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



The Age — “Sceptics Weather the Storm”

Cartoonist John Spooner gets away with saying in text what no one else has said before in The Age: that the skeptics are clawing their way ahead, and winning.

The tide has shifted.

Some excerpts:

WELL, so much for the 2012 apocalypse. If the ancient Mayans ever knew anything about the future, they made a serious miscalculation. The same fate has befallen the international climate change emergency brigade. About $1 billion and 18 “Kyoto” meetings later, the world has agreed to do nothing much more than meet again.

How did this frightening climate threat dissolve into scientific uncertainty and political confusion? What of the many billions of dollars of wasted public resources? Some might blame the “sceptics”, the “merchants of doubt” or the “deniers”. Others point to the global financial crisis.

We can say for certain that many hesitant individuals overcame the pressures of group-think, intimidation and tribal disapproval to have a closer look at the relationship between real science, politics and business.

You don’t need a PhD to get the basic elements:
In the climate debate, the only “judge” is the scientific method – a testable hypothesis followed by factual or experimental challenge. The “facts” here represent an anxious problem for the DAGW advocates. For example, everybody agrees that the warming trend paused 16 years ago, despite a corresponding 10 per cent increase in atmospheric CO2. This ought to be an embarrassment to the global warming alarmists. What exactly is the relationship between CO2 and temperature? Why did the warming trend stop as it did between 1945 and 1975, when CO2 emissions took off?
Spooner understands the PR power but rank hypocrisy of the poison term “denier”

Things got nasty. Someone came up with the brilliant but insidious idea of using the term “denier” to describe a person who remained agnostic or sceptical about the exact human contribution to the 0.7 degree global warming of the past 100 years. This malicious rhetoric came to be adopted by climate activists, media reporters and politicians up to head-of-state level. Many distinguished scientists such as Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, and Bill Kininmonth, former head of our National Climate Centre, were casually defamed in this way. The same label was applied to world-renowned theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson and Australia’s distinguished Professor Bob Carter.

Holocaust denial describes the heartless and despicable refusal by anti-Semites to acknowledge the historical truth of the Jewish genocide of World War II. If you use the offensive term “denier” you do so for reasons best known to yourself. You may be calculating or you may be indifferent, but as Wong, Rudd and Gillard would have known, the effect is pungent. No sensible, morally responsible person wants to be stigmatised in such a way.

By early 2010, it seemed that nearly every single element of the global warming debate was up for grabs, and scandals like Climategate and gross mistakes in their work had weakened the credibility of the IPCC
Spooner is a good writer with insight.  But that’s hardly a surprise, the funniest cartoonists are the smart ones. :-)
Hat tip: Chris Dawson, Ian B plus robber and inedible hyperbowl. :-)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.4/10 (105 votes cast)
The Age -- "Sceptics Weather the Storm", 8.4 out of 10 based on 105 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/c9ngzba

173 comments to The Age — “Sceptics Weather the Storm”

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    It’s a great article and even more so being in the mainstream media.

    Never thought I would see it happen.

    The Earth is moving.

    KK :)


    Report this

    511

    • #
      Peter Miller

      KK, the world is becoming increasingly sceptical about the motivation of those people claiming they are the chosen ones to save the world.

      The two expressions here which are important are: ‘chosen ones’ and ‘save the world’.

      The concept of being seen ‘to save the world’ has become a severe addiction for most of today’s politicians. It allows an incredible waste of economic resources to be expended for little or no return. These resources are ploughed into a huge unaccountable army of bureaucrats, ‘experts’, agents, facilitators, advisors, PR people and general hangers on. Climate change and most foreign aid are classic examples of this – so why do our political ‘elite’ so like to champion pointless and expensive causes?

      The answer unfortunately is ‘save the world’ is like an infectious disease, where the many millions living pointless lives are given a reason for their pointless lives and becave activists for pumping massive amounts of money into black holes. These people rarely provide more than a miniscule amount of the funding disappearing into the black holes, but expect the economically useful to provide that funding.

      Politicians have realised that being seen to be green is a vote winner, or at least it is not usually a vote loser. Unfortunately, most career politicians (due to their lack of exposure to the real world) are unable to differentiate between ‘green good’ and ‘green goofy’ and to ensure they can never be blamed for being wrong, i.e. “but, it’s the experts wot told us”, funding is provided for ‘green goofy research’, whose results are guaranteed to justify their actions. ‘Climate scientists’ know all too well that if their ‘research’ does not show what is required by their political paymasters, their funding will be immediately cut off.

      Slowly, but surely, the general public is waking up to the fact that ‘green goofy’ policies hit them hard in their pockets and that the shrill alarmist warmings about climate rarely have any substance, unless presented in the form of highly distorted facts.


      Report this

      483

      • #
        CameronH

        Peter, It is interesting that the people who believe they were living pointless lives were convinced of this be the sames leftists who convinced them that the world is ending. They were told that their religion was ridiculous and then they were given another religion, Pagan Gaia Worship, to replace it. It is interesting to note, however, that most of them do not even realise that what they now believe in is just another religion.


        Report this

        281

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Hi Peter and Cameron,

          You have painted a good picture of the futility of the whole thing.

          When I comment on the warming industry, my wife says, “but at least they are interested in the environment”.

          It’s frustrating because it’s so hard to counter all of the media hype and Tax funded advertising on TV and radio and newsprint.

          The Environment gets Nothing out of the whole show which is about diverting Money from the Tax Coffers to somewhere more useful; to the politicians, the UN, lots of pointless and dopey Research and so on.

          Maybe we have reached a perceptual tipping point?

          Hears hoping.

          KK :)


          Report this

          81

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        The lesson I took away from the Queensland election was that;

        A vote for greens was a vote for Labor. The greens couldn’t gain enough votes to retain any power for themselves, so their votes went to Labor via the preference system.

        A vote for Labor was a vote for greens. In marginal seats the preference voting would work the other way around giving power to the other. Boosting votes which were not for that party.

        When Labor was anhialated in Queensland with a vote of 6% total, we also noted that the green vote completely disapeared. Clearly nobody was voting green in the first place, else their vote count would not have been affected.


        Report this

        110

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    Let’s see if Spooner keeps his job during the next round of Fairfax job cuts.
    As Kinky has pointed out this article will grate with Fairfax readers.


    Report this

    260

  • #
    Dave

    .
    Mr. Spooner says this toward the end:

    However, I still feel that the voices of highly qualified sceptics are not heard enough. In an effort to redress this imbalance, an unusual book on the sceptics’ view will be published in 2013.

    And then goes on to describe the authors and their qualifications.
    Possibly that Fairfax Press (Printing) maybe publishing this book which would be a big seller and hence the promotion.


    Report this

    280

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      It’s time to play Guess the Expert!

      Who are the mystery members of this climate cartoon team?

      M) a meteorologist, the former director of the Australian National Climate Centre;
      G) a geologist, a former member of the Australian Research Council and chairman of the Earth Sciences Panel;
      E) an independent energy consultant who manages his own small hydro power station;
      H) a professor of environmental engineering (hydrology)
      T) one of Australia’s leading tax consultants.

      My guesses…
      M == William Kininmonth
      G == Bob Carter
      E == ??? (the hydro power rings a bell but can’t recall who)
      H == Stewart Franks
      T == ???


      Report this

      50

  • #
    Jim from Brisbane

    I hate to be a party pooper (especially on the eve of New Year’s Eve!) but I think there’s still a way to run on this.

    Whilst there is no doubt that the weight of scientific evidence (as opposed to models and opinion) is shifting from AGW and the Draft IPCC report certainly seems to indicate that at least some scientists are aware of this, there is far too much invested financially, reputationally, emotionally and ideologically for this to fade away any time soon.

    Is it conceivable that Labor, the Greens and the Independents who foisted the carbon tax on us, will EVER concede they were wrong to do so?

    When major, supposedly respectable news organisations can’t even bring themselves to acknowledge what the actual temperature record has done for the last decade or so, then there is no change on the horizon yet.

    Whilst I don’t know how this will play out, it will be fascinating to watch.

    For example, despite all of the clear evidence to the contrary, there are still a group of dedicated fundamentalists who believe that Bush/the CIA/the Israelis flew the planes into the 2 towers and nothing – reason or evidence to the contrary – can change that view. There are still passionate advocates of alternative energy telling us they are motivated solely by science, who go into hysterics at the mention of the only viable alternative energy source – nuclear power. Someone much cleverer than I once said, you can’t reason someone out of a position they haven’t used reason to arrive at.

    However, in the example cited above advocates are only a few in number and are definitely not mainstream (with perhaps the exception of nuclear power).

    In the case of CAGW, they’re are in the majority, they’re totally mainstream and they’re every bit as fundamentalist as the Truthers and just as impervious to evidence.

    I honestly predict regardless of what happens, there was still bill there will still be Departments of Climate Change, International Commissions on Climate Change, carbon dioxide taxes and emissions trading schemes in 5 years time.

    If I live long enough, I may see that change but it won’t be any time soon.


    Report this

    242

    • #

      Someone much cleverer than I once said, you can’t reason someone out of a position they haven’t used reason to arrive at.

      Jonathan Swift I think. Another of his one-liners: “There are few, very few, that will own themselves in a mistake, though all the World sees them to be in downright nonsense.”


      Report this

      150

    • #
      Brian H

      Jim, I don’t want to “bang on” about this, but there’s a possibility you may be delightfully wrong. A small private outfit in New Jersey is outperforming the world on a thread from a shoestring in establishing the basis for a tiny fusion reactor (purely conventional hot fusion) based on Dense Plasma Focus. One of their (patented) discoveries is that smaller is better: a tiny hand-size rig concentrates the plasma.
      If Lawrenceville Plasma Physics ( LPPhysics.com ) achieves its planned ‘breakeven’ this winter (NH winter), it should be able to pull together the necessary few million to produce a prototype, and license the design to all comers to manufacture, world wide in 4-5 years.
      In a nutshell, no emissions or waste, 5MW per garage-size installation, 24/7, ~350/365 (allowing for servicing downtime), instantly ‘dispatchable’ (ramping up/down), and about 5-10% the cost per Watt and kiloWatt-hour of the very best/cheapest current sources. Fuel is boron, practically unlimited.

