewable power, they would know, with just as much conviction, that it cannot do what is claimed, effectively replace traditional (CO2 emitting) power sources.

    Their one sided tunnel vision hypocrisy knows no bounds.

    Tony.


    Report this

    100

    • #
      Tel

      I can’t resist a quite quote from Edward Krug:

      These well-known “defenders of truth” effectively destroyed the relationship between decision-making and truth. The course of action would be decided by their whims and wants.

      The variety of “ignorance is strength” is the strength of oppression. Cains strongly desire to champion the truth and kill their more “Abel” brethren to do so.

      Cain slew his more “Abel” brother to remove the unflattering comparison. With Abel dead, Cain passed himself off as the doer of good works (offerings), probably beliieving it himself.


      Report this

      50

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I’ve never heard of Edward Krug but he paints a very frightening picture with less than a hundred words.

        I think I’ll look him up.


        Report this

        10

      • #
        Lord Jim

        And I can’t resist a quote from Popper:

        ‘Normal’ science, in Kuhn’s sense, exists. It is the activity of the non-revolutionary, or more precisely, the not-too-critical professional: of the science student who accepts the ruling dogma of the day… in my view the ‘normal’ scientist, as Kuhn describes him, is a person one ought to be sorry for… He has been taught in a dogmatic spirit: he is a victim of indoctrination… I can only say that I see a very great danger in it and in the possibility of its becoming normal… a danger to science and, indeed, to our civilization. And this shows why I regard Kuhn’s emphasis on the existence of this kind of science as so important.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    rukidding

    Completely O/T
    But if we thought that the AGW/CC malaise might ease this year we get this from our ABC.

    This woman teaches at an institution of learning.We are screwed.The lunatics are teaching at the asylum.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Douglas Cotton

    New Climate Change Video

    Click here to see why we need physics experiments only done in the 21st century in order to confirm the new paradigm explaining planetary surface temperatures.


    Report this

    11

  • #

    Jo and David, thank you. You have the patience of Job. And I agree we will soon see Anna Rose as a candidate for the Federal ABC in a coming election. Keep it up.

    Ken


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Albert

    Ms Rose’s unflinching view of ”we must act in case, we can’t take the risk of destroying the planet” is the same insane thinking that saw up to 50 million killed by Malaria, mostly children when DDT was banned with NO substitute offered, these are real deaths not forecast deaths.
    She doesn’t care what the cost will be to us, she believes she is saving the planet and any cost is irrelevant, she speaks to scientists but is only prepared to believe the alarmists.
    England is experiencing bad weather but 1703 was the benchmark that alarmists need to observe.
    If extremes have occurred in the past, then maybe we’re rushing to blame co2.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Paul R

    I noticed Joe Nova that you seemed to fire up a little bit towards the end of your dealings with whatshername, thank goodness for people like you and your husband. People with intelligence and grace enough to suffer such insolence and ignorance. It’s where I fall down.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    FrankSW

    Does Anna Rose not see the contradiction when she asserts that “climate Scientists” are the only ones whose opinions count yet expect everyone else to take action based on her own interpretation while dismissing opinions from others. Like a true CAGW campaigner she will refuse to debate points with those who presumably have also formed an opinion after taking note of what “climate Scientists” have said.

    Her interview for the program Marc Morano illustrates the point precisely, she says “I am not going to engage in point to point debate” because Marc is not a “climate scientist”, also take note of the stream of unsubstantiated insults too.

    She says he
    is discredited,
    makes things up,
    insinuates that Marc’s actions are the direct cause of death threats and that Marc has encouraged this.
    repeats “known for making things up” but would not specify.
    And finally the one insult she got right, Marc is the “worst of the worst republican attack dogs”, he really does do so much damage to the CAGW cause.

    Whether correct or not Marc’s response was a stream of information. Seems lucky that you were able to actually get anything on the program at all. The more I read about Anna across the internet, although there is no doubting her passion, the less informed and more conniving she appears.