      It renders the whole goofy Green agenda moot. While gifting the planet with an Energy Revolution probably exceeding the steam engine in significance/impact.


      Report this

      11

  • #
    Ian

    The comment in The Age piece that global warming ceased 16 years ago is scathingly refuted by those such as Grant Foster (aka Tamino) on his blog ludicrously called Open Mind as it is anything but. He and others note that although there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1997 that the trend is continuing upwards. Tamino then goes on to say that 16 years is too short a time line to tell for sure which way the temperature lines will trend. He uses the term “fake sceptic” a lot but doesn’t seem to realise that a fake sceptic obviously isn’t a sceptic . Exactly what Tamino means by fake sceptic is unclear. What is clear however that the data can be manipulated just about any way you like to get the answer that suits your purpose. The data he uses are global surface temperatures from GISS, HadCRUT4 and NCDC. He doesn’t use or even mention the satellite data which isn’t too surprising as the 13 month moving average doesn’t show an upward trend although the value at 2010 is perhaps a little higher than at 1998. The blogosphere is riven with acrimonious dissent which is a shame as it precludes any sensible discussion. That said I thought the discussions amongst (sorry Ms Nova that’s a bit pedantic but between is incorrect when referring to more than two) Jo Nova, Anna Rose, David Evans and Nick Minchin did have some meeting of minds. Needless to say, the ABC made sure this wasn’t conveyed to the watching public so articles such as that in The Age presenting a view not favoured by The Establishment are to be welcomed


    Report this

    351

    • #
      old44

      The first 3 years of 22 years of warming was enough to induce the panic/gravy train, but 16 years of even temperatures mean nothing.


      Report this

      342

    • #

      Tamino’s litmus test of “fake skeptic” is for anybody who does not accept that the shrinking Arctic ice-sheet is the clearest sign of global warming. In my opinion is just a term of intolerance.
      I have come across Tamino’s scathing refutations before. Remember PJ Watson’s paper on Australian sea level rise is decelerating? Tamino responded with some statistical modelling that represented sea level rises as accelerating for ever.
      Another example was Tamino’s review of Montford’s “Hockey Stick Illusion”. I compared his claims on one proxy – the Gaspe series – and found he ignored most of Montford’s findings. Steve McIntyre found he had re-hashed his flawed arguments of previous years. He was therefore able to completely undermine the Real Climate attack review by re-posting “Tamino and the Magic Flute” from over two years before.


      Report this

      70

    • #
      Brian H

      It should frequently be pointed out that the majority (almost all) of the Warming cited occurred in a single year: 1997. Which was a ‘world-beating’ El Nino year.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    This is great …

    As one of my lecturers told us, “The interesting thing about ‘propaganda’ is that it is pronounced, ‘proper gander’, which is apt, because it eventually makes a goose of anybody who solely relies upon it as a means of achieving any outcome”.

    And yet, that is precisely what the IPCC has done. I have been waiting for this for so long, and here we go …

    Having this published in the MSM is the first trickle of what will become a deluge in short order.

    Make sure you are not downstream when the dam bursts.

    (Said Rereke, shamelessly mixing metaphors for all he is worth)


    Report this

    400

    • #

      Notice how the climatologists turn the legal ranking of evidence on its head?
      In a legal setting, strong forensic evidence is far more highly rated than hearsay evidence or tittle-tattle. In climatology the hearsay evidence (PR/propaganda/opinion polls) takes precedence over replication of results and falsifiable predictions.

      A good example of tittle-tattle is here. :)


      Report this

      40

  • #
    16 years with no rise in temp

    It will be easier to change dictionary definitions than for climate alarmists to admit that their models are completely wrong. Too many have invested in this scam, innocently or otherwise, not to go down without a ‘fight’.

    Perhaps this excellent John Spooner essay is ‘a toe in the water’ attempt by the Age to start the process of righting a wrong that the Fairfax press has locally cultivated. What will happen to all of those journos, polys, bankers and academics who have ridden the AGW gravy train? can they be trusted? Will they add to our unemployed? Who will pay for their costly mistake? How will government spin on the ‘carbon tax’ change as it becomes widely known and accepted that it is based on a fallacy?

    I suspect all these questions will be answered by polys blaming ‘scientists’ like the CSIRO, Flannery, etc etc. Clearly we will need a royal commission to sort it all out. A Department of Common Sense must replace the Department of Climate Change.


    Report this

    342

    • #
      Ian

      Unfortunately I really don’t expect much to alter. On a blog in the SMH some guy commented he had been talking to scientists at the CSIRO all of whom said global warming was here, was caused by humans, was a dire threat and “something must be done”. He didn’t seem to realise they said this as they’re funded by the government. Can you really see these scientists and all those others who get grants from the ARC and NHMRC for projects which have “global warming” and/or “climate change” in the title turning to the government who funds them and telling them the “Carbon Tax” (Oh how I hate that stupid expression ) and RET are a waste of time and money. Of course the same scenarios are being played out in most developed countries and can you see these scientists and the IPCC saying “OK we’ll call it a day”? No chance


      Report this

      202

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Can you really see these scientists and all those others who get grants from the ARC and NHMRC … turning to the government … and telling them … [it is] … a waste of time and money.

        Of course not. But it doesn’t work that way. As it stands, their current reputations hang on the scam, they will be the last to rock the boat. No, the change must come from the politicians, and they are influenced by public opinion.

        The fact that this article got past the sub-editor, and the editor, and the Editorial Board, implies that there is a sea change from a higher authority – hence my question about the Fairfax shareholding.

        Such articles, as more are published, will start to impact public opinion, and that will sound warning bells with the politicians.

        We will then find that grants will become available to research areas of atmospheric physics, other than impacts on the climate, the politicians will say nothing, and the whole thing will quietly be put to bed. This is what happened with the Great Coming Ice Age Scare of the 1970′s, and they will just dust off that libretto, and adjust it for the exit from this scam.

        People’s job titles will change. A few Public Servants will change departments. Some departments will be split up, others will merge, everybody will change desks, and the old departments will simply disappear or be renamed.

        And like the Ice Age scare of the 70′s, it will all be forgotten … until the next time.


        Report this

        290

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          So if we were to use the standard Climate practice of drawing a straight line through the data and extrapolating that into the future; the number of articles critical of the science will continue at 3% increase per year. So in exactly 25 years’ time we will reach Catastrophic News Saturation, (CNS) level where 100% of the newspaper articles are critical of Global Warming.

          Being facetious of course.

          The polly’s have pinned their fate to CAGW and the Tax that’ll save the world. They won’t willingly go down with the ship.

          We need a full sea-change of political power and ideology. And that ain’t gonna happen quickly.


          Report this

          60

        • #
          Brian H

          Greg;
          The world will fare far better when it celebrates the life-enhancing (and water-conserving) benefits of heightened CO2 levels, and prepares against the dangers of Global Cooling, than it does at present!


          Report this

          30

      • #
        AndyG55

        “He didn’t seem to realise they said this as they’re funded by the government’

        Not only that, but the guy in charge of the CSIRO climate section is not a scientist but an economist (iirc), and is also a rabid warmista.

        He has made pretty darn sure that everyone on his staff “believes”… or transfers elsewhere.


        Report this

        130

        • #
          Bulldust

          Lewandowsky is in full flight dropping the D word with gay abandon:

          http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4446160.html

          Yes the myth of mouthwash, innoculations, WMD and denialism of CAGW … he covers the lot!


          Report this

          40

          • #
            Bulldust

            I felt the urge to post on the blog in response to a typical GraemeF rant:

            A few points for you to consider:

            1) What crackpot would assume there is any relationship between faith in “right wing market ideology and climate change denialism” whatever the latter is supposed to mean. I suspect you have read a certain unpublished paper that was thoroughly debunked, but that is just a educated guess on my part.
            2) One does not require conspiracy to exist where government and other incentive systems align the major players naturally. Given that climate science funding it almost invariably available for only one side of the debate, is it any wonder that most reserach is oriented thusly? Prof Lewandowsky talks of ulterior motives, well money was ever one of the biggies…
            3) Care to elaborate on how that 97% “statistic” was derived? If not, I can do it for you (hint: carefully pick 77 “climate scientists” of which 75 are deemed to support your argument).
            4) If the science is so “strong”, why has there been no statistically significant warming in the last 15 or 16 years or so? Or do we need to wait for 20 or 30 years before you accept that other factors may be overwhelming the CO2-induced warming?

            Knowing what the ABC is like, I have copied this elsewhere.

            PS> I shall not hold my breath waiting to hear why I should be categorised as a “climate change denier”, a term which is as meaningless as it is derogatory. People who use the term are invariably advocates, not scientists.


            Report this

            50

          • #
            Bulldust

            I rewatched this video – covers so many of the salient points, and funny to boot:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s&feature=player_embedded

            * Liberal means left-wing in the US, in case that causes confusion for some. Ironically our Liberal party would be considered liberal in the US as well… well, at least in my opinion having lived in both countries.


            Report this

            40

          • #
            Bulldust

            And yet another impassioned plea from a mother that we deniers repent before the earth is trashed for her children:

            http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4445102.html

            The ABC seems to be going full blast for some reason… here’s something to whet your appetite:

            “For me the failure last fortnight to grasp the latest findings of peer-reviewed climate scientists, and act decisively to stop burning fossil fuels was my moral ‘tipping point’. These reports are beyond alarming and frankly terrifying. They condemn our children and grandchildren to eke out a miserable existence, buffeted by violent weather, on a planet blighted by drought, fire, flood and no longer able to supply their basic needs. Already we see this nightmare of food shortages playing out in Africa as crops fail due to drought.”

            The Mayan calendar scare* had nothing on this… shame comments are already closed.

            * Yes it was simply the Mayan calendar turning over a new era, much like the western calendar at the year 2000 going into 2001, or 1999 to 2000 for the ill-informed.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Bulldust

            Bulldust does a bit of reserach … “there it is” as Charlie would say on 2.5 men:

            http://profiles.arts.monash.edu.au/liz-conor/biography/

            “•Senate Candidate for the Victorian Greens”


            Report this

            20

      • #
        Bulldust

        Worse still Ross Gittins (can’t spell Gittins without “git”) in sister paper the SMH has the following blog:

        http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-four-business-gangs-that-run-the-us-20121230-2c1e2.html

        Look what rears its ugly head:

        “And Big Oil has played a notorious role in the fight to keep climate change off the US agenda. Exxon-Mobil, Koch Industries and others in the sector have underwritten a generation of anti-scientific propaganda to confuse the American people.”

        This is regurgitated from Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University.


        Report this

        70

        • #
          llew Jones

          I’m pretty sure The Age gets him cheap or he pays it to get his infantile drivel published. Haven’t wasted time reading any of his articles for years.


          Report this

          40

          • #
            Geoff Sherrington

            Is it paid for or plagiarised?


            Report this

            30

          • #
            llew Jones

            Yes that is more relevant to BD’s point Geoff. Perhaps then I could modify it to ..articles (including his plagiarisms)……

            Notice whilst The Age breaks new ground with Spooner’s unqualified skepticism, the Herald Sun, with Bolt out of the country, has a sports writer trying to frighten Melbourne’s bayside residents as well as every human on Earth with a bit of far fetched alarmist nonsense.


            Report this

            20

  • #
    old44

    Maybe the terror induced by a takeover bid for Fairfax is having some effect on the group think.


    Report this

    220

  • #
  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Rereke Whakaaro:
    Don’t under estimate the flexibility of those involved. I have a book on my shelf published late 1975 about the coming ice age. One of the authors (the scientific one) was spruiking the coming ice age – and the book – in 1979. By 1983 he was one of the speakers at the first (of many) conferences on Global Warming.

    A U-turn with skid marks.


    Report this

    150

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      That wouldn’t be Stephen Schneider, by any chance?


      Report this

      60

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        No.
        Ibn Browning; you won’t have heard of him unless you have an interest in earthquakes. He did some interesting work on the influence of the sun & moon as causes.

        He died in the Eighties. The book is entitled Climate and the Affairs of Men. If you are interested then you may find a copy in secondhand/charity bookshops, but the connection with climate is tenuous.


        Report this

        30

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Thanks Graeme,

          I will have a poke around. Anybody who lives in New Zealand has an interest in earthquakes.

          Plus, one of my colleagues was a Geologist and Mining Engineer in a previous existence. She is bound to be interested. She might even have a copy? I will ask.


          Report this

          20

        • #
          Allen Ford

          You can get it here for the reasonable sum of $US0.01 (used), or $US35.74 if you are a spendthrift!


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Allen Ford

            Here is a revue from the Amazon site. Note the coup de grace!

            I bought this book while writing my thesis about the New Madrid Earthquake Scare of 1990. Iben Browning, who co-authored this book with Nels Winkles, was crucified by the press and the “professional” scientists about his supposed earthquake prediction of a major quake along the New Madrid fault in 1990. Rather than being the crackpot depicted by the media… I discovered that Browning was a brilliant and gifted scientist with many discoveries and patents to his credit.. this book describes his theory of how climate change has affected history. Its a hard read but worthwhile.. it’s something that should be studied more by the historical community.. by the way Browning thought that human caused “global warming” was pure bunk!!


            Report this

            10

    • #
      Jim from Brisbane

      I’ve thought of that Graeme No. 3
      A smooth segue into ” well the warming isn’t ocurring but ocean acidification is a major concern so we still need to cut emissions/regulate/end industrialisation/tax the rich….”??
      You could be right but I think the message about CAGW is now so entrenched backing away, will cause an unbearable loss of face.
      Perhaps even the start of a new age of reason?
      I think there are many who will die in a ditch for this one….


      Report this

      90

      • #
        CameronH

        The main threat will be from “Conservation Biology”. This is a brand of science that is total fake science. The attempt to make CO2 the main driver of the climate was just the forced acceptance of a speculative hypothesis as a recognized scientific theory before any significant testing was done. “Conservation Biology” on the other hand is a genuine pseudo scientific field of study in the same vein as Lysenkoism and Eugenics. This bogus field of study is the main article of faith for both the extremist green groups, such as the WWF, and the UNEP. It is the basis for the UN Agenda 21 for Sustainable Development that is driving principle for most of the restrictive eco-loonie legislation in Australia at present. The basic concept is that:

        The biosphere is made up of “ecosystems”.

        Each ecosystem is in balance “The balance of nature”.

        The “Biodiversity” of the “ecosystem” is what keeps it in balance.

        This balance will be reestablished after any “natural” impact but will be permanently disrupted from any human “unnatural” impact.

        It is essential that this “balance of nature” be maintained for any activity within the “ecosystem” to be “sustainable”.

        Biodiversity ,and its decline through extinctions, is the main parameter for determining “sustainability”. Biodiversity is not measured by actual animal and plant activity in the real world, however, but is calculated by the use of computer models which make the “climate models’ seem paragons of virtue.

        None of the terms used here are definable or testable. After decades of use there is still no agreement on their meaning or how any of them are measured. As an example, there is no definition on how to recognise an “ecosystem”. There is no agreement on how to determine where one ecosystem ends and another begins. There is no way to determine what the acceptable biodiversity within each ecosystem is. I could go on for ages. These terms are the equivilent of the following terms from Eugenics: Feeble mindedness, Degenerate, Unfit, among others. Everybody should also look up Lysenko. It is sobering to note that Eugenics was considered to be a legitimate field of scientific study for over a half a century and was supported by many eminent biologists. Funny how biologists are so easily corrupted. It must be something to do with biology being the most subjective and least truly testable of the three natural sciences (Chemistry, Physics, Biology).
        This is the real battle. Climate science will fade out but unless the battle against Conservation Biology is engaged will be be fighting this battle for our freedom for a very long time.


        Report this

        125

        • #
          llew Jones

          Rings a bell with me. I’m pretty confident this is where the real battle needs to be fought. AGW is just being used by this misanthropic movement to give it some impetus and credibility because its proposed agenda is too radical to garner wide public support. That is because it calls for the degrading of our modern lifestyle, so dependent on industrialisation and cheap, abundant energy.

          It is interesting that Will Steffen, Executive Director of the Climate Change Institute at ANU, is into this game up to his eyeballs. His area of specialty is ecology and the Anthropocene or the post industrial age in which we humans have and are increasingly, radically (supposed to be) changing Earth’s climate.

          One can note that there are anthropologists in on this little game. Their part in the scam is their admiration and promotion of contemporary primitive lifestyles because they are “sustainable”.

          Here’s a bit on Will Steffen’s area of expertise.
          http://www.anthropocene.info/en/thresholds-boundaries

          Another enlightening google experience to try is “contemporary Paganism and climate change”.

          It seems the IR and the consequent technological revolution were built on a different cultural matrix namely the mandate to “subdue the Earth and have dominion or rulership over it”. In the end Ecology despite all its specious claims to a scientific basis merely substitutes one ancient religious paradigm for another ancient one.


          Report this

          82

        • #
          dlb

          Speak for yourself Cameron H. It was conservation which saw me become a paid up member of an environmental organisation. It was this climate change nonsense which saw me leave in disgust.

          Even if the human world could survive on a hundred species (which I highly doubt)I’m buggered if I want that sort of world. I would like future generations to experience the rich biodiversity we currently have.

          As for your slur on biology, haven’t you heard of biotechnology? this is where all the action will be in the future, this is where all the brains will be needed. Chemistry and physics are only child’s building blocks in comparison.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi dlb

            Had a quick scan of Cameroon’s item and can only find that he has an aversion to wasteful and false

            “Conservation” which is pretty much what we have now only they would like to divert the AGW cash to

            “Conservation”.

            I would suspect that Cameron has the same values as you and I in terms of keeping our environment as

            diverse and free from human effects as possible.

            What we don’t want is False Conservation that uses up money and conserves nothing but the financial

            well being of Conservationists.

            KK :)


            Report this

            30

        • #
          old bloke

          Quite so Cameron.

          As the Rio+20 gab-fest revealed, CAGW has now fallen off the schedule and the new buzz word is “Sustainability”. It would appear that we have moved from Agenda 21 by stealth (CAGW) to full on, hard-core Agenda 21.

          We have seen it in action in Australia already, with the buy back of irrigation licenses along the (flooded) Murray River, and the Government’s cancelling of leases for large NT cattle stations so that they may serve as “carbon traps”.

          I have no confidence in either of the Greg’s (Combet or Hunt) to act against Agenda 21. The National Party is also silent and worse than useless, and the mad Katters are only interested in forcing ethanol as fuel (from sugar cane) on the public.

          The only political organisation which appears to have an interest in this matter are the CEC.


          Report this

          21

    • #
      llew Jones

      Yep RW it’s the same agenda. Earth’s climate getting hotter or getting colder then we humans with our science and technology have arrogated the role of that lovely old Goddess Mother Earth and if we don’t offer her the sacrifice of our cheap abundant energy sources and the good life that goes with it she will ruin it for us. No more sophisticated than.

      Or to really get a smile on her wrinkled old face they, those who hide behind alarmist climate science, have been suggesting we should offer her a human sacrifice that would reduce our occupation of her Earth down to about one billion.


      Report this

      60

  • #
    GerardB

    John Spooner should be congratulated for writing an excellent and well balanced article on the facts of climate change and the treatment of sceptics. It is the first evidence-based article on climate change published by Fairfax.

    However, will similar articles be allowed publication once the senior management and editorial writers and members of the Fairfax journalist’s house committee return from their Christmas holidays? Only time will tell if such an article will be the norm or an aberration.