    Link to Marc/Anna/Minchin interview

    http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/04/youth-and-naivete-no-match-for-maturity-and-experience/


    Report this

    10

  • #
    old44

    If this totally distorted piece of video by the ABC were presented in court as true evidence of a conversation Anna Rose would be sitting in a gaol cell for contempt of court.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    That is marvellous.
    .
    These full, uncut videos from Joe & David’s Kitchen are so educational .
    .
    They should be compulsory viewing for anyone studying Climate or Media.
    .
    David is wonderful at explaining the essential information & the format (trying to educate a warmist over the kitchen table) is so much more engaging than just talking to a camera.
    .
    As a case study in just how biased and disinterested in the science was the ABC series this pair of videos, the uncut vs the ABC piece , are invaluable.
    .
    When has ever such an exposé been pulled of before.
    .
    Joe & David’s Kitchen, is the perfect companion to the Skeptics Handbook, while the ABC piece is ample illustration of why they are so badly needed.
    .
    Well done for sticking with that idea, and not letting the program makers get away with murder, as they usually do.


    Report this

    10

  • #
  • #
    GerardB

    I can change their mind, if I was the ABC and do the editing.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Anna Rose was the real winner in this video. No matter how much her opponents’ mouths were flapping she always finished way ahead.

    Just to clarify… this WAS a humble-pie eating contest in Jo’s kitchen, wasn’t it? :D

    (Highlight for me was in View #2 at 1:47:25 when Anna says “but all your evidence, ‘EVIDENCE’, is coming from people who…” and actually uses her hands to indicate scare quotes around the 2nd utterance of EVIDENCE, as though the evidence offered by Jo and David is somehow fake or irrelevant. Who’s the denier now Anna? )


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Joe V.

    I do like Jo’s little ditty, which she has got so used to reciting she has it of by heart :-

    Our evidence is coming from
    28 million weather balloons,
    6,000 bore holes,
    3,000 Argos buoys,
    30 years of satellite data,
    500 million years of the best proxies that science can put forward.

    and wants to end (it must be the season ) with …. a partridge in a pear tree.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Giro

      This is just the evidence which Andrew points out at #48 that Anna dismisses out of hand.
      .
      Anna seems unreceptive to evidence. She’s not able to engage with it. She rather relies on authorities, coming up with lists of ‘talking points ‘ for her which she’s sticking to doggedly and no matter how effectively Jo & David answer them, each one, one after another, she just doesn’t seem capable of taking it in. Can her mind have been so conditioned to only listen to authorities ?
      .
      Jo’s little ditty needs expanding and releasing something like a Christmas record, to have us all reciting the evidence around the tree for next Christmas.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      perhaps it can end with … “a Paltridge is quite scare-free


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Dallas Beaufort

    The ABC’s journalist sic, dressed in a Green top and spouting the lefts save the world mantra showed complete contempt for the evidence presented, Jo, next time try to not carry everything yourself on camera.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Trish

    This is not the first time the ABC has lied for the government.

    Global warming and mental health. Two major issues affecting the wellbeing of Australians.

    Using Four Corners, “investigative journalism at its best” no less.

    In 2010, in a Four Corners story called ‘Over the Edge’ the ABC slandered those with Counselling qualifications, as opposed to registered mental health providers – psychologists and mental health social workers.

    http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2010/s2862588.htm – transcript available there too.

    The story was ostensibly about a psychopath who did “therapy” with the public. He had no training of any kind relevant to this work. One of his “clients” jumped out a window.

    The Four Corners pitch was that unless a counsellor is a registered health provider, read psychologist or mental health social worker, you could be at risk.

    I am a psychologist, and refuse to work in the field. Its news to me that psychologists, until recently, saw themselves as expert counsellors.

    Counsellor has now been removed as a community services role, and you cannot get a Counsellor job of any kind unless you are a registered mental health provider.

    This is a conspiracy fact, not a conspiracy theory.

    Thousands of people with thousands (sometimes tens of thousands) of dollars of nationally accredited training are out of work.