    Report this

    140

  • #
    Mattb

    Hmm he seems to think that people are being called holocaust deniers? Last night I was watching Sunderland play Tottenham, and a ‘Spurs striker was “denied by the crossbar”. Given Spurs have a traditionally strong Jewish connection you’d have thought that the commentator would be less blatantly racist… either that or he was just using the word “denied” as intended in English when not associated with the Holocaust… just maybe.

    It is odd that the entire thrust appears to be that climate change isn’t happening because some AGW types use a perfectly inoffensive word to describe people who blatantly misrepresent science?


    Report this

    157

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Matt,

      It depends on word useage. The word denier comes from the verb deny

      1. to state that (something declared or believed to e true) is not true: to deny an accusation.
      2. to refuse to agree or accede to : to deny a petition.
      3. to withhold the possession, use, or enjoyment of: to deny a goal.
      4. to withhold something from, or refuse to grant a request of: to deny permission of entry.
      5. to refuse to recognise or acknowledge; disown; disavow; repudiate: to deny CAGW.

      It is one of those utility words that have several meanings. This will be useful when those perpetuating the scam want to disassociate themselves from any charge of name-calling.


      Report this

      281

    • #
      llew Jones

      That is a strange interpretation. Perhaps you should get someone to read the article to you and give you a precis of why Spooner is a “denier”.

      While you look for a tutor try mulling over these words of wisdom from Spooner:

      “In the climate debate, the only “judge” is the scientific method – a testable hypothesis followed by factual or experimental challenge. The “facts” here represent an anxious problem for the DAGW advocates. For example, everybody agrees that the warming trend paused 16 years ago, despite a corresponding 10 per cent increase in atmospheric CO2. This ought to be an embarrassment to the global warming alarmists. What exactly is the relationship between CO2 and temperature? Why did the warming trend stop as it did between 1945 and 1975, when CO2 emissions took off?”

      And this little gem of recent history:

      “By early 2010, it seemed that nearly every single element of the global warming debate was up for grabs, and scandals like Climategate and gross mistakes in their work had weakened the credibility of the IPCC”

      Surely no need for an already climate science literate Spooner to have that literacy informed by the insults of professional scammers.


      Report this

      250

    • #
      Michael Larkin

      It is odd that the entire thrust appears to be that climate change isn’t happening because some AGW types use a perfectly inoffensive word to describe people who blatantly misrepresent science?

      It would indeed be odd were this the case. However:

      1. The entire thrust isn’t as you’ve stated.

      2. Nobody denies that climate change is happening (and always has happened). What sceptics are sceptical about is that CAGW is happening.

      3. The offence caused by many words is related to the context in which they’re used. Many “perfectly inoffensive” words or phrases can be read as insulting, especially when directed at oneself. “Blatantly misrepresenting” would be an example which I see you couldn’t forbear from using.

      In conclusion, let me say that it is odd that your entire thrust appears to be that CAGW is happening despite sceptics who present irrefutable empirical evidence to counter people who blatantly misrepresent science.


      Report this

      250

      • #
        AndyG55

        “Nobody denies that climate change is happening (and always has happened).”

        Last 40 odd years..

        a) maybe a small rise in global temp, 0.7C incl 0.5C GISS adjustments.
        b) basically no change in hurricanes, (maybe a downturn in numbers)
        c) arctic ice about where it probably was in the late 1930′s
        d) very little change in weather pattern.
        e) sea levels tapering off

        Nothing much happening really..

        We live in a time almost static climate !


        Report this

        221

    • #
      debbie

      You will have to do better than that MattB.
      ‘Denier’ is name calling and used as a noun in this context
      It does indeed have unpleasant connotations.
      As Rereke pointed out….it depends on context and situation.
      The incessant claim is people are in ‘denial’ or in other cases they will just simply call the name ‘denier’.
      As an excellent example, go accross to deltoid and check out how it is done and what is meant.
      They take great pleasure in using the word as nastily and as often as they can.


      Report this

      100

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      It is odd that the entire thrust appears to be that climate change isn’t happening because some AGW types use a perfectly inoffensive word to describe people who blatantly misrepresent science? [emphasis mine, RH]

      Matt,

      No word is offensive in and of itself. What is a word? It’s nothing but an abstract concept that allows communication of ideas, intentions, a request of some kind, approval or disapproval, whatever.

      The thing that counts is the context. And even more important, what you can reasonably infer by “reading between the lines” ends up being the real problem. So it is with the word denier.

      The way the word denier is used in respect to AGW skeptics is pejorative. You cannot interpret it any other way. And it’s quite clear that those who use it intend it to be pejorative.

      The bottom line is this: It intends to distract from the real question we ask, which on face value assumes those in agreement about AGW might be right; and changes our position to one of trying to deny an obvious truth, known to be truth by AGW proponents. It’s a willful attempt to deny any possibility that we might be right.

      I don’t even care at the moment about the connection with Holocaust deniers. What I just outlined is enough all by itself (others are free to disagree).

      Now Matt, I think you really do know this is the way it is. How can you get to where you have a family, a university position and get elected to your local council and not be savvy enough to understand the problem? I don’t think you can. Your obvious political acumen alone is enough to tell me you get the point.

      If you think we misrepresent science then why not debate the disagreement on the basis of the science? Why is that not happening Matt? Why is it not happening? Why is it that one side of the disagreement must assume a priori that it is right (done deal, remember?) and the other side must be wrong (done deal again)?

      I really do detest the attitude of superiority involved in this denier nonsense. I really do!


      Report this

      170

    • #
      AndyG55

      “It is odd that the entire thrust appears to be that climate change isn’t happening because some AGW types use a perfectly inoffensive word to describe people who blatantly misrepresent science?”

      Matt, you have it arse about. (Ie causality in the wrong direction)

      The DAGW/CAGW/CC/CW/DW bletheren are using these words BECAUSE climate change isn’t happening…. and BECAUSE it is THEM that has been found to have been misrepresenting science.


      Report this

      81

    • #
      cohenite

      MattB; the use of the term denialism is a deliberate attempt to equate AGW sceptics with those who supported the Holocaust; see Hamilton.

      It is part of the denigration of sceptics which people like Williams, who has also compared sceptics to Nazis, can then expand to compare sceptics to pedophiles and drug pushers.

      The ultimate result of this denigration is Parncutt arguing, as much did the Nazis, that sceptics should be executed for reasons of utility and prevention.

      AGW is a failed theory; it has no science; arguably humans are not even responsible for the increase in CO2; but as a result AGW’s believers will now increrasingly resort to tactics like those by Williams and Parncutt.

      And if you think politicians are immune from this sort of filth look at what ALP nice guy Rees said about sceptics.


      Report this

      142

      • #

        “Holocaust denial describes the heartless and despicable refusal by anti-Semites to acknowledge the historical truth of the Jewish genocide of World War II. If you use the offensive term “denier” you do so for reasons best known to yourself.” – from John Spooner’s article in ‘The Age’.

        See the obvious contradiction in the above statement?

        1. He thinks the term ‘denier’ is ‘offensive’ – but only when applied to people he agrees with.
        2. The hypocrisy of an Australian newspaper demeaning ‘Holocaust deniers’ is staggering: at least one Australian historian denies the genocide of the aborigines, another, the genocide of the Jews. Guess which one has served prison time in Australia for his opinions.

        Climate change sceptics suck up to the establishment: “Don’t call US offensive terms which distort our position! Only do it to people we and you both disagree with!”. It’s hypocritical, it’s groveling, and it won’t work.


        Report this

        48

        • #
          Debbie

          Yes Rod,
          Engaging in name calling shouldn’t work.
          Attacking people and calling them names instead of dealing with the content is the age old political tactic of shooting the messenger.
          Unfortunately it does have some effect….more’s the pity.
          But I do agree that only screeching about that behaviour if you don’t agree with the ‘political stance’ and just ‘laughing it off’ as harmless when you do agree with the political stance …is hypocritical.


          Report this

          10

        • #
          Gizmordoe

          @ Rod
          ‘Climate change sceptics suck up to the establishment’

          To what ‘establishment’ are you referring?
          Not the scientific and academic establishments I presume and not the media establishment,ABC,BBC,NPR,CBS,CNN, Washington Post,New York Times,WWf,Greenpeace,The United Nations.
          What establishment?


          Report this

          10

          • #

            Gizmordoe – I’m referring to the political establishment, which tells us what to think about history and science. I’ve had this debate on the site before, when Joanne said, basically, that screaming ‘deniers’ at holocaust revisionists is OK, but not at her. I argued that this is inconsistent, and it won’t work. It asks the establishment to agree to only use demeaning put-downs toward people both she and the establishment dislike, but not toward people she approves of, such as herself. I additionally said Australia jails people who underestimate one genocide, but not those who underestimate its own genocide.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Gizmordoe.

            I do not class myself as a Climate Skeptic for the reason that this is scientific issue and only requires scientific analysis not scepticism.

            Rod seems to want to split hairs and get all excited about this but look at the facts;

            1. The Holocaust of WW11 is a Fact.
            People denying that this occurred, using the distortion of the intervening seventy
            years to sew confusion, are denying the Fact of the holocaust which is well documented.

            2. The so called Man Made Global Warming meme has NO scientific basis outside of a vast smorgasbord
            of pseudo scientific literature and “studies’ by self indulgent crazies.
            There are no measurements, there is no science just a gigantic fraudulent ASSERTION that
            something is wrong and we are guilty.
            In this case there is no need for denial because nothing of substance has been documented .
            All we have is a mass of poorly done peripheral science that does not document or show AGW exists.

            So we can assert that there are Holocaust deniers but there cannot be CAGW deniers.

            It is not possible to deny something that does not exist.KK :)


            Report this

            20

          • #

            KinkyKeith says “The Holocaust of WW11 is a Fact” and “The so called Man Made Global Warming meme has NO scientific basis”.