    All qualified Counsellors have nationally accredited training. Some to the Masters level. But the argument is they are as unfit as the psychopath in the story to help you without possibly harming you.

    Hmmmm. That makes sense.

    I’m delighted that as much as 50% of Australians believe ‘global warming’ is a lie. Oops, ‘climate change’ since it clearly isn’t warming.

    That makes 50% of the public so mind controlled these days, they can’t think their way out of a paper bag.

    Is it only 50% ? It feels like more.

    I think a much greater number believe the lies told by government, the TGA and registered practitioners, about mental health.

    Witness who the public voted in ( or might it have been more cooked data) of the Australian of the Year – Tim Flannery, a global warming proselytizer and now ABC personality; and Patrick Mc Gorry, a psychiatrist.(Read Jon Rappoport for the truth about psychiatry).

    There are scientifically verified approaches that work to clear PTSD and all manner of other emotional suffering, which should have revolutionised mental health in the 1990′s, but haven’t.

    There is a very good reason why.

    To get the full story of why, read Jon Rappaport’s blog at http://www.nomorefakenews.com, follow Infowars.com and watch David Icke’s recent sold out Wembley Arena talk online at http://www.davidicke.com/wembley.

    And email Sue Maynes of FLORA at flora@reachet.com.au Our Constitution has been set aside, and corporations registered in Washington DC are masquerading as legal government in Australia.

    Once you know what’s really going on, just scan the TV guide and you’ll see the agenda writ large.

    Bob Hawke has just been back to China for the 91st time. What the ????

    And then turned up at the Woodford Folk Festival ???? to condition alternative Aussies to the idea that a Chinese takeover of Australia would be a good thing.

    Yikes ! Let me out of this nuthouse !

    Trish


    Report this

    41

  • #
    Dallas Beaufort

    Hawke and Co are resting up in the lefts northern haunt, some how thinking they will influence their left learning companions by mixing it with the flower children.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    warcroft

    Annas eyes were glazed over throughout the whole interview, thinking “I dont know what the hell youre talking about.”


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Joe V.

      Most sane people eventually succumb to the straightforward , no-nonsense, presentation of scientific facts that comes from David & Jo’s presentations.

      For someone to be so privileged as to have a personal audience with them , lasting over two hours, and still not even begin to show even a chink of understanding, shows how deeply CAGW disinformation has become embedded in its young adherents.

      There are still plenty of smart kids though.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Joseph

    I would like to be able to download these files. How do I do it?

    Thanks . . . .


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Albert

    Climate change in a nutshell
    As David said ”it’s like a murder scene”
    co2 was present, the alarmists ‘arrest co2′ without checking all suspects because they are on government grants to frame co2, blaming co2 keeps them employed.
    like all murder mysteries, the real killer is the last one suspected.
    ALL the climate models have failed to predict correctly, co2 is not the killer
    As usual it will be the detectives who work for free who find the killer
    My bet, the climate is not dead, there was no body, so ‘co2 should be released immediately.’


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Peter K

    Well done, Jo and David; I don’t think I could have been so patient in explaining and re-explaining. The ABC presentation of this segment was very shallow, as was the whole of its structure. There was no attempt at analysis – the producers just wanted theatre, and to provide an example of “fairness” to both sides of the argument. At her book launch later in Canberra, I asked Anna whether she and Nick Minchin had agreed in advance, what credible information each would require to have a change of mind. She replied that they had not. On further questioning, she said that if the (official) climate scientists changed their minds, she would. The same appeal to authority that David clearly identified.

    I sense a change in the weight of opinion; so far it is only slight. The leaking of the draft AR5 will cause a few more to think. My own bet is that 2013 will be a bit of a watershed in opinion – not a complete switch, but a small breach in the dam, that by 2017 will have become a flood. In part, I’m basing this on an expectation that we are likely to see satellite and Argo temperatures remain pretty steady, and ocean level rises remaining constant, or perhaps lessening.

    So what will happen to all the busy climate scientists and bureaucrats? The good honest ones who have been working in their own fields on the effects of climate change, will continue to beaver on. Those most obviously on the gravy train, if they’re quick enough, will shift their emphasis on how to deal with climate change effects, an emphasis that many thoughtful scientists have been arguing for some time.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    thojak

    Thanks millions for this, Jo!
    Wonder wheter Anna (cute name BTW) got a n y grips of the state-of-the-facts on the topic… And IF she’ll admit/commit herselves/ to the concorted ‘name-of-the-game’… (tax-payers account)

    Well(?), we have just the same situation here in Sweden, SVT/SR per excellance, to name a few… ;)

    Brgds from the Bestcoust!
    /TJ


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Jo Robertson

    I couldn’t watch it all because it wound me up too much. However, did Anna Rose actually state which low lying countries have had to evacuate people when asked by Jo for clarification??? It’s BS mantra like this that is obscuring the climate debate. Jo and David, I admire your restraint in this program – just as well you had your own video.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Matt Thompson

    You have to love the part at the first where she said being filmed by someone else that would use the tape in whatever way they wanted was “creepy.”

    Yes, that’s right Anna. It is “creepy”.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Jack

    Only half way through yet, but it is apparent Anna does not know the difference between a fact and an assertion. Her premise is based on so and so said this or that group said that. She just cannot assimilate the facts.
    2ndly, when Anna was asked for her proofs, David and Jo jumped on her quoting models. WHat they said was valid but in my opinion they should have let her finish.
    I did see a subsequent interview with her and Professor Lindzen. She was aggressive to the point of rudeness and so far out of her depth but not knowing it, she reminded of the joke about the ninja in battle. Missed said his opponent. Wobble your head then said the ninja.
    That sums up this whole problem. The warmists depend on consensus and political evaluations. Sceptics are relying on observation facts. Warmists use post modern science to blur the difference, then use activists like Anna. They are so indoctrinated, they cannot distinguish propaganda from facts and use broad brush terms – conspiracy- and ridicule as their argument. They do not realise those are not logical arguments because they look so good on twitter.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Jack

    Very very good.
    Anna Rose was reduced to saying she was not a climate scientist because she feared the answer that the evidence showed.
    The whole transcript is such a neat summary of nearly 30 years of warmist attacks versus real/true data.
    In one of the Climategate email exchanges, they discuss lowering the statistical probablity so that all possibilities could be said to be equally likely and therefore the probability of human induced warming was as equally likely as any other scenario and could be equal to or greater than natural variability.
    Then they employed professional press release writers. The purpose of them was to scour the world’s papers and journals and conduct smear campaigns and threats of being sacked if the scientists were not quiet.
    Unfortunately for these professional attackers, the record proved them wrong.
    There was a famous case in New Zealand where they demanded a sceptic should be sacked. An inquiry vindicated him, especially when the warmists refused to release their data.
    To our shame , they were using Australian scientists to attack this man.
    Since that time, the New Zealand temperature record has been proven to be falsely adjusted upwards.
    The trouble is that the likes of Anna Rose are professional activists and know slightly more tha our politicians, so they put things in terms a politician can understand. Note the use of words like, consensus, experts agree, associations agree etc. Note they never drill down to find it is stacked committees acting without the authority of the members and using confected consensus.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    kerro

    When Anna asked her Hawaiian scientist who was supposed to be on her side ‘has CO2 been this high in the past?’ he replied ‘not for about 1 million years’. Anna then says ‘I’m scared’.

    Why is she scared? He just told her why there’s no need to be.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Nick

    Not confident in the significance of the data evidence she would always fall back on the scientist for GW…. She couldn’t bring herself to believe that ‘all those scientist’ could be wrong. Those scientist are in the far minority of scientist but the vocal ones have successfully branded not only themselves as authorities on this but have convinced many that all of thier colleagues are behind them. With the assistance of the media, ex Vice Presidents and others, they have managed to uptain incredible branding heights that is beyond who they are, but with real conviction none the less.