            He may be right. But he’s missing the point. The powers that be say that both the Holocaust and Global Warming are ‘Facts’. So if it’s right for them to persecute deniers of one, it’s right for them to persecute deniers of the other. It’s ineffective and opportunist to plead with them on the basis that climate skeptics are right. That implies that it’s OK to suppress views which are wrong – and the establishment thinks your views are wrong.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          BobC

          Rod,

          Calling someone a “Climate Change Denier” implies that the person denies that the climate is changing. Since this is obviously incorrect for 99.8% (approximately ;-) ) of those skeptical of the AGW hypothesis, it is obviously meant as a slur, rather than an accurate description. (Either that, or those who use it are all stupid — a possibility I can’t exclude.)

          Calling someone a “Holocaust Denier” when they actually deny that the Holocaust occurred is an accurate description. Holocaust deniers are disapproved of by society for historical reasons.

          The use of the inaccurate term “Climate Change Denier” (often just shortened to “Denier”) is an obvious attempt to avoid substantive discussion by associating those who find the AGW hypothesis unsupported by actual evidence with the disapproval given Holocaust deniers.

          Surely this is evident enough for you to see?

          ****************

          As for making unpopular opinions a crime — that is the hallmark of tyrannies. That budding tyrannies don’t do this consistently is not something I get upset about — I reserve my disapproval for those who would suppress freedom, or use distortion and lies instead of reason.


          Report this

          30

          • #

            BobC – “an obvious attempt to avoid substantive discussion by associating those who find the AGW hypothesis unsupported by actual evidence with the disapproval given Holocaust deniers.”

            Yes, it is obvious. But logical from the viewpoint of the establishment, who believe both forms of ‘denial’ are wrong and dangerous. Some German Greens actually did propose extending their Holocaust denial laws to include climate skeptics. Who respond by saying “prosecute them, not us!”.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            BobC

            Rod McLaughlin
            January 3, 2013 at 9:17 am

            Yes, it is obvious. But logical from the viewpoint of the establishment…

            Thought control is an ubiquitous feature of tyrannies — always used to maintain power — so no surprise there.

            However, there is nothing “logical” about applying the term “Climate Change Denier” to those who don’t deny that the climate is changing. The use of such a totalitarian-style (thought control) tactic by those scientists and professors who claim to be guided by scientific evidence is ironic and marks them as fools and knaves.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Gizmordoe

      ‘It is odd that the entire thrust appears to be that climate change isn’t happening because some AGW types use a perfectly inoffensive word to describe people who blatantly misrepresent science?’

      Agreed Michael,especialy in the light of the ‘certainty’ of cagw having recently gone up from 90% to 99%!.It was last wednesday,from memory,about twenty five past four.


      Report this

      10

  • #

    If indeed the change in shareholding has had an effect on published content what does that say for the ABC?
    It has been suggested that Auntie be sold off. However, it is currently a money pit with few mechanisms for earning.
    Perhaps a if it was to be forced to become a commercial or quasi-commercial organisation this may, by itself, encourage a more free-thinking environment.
    If not it would, at least, become a more likely float.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Afraid not. The BBC has a vast commercial side. The ABC has its shops/website etc.

      There would be no change in mindset, except they would winge about how the plebs don’t understand them.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    mshell

    Good to see courage in journalism is not dead. Here is another article. “ABC clique in control of climate”
    BY: MAURICE NEWMAN From: The Australian December 18, 2012


    Report this

    90

  • #
    Dave

    .
    Amazing to see the Article by Spooner placed under
    Home – National Times – Society & Culture – Article
    and not under Envirnoment
    Home – Environment – Climate Change – Article

    That would really get the DAGW’s screaming.
    But when Fairfax IT look at the hits to Spooners article – they may realise the power of readership numbers for a change.

    Maybe they can see that readership will increase if they have a balanced view.

    But that’s probably hoping for too much.


    Report this

    160

    • #

      Perhaps it’s not hoping too much Dave. Fairfax is a commercial operation in somewhat dire straits. There are, now, more powerful and commercial interests in play. Go Gina.


      Report this

      160

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Spooner showed signs of CAGW DAGW skepticism earlier in the year in toons about entering the UN Security Council and closing Hazelwood.

      Is “DAGW” a thing? It’s Disastrous rather than Catastrophic, which represents a retreat from the most extreme claims of Hansen / Rose / etc.

      As a result of Spooner is DAGW going to catch on where CAGW did not?
      If that’s what the public starts calling it then we’ll have to change, because it will be difficult to stop that tide of vocabulary once it starts.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Jim from Brisbane

    Mattb,
    Happy to argue the science any time, any place but can’t argue positions that I don’t hold and incidentally, that I don’t see anyone else holds.
    1. The “entire thrust” in other words, the whole argument, the complete set of facts (whichever you choose) of opposition to the CAGW theory is that people who hold it are called names?
    Is that your position??
    2. I’m not offended by too much at all any more – we are becoming far too precious about “offence”, but I can understand people rejecting comparisons to David Irving or paedophiles as recently occurred on the ABC.
    3. If you can point to a comment here which indicates the author doesn’t believe that “climate change” doesn’t happen, go for it.
    4. If a static, measured temperature record – the same source relied on previously for promotion of the CAGW theory – isn’t science, what is? If the cooling of the Antarctic, the absence of the “hot spot”, no increase in cyclones/extreme weather events, the unchanged sealevel increase, nuclear energy as the sole, baseload reliable, affordable, CO2 free alternative energy source etc etc isn’t science, then what is?
    I haven’t met anyone who doesn’t accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that theoretically, it should increase air temperature and that minimising the human impact on the environment is a good thing if it can be achieved without causing unnecessary economic and physical hardship.
    You need to counter the arguments to succeed; not what you wish they were or what you perceive them to be.


    Report this

    302

    • #
      AndyG55

      I agree Jim. I used to teach socially disadvantaged 14-16 year olds.. well, tried to….

      These warmistas .. they got nuffin’ !!! ;-)

      Parncutt was just stupid, and totally un-professional. If you did that on a business site, job gone !!

      The other AGW bletehren, Mann, Lewinsky, etc etc… never even reached a pretence of being professional, their name-calling is irrelevant to any real discussion, as are they.


      Report this

      221

    • #
      Jim from Brisbane

      Parncutt was distinguished by his lack of judgement – not a significant difference in vehemence or passion from fellow travellers.
      Read Quiggin ( since I was told to leave his site permanently after a polite but admittedly rogue/out of line question, I don’t any more).
      Though he NEVER advocated violence or physical or legal threats whilst I visited the site, the stripe of bigotry/intolerance on display is the same.
      Parncutt cannot comprehend that there might be an argument other than the only one he limits himself to.
      He has courage in putting his perspective forward – he surely is not so stupid as to believe there would not be repercussions – but gob smackingly narrow minded in the same vein.
      It must be possible that those ideas which we find precious and comfortable could be wrong?
      Surely, a tertiary education must mean moving out of our comfort zones, embracing diversity and honestly examining different perspectives?
      This is the fear the Parncutt post reveals.
      As a university professor, he is presumably committed to a culture of thinking the unthinkable?
      Isn’t that what the self-proclaimed diversity loving/open-minded/acceptance of complexity/ experts tell us?
      Instead we get abuse as a substitute for argument…………..


      Report this

      150

      • #
        AndyG55

        “As a university professor, he is presumably committed to a culture of thinking the unthinkable?”

        I have to admit, I have no idea what a professor in systematic musicology might actually think !

        Depends which mushrooms and herbs are in season, maybe ??


        Report this

        40

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      I haven’t met anyone who doesn’t accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas…

      Jim,

      Actually I have developed some doubt about that point. I’ve been looking for evidence that CO2 is causing or can cause temperature rise for years now and I don’t see it. If anyone has empirical evidence that CO2 can, in fact, cause Earth’s temperature to rise I want to see it laid out here on joannova.com.au.

      There’s a big gap between the theory and any kind of real world event that can be claimed to be caused by CO2. The evidence is at best circumstantial. And there are other equally possible explanations for climate change.

      In California the legal standard for conviction when all the evidence is circumstantial is this:

      1. The evidence must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did the crime.

      2. The evidence must not show any possibility beyond a reasonable doubt that someone else did the crime.

      The verdict has to be not guilty by this standard. Requirement 2 fails when applied to CO2. Other causes are obvious to say the least.

      It looks to me that we can’t demonstrate the supposed action of CO2. So if it can do as theory says, then the effect is lost in the measurement noise. We simply don’t know what it can do in the atmosphere.

      It’s not really a GHG if it doesn’t do as GHGs do. The Skeptics Handbook, volume I still asks the basic question that still goes unanswered — where is the evidence condemning CO2?

      I’ll probably be criticized for this but I came to this position through honest searching for something solid to identify CO2 as a GHG. There isn’t anything that stands up to scrutiny.


      Report this

      181

      • #
        Grant (NZ)

        I too am skeptical of the effect of CO2 on a macro scale. It might be possible to show a GHG effect in a lab, but the atomosphere is more elastic and permeable than any conditions under which experimental evidence can be gathered. As seems to be the learning from the last 16 years of no significant warming, any effect attributable to CO2 is being swallowed up in the noise from other natural causes.

        The example that springs to mind which seems to contradict the claim of CO2 as a GHG is as follows. An open paddock supporting some vegetation. During the day the crop will deplete CO2 through photosynthesis. CO2 concentrations can be lowered to very low levels – much less than average atomispheric levels. At night via respiration the crop will raise CO2 concentration to levels around 1200ppm. When is the air temperature hottest and when is it coldest?