    Not even the majority scientist body who is not convinced of CO2 GW, speak out against this whole fiasco publicly, but instead find points in which they can agree (such as a trend of global warming) so as not to disagree with the flow of all this round earth talk!

    I agree the last 15 minutes had some great points, and really the whole message you both had was outstandingly valid. But insurance for a home against an asteroid as once mentioned would have been a better analogy to stick with then a vehicle accident! The overwhelming data you had could support such an analogy.

    The confusion in the end is that the CO2 issue is mistakingly replacing a need or want to keep pollution down … people think ‘pollutants’ in an emotional sense if they don’t understand the science; especially true as scientist seem to be the ones warning them against it all. In fact, for many, on some level its difficult to understand that factories/industry are spewing out harmless CO2! Its an easy villain,and those that push it know it and use it.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Tricia

    Hi Jo – finally got around to reading this post. Like the kitchen! Tricia x


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Mike M

    I think it would have helped to have further explored Anna’s belief of catastrophe in all this. At the end of the ABC version she made a very common warmist remark about ‘gambling’ on our future which made me think that it would have been better to have begun that discussion right off in the beginning and then have isolated the various components of the CAGW position before going any further having her agree that they really are separate-able issues. I think there are three major ones, ordered in decreasing relative importance:

    1. Is there any compelling evidence that a warmer world will be a worse world, (extreme weather, crop yields, polar bears, etc.)? I hold this as the most important because if they cannot prove this to be true then the balance is irrelevant. Do they realize that the most species on earth, the most diversity of life, do not live in Alaska with the polar bears? The most diversity is in the tropical regions which are also the most temperature stable places showing the least temperature change as earth’s global average temperature goes up or down. History books refute every claim they make concerning “worst ever” weather events, (most/least snow/rain, most cold/hot, strongest hurricanes/tornadoes, etc.), as well as point out that cooler times are historically the ones more associated with famine, disease and wars.

    2. Does CO2 control earth’s temperature? If we had no idea whether warmer was bad or not, how much does CO2 actually ‘control’ temperature? Ice core data shows a repeated indication of the reverse – that temperature controls CO2 so, why can’t those same natural and non-CO2 causes of initiated warming after an ice age also be the cause of the slight late 20th century warming? Geologic data shows anti-correlation between CO2 and temperature lasting for millions of years. It also shows that the average CO2 level for earth over the last 400 million years has been much much higher than now and temperature has been considerably higher as well. The only ‘evidence’ they have are models – failed ones. Even if they cannot be persuaded that warmer is better or no problem, if they can’t prove that CO2 in control then #3 is irrelevant.

    3. The miniscule amount humans add to CO2 by burning ‘fossil’ fuels will upset some conceived natural ‘balance’. How can there be ‘balance’ when CO2 has varied so much from ice age to ice age and even more over 100′s of millions of years? Even the amount that CO2 concentration varies annually due to natural variation, (more land in the NH), is way more than amount humans add which is about a steady 3% (?). Does their goddess gaia control the number of termites and soil microbes in the world that emit GHG? It’s almost like asking them to admit they believe nature is normally manipulated by some unseen force keeping a ‘balance’ and we nasty humans are screwing it all up. They seem to think that a domesticated cow farting in Nebraska will cause a tornado to go from F2 to F5 but then if it had been a gassy buffalo in the wild, (as there used to be WAY more buffalo at one time rivaling the number of cattle we have now), that’s okay because buffalo are ‘natural’ and therefore have no affect on gaia’s invisible ‘balance’.

    Of the above, #3 is the typical alarmist’s most irrational, non-scientific position and therefore the one most difficult to persuade them to abandon. Some just seem to WANT to believe we are all ‘guilty’ of ruining earth by making the climate ‘worse’ for ourselves, plants and animals; it’s the most religious-like part of their position.

    So my point is to avoid #3 altogether by getting them to agree in advance logically that, if their mind can be changed on #1 and or #2, both sides agree to skip #3 so as to save them the embarrassing futility of trying to hang on to it and – our being unavoidably prompted to laugh out loud at them…


    Report this

    20

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Mike

      Very good idea.