        Report this

        91

        • #

          ” … I too am skeptical of the effect of CO2 on a macro scale … ”
          Ditto. Bit of a problem area, given that arguing “no GHG effect” is taboo at WUWT.
          I have detected CO2 surges coming off the western Pacific during late summer afternoons, comparable to bushfires or back-burning up-wind. After-dark biomass respiration pushes the value up to around 425ppm, more if the airflow is off the ocean – large banks of Mangrove.
          Bit surprised by the 1200ppm for cultivated land – equivalent to cooking a dinner, or a crowded enclosed space?
          Surprises me that the mean value is all that ever seems to be quoted, and is still being set at Moana Loa. These days it doesn’t cost much to log (genuine) CO2 data.


          Report this

          60

          • #
            Grant (NZ)

            Martin,

            Sorry for the lack of citation – I can’t lay my hands on the source at present. But my recollection is that a corn crop can raise the CO2 conc to levels like the 1200ppm via respiration. This is in still conditions where there is very little air movement to mix the air. You might find that if the air is not moving inland from the coast that in the immediate vicinity of the mangroves the conc may be very high. Those suckers really know how to grow fast.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Good comment

            Thanks

            KK


            Report this

            10

      • #
        FijiDave

        I’m with you on this, Roy, and you have articulated my thoughts very well.

        My synapses have sorted through the 100s of thousands of words I’ve read on the subject, and distilled the information down to just what you have said, although I couldn’t put my finger on any particular epiphany that shaped my take on it – it is just “there”.

        The fact is, billions of dollars, millions of man-hours, tera-words of BS expounded thousands of peopleo over the last three decades should have made it possible by now to have nailed the thing down to a certainty. The fact that it hasn’t proves, in my mind, that the whole AGW thing is a colossal nonsense.

        Happy New Year, everybody – especially to Jo and her hubby, David.


        Report this

        90

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi Roy Happy New Year

        We were all sucked in by the CO2 thing initially simply because we trust scientists and perhaps didn’t fully comprehend the extent of the warmers claims about its’ powers.

        As you suggest, it doesn’t take much analysis to quash the idea that CO2, especially man Made CO2 , is capable of causing world overheating and to demolish the “science” behind DAGW.

        The major problem is to undo the propaganda and show the public how they have been scammed.

        KK :)


        Report this

        81

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          KK,

          Being a software engineer, my journey to that position on CO2 was a little different. I was never, as you said, sucked in. When I first heard about global warming it sounded like another fad science scare like coffee, bad for you one day and good for you the next. I really thought it would silently disappear.

          Then I began to hear that it was a done deal, no more debate is possible. I have most of the basic math, physics and chemistry required for an EE degree and I hadn’t forgotten what I knew about the scientific method and the practice of science. It didn’t add up. So I was instantly skeptical of the done deal.

          I started looking into it and it didn’t take long to figure out which side had the stronger argument. In the beginning I took the theoretical CO2 can warm by so much per doubling idea at face value. It took me a while to realize that the theory hasn’t been shown to be correct and the world shows us something else entirely. So the real question remains — can CO2 really do what it’s being blamed for doing?

          The switch from EE to computer science was one of those fortuitous accidents in life. My brother pushed me to take a course in programming for engineers and kept at it until I finally did it to get him off my back. It clicked.

          A Happy and prosperous New Year to you and to everyone.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Roy

            I never believed in Warming but did spend far too much time trying to work out the CO2 thing simply because I “trusted” that all other factors, besides CO2, had been neutralized.

            My interest in CAGW was triggered by tales of stable ocean levels turning to catastrophic flooding.

            My Geology told me that oceans had risen and fallen and in particular had fallen about 1.4 metres in the past few thousand years (maybe 4,000).

            The rest is history.

            KK


            Report this

            00

      • #
        AndyG55

        A greenhouse acts by blocking the escape of energy by convection.

        As CO2 is part of the gaseous atmosphere, it assists in the removal of excess heat from the surface of the planet to the upper atmosphere. It does not block the escape of heat energy, it assists.

        H2O because of its phase changes and latent heat capacity moves MASSIVE amounts of heat energy from the surface to cloud level. It does not block energy from escaping the atmosphere either, it is, in fact, the major operator in the removal of heat.


        Report this

        50

    • #
      Mattb

      “1. The “entire thrust” in other words, the whole argument, the complete set of facts (whichever you choose) of opposition to the CAGW theory is that people who hold it are called names?
      Is that your position??”

      No… but it does appear to be the thrust of the argument made by the author of the article that is the subject of this thread.

      i) “I haven’t met anyone who doesn’t accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that theoretically, it should increase air temperature”
      ii)and that minimising the human impact on the environment is a good thing if it can be achieved without causing unnecessary economic and physical hardship.”

      i) May I suggest you’ve not hung around on this site long enough… I see other posters have already verified this.
      ii) great – we think alike. That’s why I support the price on carbon.


      Report this

      110

  • #
    handjive

    Spooner’s opine in Fauxfacts is welcome, but, if this type of morally devoid behaviour is held up as a beacon of success by some in society, there is much work still to be done.
    .

    THE introduction of smart meters in Victoria may have been a costly exercise for consumers but it has proven an impressive money spinner for a handful of Australian entrepreneurs.

    An investigation by BusinessDay has found Australians have been paying about twice the amount for smart meters than consumers in the US and Europe.

    And there has been poor transparency even though the metering devices had been mandated by the government.

    The success of Landis + Gyr has confirmed Cameron O’Reilly as one of the most savvy businessmen in Australia.

    Cameron O’Reilly, the scion of the Heinz food empire and former chief of media group APN, along with John B. Fairfax, the Smorgon family and Kerry Stokes are a few of the high-profile names to have made a killing from the sale of smart meters.
    .

    Stealing from the working man for the ‘savvy’ rich, mandated by the GillardGreenLaboUr government, for a clean green energy future fraud, that WILL NOT create perfect weather now, 100, or 1000 years.

    There is much work to do. Quite so.

    Building bigger jails is one job.


    Report this

    230

    • #
      Joe V.

      Stealing from the working man for the ‘savvy’ rich, mandated by the GillardGreenLaboUr government, for a clean green energy future

      It’s called the Clean Green Energy Clean Up. Another excuse to milk the productive working masses to feed the parasitic governing classes.


      Report this

      131

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        And Joe if any working person has superannuation they would be ticked off to know that our Federal Government

        has given US based Share Traders the right to skim $280,000,000 from our share market by a ruse called High

        Frequency Trading.

        It fits your paradigm.

        KK

        2013 targets get rid of CAGW and HFT scams.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Eye opening

      KK :)


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Mattb

      we bloody well pay double for everything though? Fishing reels to IT… why single out smart meters?


      Report this

      07

      • #
        Bulldust

        The big difference is this Mattb:

        “And there has been poor transparency even though the metering devices had been mandated by the government.”

        At least you have a choice to buy the other overpriced stuff or not, or buy it cheaper off the net etc… This was government mandated. That subtle distinction makes a world of difference, no?


        Report this

        90

  • #
    Dagfinn

    Since the article is about why the alarmists are failing to convince people, I’d like to point out a reason that seems to be frequently overlooked: the fact that alarmist predictions are inconsistent with each other. The artic will be ice-free in summer when exactly? In 2008 some said in 2013. Then in the meantime I read that the arctic sea ice was melting four times as fast as expected, and the artic might be ice free by 2100! And sea level will rise by how much? 0.5 meters? 2 meters? 7 meters? 30 meters? There are any number of other examples. Most people don’t keep track of this, but eventually this kind of inconsistency will erode confidence.

    The fact is that “warmists” pretend to be a united front but arent’t when it comes to their presentation of facts and predictions. Skeptics, on the other hand, don’t pretend to be in agreement about everything but are accused of being inconsistent.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      They say anything if it will scare the impressionable.

      The Arctic ice melting is just one of their weak points, despite all their predictions of doom coming real soon. Just point out that the arctic ice is floating, so even if it all melted, the sea level wouldn’t change at all.

      Not content with trying to move society back to the Stone Age, they want to forget any real science.

      Archimedes rules OK!


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Joe V.

        I think the references to Arctic melting are only used as evidence of warming. Isn’t it the land based ice , eg. Greenland from which sea level rises are inferred due to warming ?


        Report this

        40

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Well, it is New Years’ Eve where I am right now, and I am outta here …

    Thanks to Joanne (for her patience) and to all of the commentators (including the trolls) for making the past year so enjoyable. Good fun all round, if you don’t take anything too seriously.

    Happy New Year folks – read you next year.


    Report this

    110

  • #
    AndyG55

    OT: I was going to wait for an “unthreaded” to post this, but there wasn’t on this weekend.

    Its about the atmospheric energy models we sometimes see.

    Atmosphere energy balances generally use the average incoming TSI as 342w/m^2.

    ie 1366 divided by 4.

    I would like people to consider the calculations on the linked .jpg

    http://imageshack.us/a/img22/4355/averagetsi.jpg

    This calculates the average TSI received at the top of atmosphere, taking into account the angle of incidence.

    Basically, what I am wondering is if they may have the average TSI received at TOA, incorrect, by an amount of 33+ w/m^2.
    (which of course would stuff up all the atmospheric balances)


    Report this

    10

    • #
      AndyG55

      Come on guys, there has to be someone to point out where I went wrong !!

      (ignore the last little bit where I decrease .57 to .55, that was written at 1:30am, and is obviously nonsense if talking about TOA average TSI!)


      Report this

      00

      • #
        GregE

        Hi AndyG,

        I ran a back of the envelope calc as follows:
        Polar diameter of earth ~12713km (from somewhere on the ‘net)
        Radius ~ 6356500 mtrs
        Area of Circle of Total Insolation ~3.14159 * 6356500 * 6356500
        ~126,936,233,761,677.5 sq mtrs
        if energy density is 1366 watt/sq mtr then total Watts = 173,394,895,318,451,465 watts
        Total surface area of Earth (Wikipedia) ~510,072,000 sq km
        = 510,072,000,000,000 sq mtrs
        Average Watt/sq mtr ~ 173,394,895,318,451,465 / 510,072,000,000,000
        ~ 339.94 Watt / sq mtr

        Sorry, my calculus days are long past so I’m not sure what additional assumptions I should have made but I’ve taken a simplistic view that the average insolation would be the amount of energy intercepted by a disk the diameter of the planet divided by the total surface area of the planet.

        I agree that there would be some loss due to reflection / refraction effects however that would make my answer even lower than yours, also I did not take into account Top Of Atmosphere as I don’t know the “effective” thickness, this could possibly account for differences between your answer and mine. If you increase the effective diameter, then the effective surface area is going to go up as the square of this difference.

        So sorry, I can’t fault your maths however if you can work out the “effective” diameter including atmosphere we can run the calc based on the corrected values, I use “effective” in quotes as I know the atmosphere extends quite some distance from the surface but at some point it would be too tenuous to have any significant effect.
        Just my 2 cents worth!

        Cheers and Happy new Year to Jo and all the gang here who provide such interesting commentary!

        GregE


        Report this

        00

      • #
        AndyG55

        OK IGNORE THIS COMPLETELY..

        I found my own error. and I’m not telling you what it is.

        Should not do maths at 1:30am !!!

        342 is correct.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      michael hart

      Andy55, I’m not really sure what your calculation is trying to represent. The phrase “taking into account the angle of incidence” appears ambiguous to me.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      michael hart

      …and reflection off water surfaces seems dependent on too many variables to make for a simple calculation (waves, reflection by clouds, ice etc)


      Report this

      00

      • #
        AndyG55

        Treat it as a calculation at Top of Atmosphere.. same average applies.

        I added that last little bit after I been trying to figure out “total external reflection” on the air water interface.. but , as you say, figuring that out is really difficult, its even affected by the polarity of the energy.

        So take it at the top of atmosphere, so no reductions or losses, and the average TSI per area is 390w/m^2 , not 342.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Andy

      If it’s just a Modeled number, then of course it may not be accurate in such a complex system.

      I feel sure that if this problem was taken out of the hands of people whose main qualification is, far too

      often, a degree closely associated with Ecology, then a very interesting discussion would occur.

      KK
      Happy New Year


      Report this

      00

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    When it comes to CAGW, I am not a sceptic. I am a non-believer. CAGW/DAGW is a scam (someone please provide evidence to contrary).
    The answer to Kinkys question

    The major problem is to undo the propaganda and show the public how they have been scammed.

    Answer: The six o’clock news showing a CAGW proponent in handcuffs being led off to gaol after a successful fraud prosecution.


    Report this

    81

  • #
    pat

    handjive -

    thanx for the link re the smart meter scamsters, but note how it finishes not by questioning the potential use of them to cut off people’s power, but by simply asking for more transparency/lower prices blah blah.

    as for the voluntary take-up outside Victoria, i am still angry at how the logan council in SE Qld is pretending to want to help low-income families save money by forcing the damn things on them.

    as with all things CAGW, the so-called Big Boys (& girls) are the ones making a killing, at taxpayer expense. wonder if Four Corners is working on a prog for the new year, exposing all the boondoggles!!! LOL.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    pat

    this report was done for the anti-wind farm charity the Renewable Energy Foundation (KEEP), however:

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2254901/Wind-turbines-half-long-previously-thought-study-shows-signs-wearing-just-12-years.html#ixzz2GaHPBK4W
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    30 Dec: Daily Mail: Tamara Cohen:
    Wind turbines ‘last for half as long as previously thought’ as study shows they show signs of wearing out after just 12 yearsStudy of almost 3,000 turbines in Britain sheds doubt on manufacturers claims that they generate clean energy for up to 25 years
    The research will fuel criticism of wind farms
    Professor Gordon Hughes, an economist at Edinburgh University and former energy advisor to the World Bank, predicts in the coming decade far more investment will be needed to replace older and ineffective turbines – which is likely to be passed on in higher household electricity bills…
    Ministers are currently drawing up plans to compensate local communities affected by them with investment – which have critics have dismissed as bribery.
    Prof Hughes’ study of 280 wind farms in Britain and more than 800 in Denmark from 2000 to 2011, found the larger wind farms typical in Britain are less effective than smaller ones…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2254901/Wind-turbines-half-long-previously-thought-study-shows-signs-wearing-just-12-years.html


    Report this

    40

  • #
    elva

    There have been many ways to describe how little CO2 is present in the atmosphere. One way I hear was this. It is 250 000 miles to the moon. 4 times that distance is 1 000 000 one million. If you get in a car and travel about 390 miles that equates to the % of CO2 in the air. Would 390 miles get you very far to the moon??


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Mattb

      390 miles would be well outside the atmosphere so in terms of energy needed to get to the moon you’re probably 90% there! Just goes to show how important seemingly small fractions can be!


      Report this

      14

      • #
        Grant (NZ)

        To compare the energy requirement in this metaphor is a totally specious argument and you know it. What elva’s metaphor was doing was comparing the distance. You then try to overlay the requirement to expend energy to overcome the gravitational pull of earht. So the seemlingly small fraction is actually a very, very, very small, insignificant fraction when taking about driving a distance of 1 million miles. CO2 is a very, very, small, insignificant fraction of our atmosphere.

        You may be interested to know that the current global CO2 concentration is actually low in historic terms and is possibly a limiting factor in the growth of a good percentage of plant species. (They have proabably stopped teaching that in botany since I went to university).


        Report this

        61

    • #
      AndyG55

      4 cents in $100


      Report this

      30

  • #
    janama

    This morning on Local ABC, North Coast, Dylan Pugh (of some local environmental group) was warning of 4 – 6C temperature rise due to man made climate change and what a dreadful legacy it was to leave for our grandchildren. He, along with Michael MacDonald, editor of the Byron Echo and journalist Mungo MacCallum are all pushing the CAGW line without one reference to an alternative opinion.

    Dylan Pugh’s solution was we need to change our energy use and embrace renewables if we are to save the planet!


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Ian

    Elva There seems to be something a bit odd in your example. I can’t see why you introduced 4 times 250,000 unless it is to get comparability with ppm. You’re taking a number which isn’t the real distance from the earth to the moon and then asking would 390 miles get you very far to the moon if it were 1000000 miles away. Why not divide the 390 by four to give roughly 100 parts per 250,000 (which is about 390 ppm) and then ask if 100 miles would get you very far to the moon. And sorry Elva to be so horribly picky but 390 isn’t the % of C02 in the air but parts per million. As a percentage C02 in the atmosphere is about 0.0390%.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      elva

      but 390 isn’t the % of C02 in the air but parts per million. As a percentage C02 in the atmosphere is about 0.0390%.

      Huh? That’s precisely the point I was making. Only I was trying to put it in terms a layperson would understand. The CO2 is merely a tiny trace gas in the air. But too many think it is a major proportion. The more comparisons of 390 to 1 000 000 we can make the better.

      By the way I am tired of the ABC showing exhaust gases from cars, Beijing smog and from chimneys…at least they have ceased using evaporative towers. These are particulants some of which is carbon but not CO2. More people need to be taught that nitrogen is about 78% of the atmosphere. If it weren’t and was mostly oxygen ( about 21% now) almost every thing would burst into flame.

      To repeat, the insignificance of CO2 in the air is overlooked on purpose, in my opinion. If we were on a 1 000 000 mile journey on earth and we went 390 miles then the kids would drive us nuts with, “Are we there yet?!”


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Streetcred

    Brooksie hasn’t pitched in yet … this is for him (h/y MiketheDenier, WUWT)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cdxaxJNs15s


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Kneel 8250

    It is school holidays so JB is probably away for a well deserved rest.

    Jo and David would probably love to have that freedom also.

    Happy New Year to one and all.

    Kneel.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    rukidding

    Well Jo your old mate is on again over at our ABC.


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Ian

      I had a look over at the ABC and was impressed with the graph professor Lewandowsky presented from the work of some eminent proponent of CAGW (or is it now called DAGW or something else thought to be even more scary?) This graph showed an horrendous change in temperature from 1795 to the present day. It made the notorious hockey stick to look like flatlining. However he good professor who prepared the graph and the even more eminent professor Lewandowsky both fail to note that 1795 was in one of the three coldest periods of the Little Ice Age. Not that there was any cherry picking of course, that is the trademark of the despicable deniers not the admirable alarmists (or worthy warmists or any other appropriate alliteration).


      Report this

      20

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    As I write this there are a number of responses to #12 – Mattb’s defense of the “denier” label. Maybe no one knows the history of this by the media and others associated with CAGW. That is very surprising because it is even available here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#Meanings_of_the_term

    Ellen Goodman (Boston Globe) may be the first major media figure to make the connection, but she is not the first. In any case, to pretend the connection with Holocaust denial has not been made, and intentionally so, is croc.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Mattb

      look Climate change denial exists, holocaust denial exists, the two have been compared it is true. I have personally previously compared the tastes of apples and bananas, yet I do not think they are the same.


      Report this

      113

      • #
        MaxL

        Matt, the only ones who deny climate change are the warmists and alarmists running around like headless chooks shouting, “The climate’s changing! The climate’s changing!”.

        Everyone else is saying, “Yes, of course it is, it has happened in the past, and it will hopefully happen into the future”.

        Only alarmists and warmists deny that the climate changes. They expect it to remain as it was yesterday.

        look Climate change denial exists…

        Yes, and you are one of the denialists.


        Report this

        180

        • #
          Mattb

          “Yes, and you are one of the denialists.”

          How dare you compare my position to that of the Holucaust! I can only assume that Jo will remove your post to make sure she does not mimic Skeptical Science’s silence on that Austria geezer.


          Report this

          212

          • #
            Mattb

            I note you have 6 thumbs up and ZERO thumbs down. Smell the hypocrisy on this site!


            Report this

            112

          • #
            Grant (NZ)

            Are you being deliberately obtuse? I think you ought to explain why you think the climate should not change. Can you also state what the optimal climate is?


            Report this

            60

          • #
            MaxL

            He He, Happy new year Matt

            Now that’s funny.

            Happy new year :)

            Have a thumbs up from me.