      I wonder what could be done to re-edit the program as a scientific production with only “the science” being discussed and all the politics omitted?

      This morning I came across a printout I had done some time ago that showed the Earths CO2 “activity” budget in a new light; for me at least.

      I had previously used the general figure of Human output per year as being 3% of total “output” from all sources and this new printout had a diagram that showed carbon based activity and the CO2 that was actually involved and confirmed the 3%.

      I was surprised to see that half of the natural turnover was with the oceans and even more surprised to see that the carbon budget was actually Turnover and it was given as 100%.

      This diagram was saying that 100% of all natural CO2 was turned over and returned to nature.

      I have heard people saying this before, eg Ferdinand Englebeen, but for some reason the pretty colors in the diagram just reinforced the truth that the natural turnover is gigantic compared with the acknowledged human output.

      It is obvious that Human origin CO2 would be swept up like a few crumbs, or sparrow farts, in the natural “sequestration” process.

      The solution to climate change, tongue in cheek and from a simplistic viewpoint, would therefore seem to be to Control Nature because it has the biggest Footprint.

      I know that’s rubbish but just wanted to take a break and write something anti warmer; even if it’s part wrong.

      KK :)


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Fernando

    Hi,

    Your comment “Doubtless Anna is being groomed to be an ALP/ABC candidate for parliament, long may she rule over us.” just got me thinking… Isn’t it just about time to have a “Skeptics Party” just like there are “Pirate Parties” in some countries? Geeks, bloggers, and other concerned internet users from all ways of life have gathered to defend what they see as their right to “internet freedom”. Green parties have also people from all ways of life, not only people actually educated on some environmental area.

    Shouldn’t we be thinking about “debating” this from the (same) political arena?

    cheers


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] It would be nice to know where Moylan’s views are under-represented. I know that I live on the other side of the planet here so I may have the wrong perspective. Did the Gillard Government enact a carbon tax last July to tackle the problem of climate change? Was this policy one of the most stringent in the world? Does the ‘Age’ publish the opinions environmentalists? Does the ‘Age’ give fair coverage of both sides, or does it give voice to those who deliberately misrepresent the sceptic position? Does the major TV network give impartial coverage, deliberately misrepresent one side? For example, when Jo Nova was interviewed for a ‘debate’ on climate. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce G

    very interesting. I remember seeing this tv doco, and was disappointed in the blinkered and fixed attitude of Anne. She came across as brainwashed/indoctrinated, supreme in confidence in her own thoughts, unable and unwilling to absorb what David and Joanne presented. I felt she was the naive product of the national education curriculum, and progressive parents, with little insight into the creation of wealth, or anything else to do with free markets enterprise, efficient allocation of capital. She also lacked the self insight to take an impartial stance.

    I’m a baby boomer, and it saddens me how blind many are to the manipulative tactics of Leftist idealists in manipulating the education syllabus, tax funded media, and using big global catastrophic issues to quell individuals into the passivity that accompanies learned helplessness, only then to rely on experts within govt to guide us as what to do with our lives.

    I think Joanne and David, you learned much from the tricks used by the ABC. I was always told never speak to the media except in a live interview. I’d add that the ideas you were trying to present might have been condensed into a powerpoint presentation, to emulate a school lesson more so. Some might think it is overkill, but never underestimate the importance of simplifying and shortening a message. This applies just as much to blogs, which in this age of verbosity, truth is more likely recognized when distilled, crisp, clear, concise.

    BTW Joanne, you are an excellent communicator. It would be nice for you to have a broader platform to spread your condensed insights from. I wonder if you have a relationship with non socialist think tanks – IPA or CIS.

    All the best with your endeavors to keep the bastards honest :)


    Report this

    10

    • #

      Bruce, thanks, I do keep meaning to figure out a way to do a regular youtube broadcast. There are many people who don’t find it easy to read, and the polls show that they need the other side of the story because all they get are mainstream broadcasts….


      Report this

      00

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>