            Report this

            20

          • #
            MaxL

            Go on Matt, give me a thumbs down, you know you want to.
            Don’t continue to deny yourself!
            Reach out!
            Go on, give me a thumbs down.
            That’ll learn me.
            Who knows, you may start a movement. I might get some more.

            Stop being a denier!
            You can do it!


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Mattb

            No MaxL no thumbs down from me. I trust in 30.1.1.1.3 you genuinely did get my slightly warped sense of humour there:) Grant didn’t. :|

            btw it is a furphy to suggest that the AGW movement is driven by people who are of the opinion climate is static and has not changed significantly in the past. It is those changes that form the basis of the science. Look there was change, what made the change, what could change climate, are we doing anything that may change the climate, yes… etc etc


            Report this

            08

          • #
            MaxL

            Matt, you and I could waltz around the issue to the Danse Macabre all day long.

            You’ll say the climate has changed and I’ll agree. I’ll say it has changed without man’s help and you’ll agree.
            You’ll say CO2 is the driving factor and I’ll say how?
            You’ll say computer models and I’ll say yes, I know how to get a computer to give an answer to 2+2 as 5 too.

            And round and round we’ll go.

            But, in my opinion, the only reason alarmists and warmists chose to call, and continue to call sceptics, “deniers” was to make the absurd claim that we are “denying the science”. You know that all good scientists must be sceptics, so of what are you sceptical? What evidence have you seen from the IPCC that you think, “Hmm, that seems a bit suspicious?”

            If you were serious, you would never defend the use of the word “denier”. You know the term aggravates people, so why keep using it? Does it really enhance your argument?

            If it’s a furphy for me to use the term (as you claim) then it is equally a furphy for you to use it.

            Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur – What is asserted without reason may be denied without reason.

            I tell you what, next year, every time you don’t use the term denier, I’ll give you a thumbs up. But the first time you use it, I’ll start being rude (within moderation standards). Deal?


            Report this

            60

          • #
            Otter

            Even your rank attempt at humor falls as flat as the last 16 years of temperature increase.


            Report this

            40

          • #
            Mattb

            Actually MaxL I don’t use denier, unless there is a thread specifically about the word. In which I will point out that whingers about use of the word try to paint those who use the word as though they are making an outrageous accusation regarding the deal of millions in WWII. It is an attempt to convince the general public that there are significant portions of the AGW camp who do indeed use the term deniers to link with Nazi Germany, therefore the AGW camp is evil and not to be trusted. Fauxtrage.


            Report this

            04

          • #
            MaxL

            Matt, the only ones who have attempted to convince the general public of the link are the alarmists and warmists.

            Evidence: “Journalists and newspaper columnists including George Monbiot[11] and Ellen Goodman,[12] among others,[13][14] have described climate change denial as a form of denialism.[9][10] Several commentators, including Goodman, have also compared climate change denial with Holocaust denial. Ellen Goodman ( Boston Globe) Pulitzer Prize winning and highly regarded author. (From the link provided by John F. Hultquist.)

            You describe those who get offended as “whingers”, thus showing your disrespect for other people’s feelings and opinions.
            You then accuse them of making “an outrageous accusation” regarding the link to holocaust denial that “the AGW camp” obviously initiated.
            You ignore direct questions.
            Now you resort to outright falsehood.
            Is there no end to your denialism?


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Mattb

            As I say – I can compare an apple and an orange it does not mean I think they are both oranges.


            Report this

            01

          • #
            MaxL

            Very well then Matt, just sit in the corner and play with your apples and oranges.
            That’s a good boy.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          AndyG55

          What you have to realise, is that when someone calls you something, it should only matter IF it is true.

          Otherwise, it is THEM who is in error.


          Report this

          30

    • #
      michael hart

      John, I can’t say I’m particularly fussed by the D-word.

      To describe someone as “being in denial” was a mild-to-moderate insult I’d heard long before I first read of it in the context of global-warming. Refusing to get angry when somebody is frantically trying to insult you can also be great fun once you’ve rumbled their game. :)

      I’m more concerned by the complete and utter certainty and conviction that so often accompanies the attempted insult.

      Those who are not able, or do not wish, to spend time on the science, could do worse than think at least twice about the “97% of scientists…blah blah blah…”.It just doesn’t happen in other walks of science and life where there is a highly complex problem under discussion.

      In my eyes, the 97% always had about as much credibility as the percentage of people who voluntarily flocked to vote for Saddam Hussein when he invited the Iraqi people to tell him how wonderful he was.


      Report this

      100

      • #
        Chris Sconeveld

        Indeed, the word denier is a perfectly normal word that happened to have been highjacked by those who use it in connection with the holocaust. But really denialism is merely “the use of rhetorical techniques and predictable tactics to erect barriers to debate and consideration to change one’s opinion, regardless of the facts.” And this applies more to the alarmsts than the scepics.


        Report this

        70

        • #
          Mattb

          Other than “And this applies more to the alarmsts than the sceptics.” I agree 100%.

          Of course with true “deniers” they would ALWAYS think the term applies to the other side…


          Report this

          03

          • #
            MaxL

            Mattb,
            Finally you speak a truth, “true “deniers” would ALWAYS think the term applies to the other side”.

            Check out Desmog and SkS for example, they nearly always refer to sceptics as deniers. So now, you an I agree on who are the TRUE deniers.

            Be careful of centrifugal forces when you’re spinning so fast Matt, you’ll end up turning yourself inside out as you’ve done here.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Chris Sconeveld

            Mattb, We the sceptics are ALWAYS prepared to debate the science with the warmists in any public forum but it is the warmists who avoid the public debate. The warmists have been invited to present their case at all the Heartland Institute conferences on climate change. Yet none (or possibly one) have ever accepted the invitation. The IPCC on the contrary has denied (to use this word deliberately in this context) any sceptic the opportunity to speak at their conferences.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Chris Schoneveld

            I noted I spelled my name wrongly (left out the “h”)


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mattb

            MaxL I was well aware that it cuts both ways don’t worry.

            Chris look the trouble with debates is, as evidenced for example by Monckton vs Mr Deltoid, is that a whole heap of shonky graphs and catchy phrases can wow an audience, but they take quite a bit of dull boring science and maths to explain why they are a crock. One wonders why more heartland scientists are not prepared to tackle warmists in science journals (other than E&E).


            Report this

            01

          • #
            MaxL

            “Other than “And this applies more to the alarmsts than the sceptics.” I agree 100%.”

            Ooops, there you go again. Hmm, best you stick with apples and oranges.


            Report this

            00

  • #
  • #
    peterg

    One aspect that does not seem to get discussed much is the “Malthusian” aspect.
    Any biological population expands to its limits.
    Ergo Humanity, being a biological population, is expanding to its limits.
    Not being apparently limited by food, water, shelter, it must be limited by its affect on the weather.
    So if I back the AGW scare campaign, I am on an historical winner, eventually, so should persist, or something along those lines.

    Of course this sort of thinking resulted in the Irish potato famine, if not the holocaust.

    This concern about overpopulation is I believe behind many people’s thinking on AGW, alternatives, even capitalism itself.

    In reality, I think population will peak at 9 billion or so and then begin declining.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Shane

    “To the great credit of The Age and its pluralistic tradition, the occasional sceptical science article has been published along with regular cartoons on the issue.”

    Wow ,really restrained irony,
    hope Spooner’s Super & other entitlements wont be under threat by taking such a swing at the fairfax groupthink concensus ,
    but then ,little danger ,as those small young minds would be most unlikely to read this blog ,much less their own paper,probably too busy making sure that their employment spoils in the office pecking order are still safe,than to engage in independent adult critical thinking.


    Report this

    10

  • #
  • #
    tckev

    Would this be a whole country of ‘deniers’?

    LONDON, Dec 31 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Total supply of Emission Reduction Units (ERUs) swelled by more than a fifth over the last ten days as Ukraine dumped a further 105 million near-worthless carbon credits into the vastly oversupplied market, U.N. data showed on Monday.

    Or maybe they just realized that it’s all a scam.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Dennis

    Common sense will prevail, the now new cooling cycle of natural Earth Cycles is revealing the alarmists as nothing more than political soldiers on a mission that has nothing to do with climate changing.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    I am Digitap

    PBS 400 years of the Telescope

    The whole show’s quite good, & recommended watching. Sorry for the hung grammar above, the mis-spoken MOVIE NAME – it’s not T”he History” it’s “400 Years of”

    https://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/400_Years_of_the_Telescope/70116865?locale=en-US


    Report this

    00

  • #
    I am Digitap

    It’s important you remind all these Magic Gassers that it wasn’t until about thirty years ago anyone even considered the condition of warming to be anything but good, and this goes right alongside American James (The Liar) Hansen-0-dee who said he didn’t give a rat’s patootie about government employees signing no-activism waivers, he wanted more money. He came right out and said it, and then proceeded to do it when he was under cover of Bill Clinton’s presidency, staying out of the way of funding cuts as much as possible and failing,

    and he’s never ever lied about having an activist agenda.

    People it’s important everyone realize if it weren’t for the overshadowing spectre of the political climate of the times with the war on terrorist Al Qaeda and whoever-else-wanted-to-join-in,

    we would have N.E.V.E.R. not E.V.E.R. LET those GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TELL WE, the AMERICANS, SHUT UP and DO IT.

    [Snip - Getting too off topic. Too many ALL CAPS. Sorry. - Jo]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Coldish

    “Many distinguished scientists such as Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, and Bill Kininmonth, former head of our National Climate Centre, were casually defamed in this way.”
    I don’t have a reference to hand, but am I right (or not) in recalling that Richard Lindzen has described himself (w.r.t. the climate debate) as a ‘denier’? I understood Lindzen to mean that he denied the validity of some of the arguments used to promote the DAGW hypothesis.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joezee

    J Spooner’s book hyping subject for 2013 is already published, ’07 “The Deniers” by Lawrence Solomon, a must read.


    Report this

    00