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



Monckton explains why taking climate extremists to court works (and Uni Tas agrees to investigate).

UPDATED: The Mann-Ball case is not settled yet. See below.

Christopher Monckton is cutting across Australia and leaving a wake behind him. He’s called for one Doctor’s deregistration, and one university Prof to be investigated for fraud. Today the VC from Uni of Tasmania has agreed do an investigation and “rigorously“. It is already having an effect. Below, Monckton answers the critics and explains why legal action is “the deadliest weapon”. He is after all, the man who took on Gore and won. He took on the BBC and won too. The Lord knows exactly why he’s doing this. How many prophets of doom will sit up and pay attention and think twice the next time they do a media interview?  –  Jo

PS: Don’t forget to see him in  Perth next week, and Queensland the week after that.

“I am not prepared to sit back and let the liars, cheats and fraudsters win.”

Christopher Monckton

 

Why taking climate extremists to court works

Christopher Monckton

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

One or two commenters on the postings about “Dr.” Helen Caldicott on the unspeakable ABC and “Dr.” Tony dePress at the “University” of Tasmania have whinged that one ought not to seek to get “scientists” struck off or dismissed just because they have flagrantly breached professional ethics, lied, cheated and committed scientific fraud.

Get with the picture. Going to court is the deadliest weapon we have against the extremists who have lied and lied and lied again to save the Party Line.

Lies have consequences. I spoke in the Hunter Valley last night. A mining engineer spoke up after my talk. His mine was having to pay an extra $1 million a year in carbon taxes. He will cling on for a few months in the hope that Tony Abbott, immediately on taking office, will zero the rate. Then, and only then, hundreds of workers’ jobs may survive.

From now on, it’s no more Mr. Nice Guy. If the various authorities to whom I have complained … fail to respond, the next thing they will get is court orders requiring them to reply properly, with costs and indemnity orders too

The agony on his face was palpable. Those who comment here should not allow themselves to think that the debate about the climate is a mere senior-common-room colloquy with no real-world consequences. Jobs, families, livelihoods are on the line.

I have seen that same fear and agony on the faces of miners, farmers, fishermen and property-owners throughout Australia. The carbon tax is shutting your nation down. The working guy is being hurt first and worst. He spends more of his hard-earned income on fuel and power than most. The carbon tax is a poll tax on the poor.

We have had some good court victories. In 2007 the London High Court condemned Al Gore’s mawkish sci-fi comedy-horror movie. It found nine errors so serious that the court ordered 77 pages of corrective guidance to be circulated to every school in England. The judge said: “The Armageddon scenario that he [Gore] depicts is not based on any scientific view.”

Two days later, Gore won the Nobel Mickey Mouse Prize. But he was holed below the waterline. Now he is seen not as a prophet but as a profiteer.

The whingers of the do-nothing brigade were at work even then. The lawyers refused to file the case on the ground that there was no chance of success. They were fired.

The new lawyers said we could not possibly win on the science and refused to use any scientific testimony. The judge threw the case out. I recovered the position by instructing the lawyers to write to the judge asking if he had even seen Gore’s movie before he had reached his judgment without holding a hearing.

Tellingly, the judge did not reply. I insisted on – and got – a new judge. This time the lawyers did what they were told. I wrote 80 pages of scientific testimony. Bob Carter and Dick Lindzen– bless them both – worked from the document in crafting their evidence, and signed off as expert witnesses. As soon as the other side saw it, they collapsed and settled, paying the plaintiff $400,000.

Going to court works because the Forces of Darkness know they will be cross-examined. They know their lies will be exposed. So they crumble.

Dr. Michael Mann, producer of the “hockey-stick” graph that abolished the medieval warm period, sued Dr. Tim Ball for calling the graph scientific fraud. Tim Ball’s defence was to propose showing the judge the many techniques by which Dr. Mann had done what Dr. Overpeck had called for in 1995: “We have to abolish the medieval warm period.”

Rather than face cross-examination, “Dr.” Mann gave up the case at a cost that cannot have been much less than $1 million.

————-

(UPDATE: The case is still running. Tim Ball advises me that Mann’s lawyer gave a partial Discovery on Friday as this was being posted which Monckton was unaware of.).

Mann writes:

“What is most peculiar about the false assertion that we ‘gave up’ the defamation suit against Mr Ball (it is very much alive and well thank you) is that this statement appeared on the very day that my lawyer, Canadian libel expert, Roger McConchie, was DEPOSING BALL as part of the discovery phase of the lawsuit.

[Jo notes that the case would be settled quickly if Mann provided the data, methods, and emails which all scientists and taxpayer funded workers normally provide. Science is a transparent process, why does anything about tree-rings need to be secret?]

————

I sued the BBC a couple of years ago when they did a hatchet job on me. I had been told – in writing – that I should have the chance to alter any points that were inaccurate. Fat chance.

So I lodged a High Court application for an injunction. The BBC’s first reaction was to deny that the director-general’s office had received my letter. Not having been born yesterday, I had delivered the letter myself and had insisted that the director-general’s personal assistant should sign for it.

I insisted on seeing the programme before it was broadcast. It was a disgrace. I wrote to the Director-General listing two dozen factual errors and numerous other biases in the schlocumentary. No reply.

So I lodged a High Court application for an injunction. The BBC’s first reaction was to deny that the director-general’s office had received my letter. Not having been born yesterday, I had delivered the letter myself and had insisted that the director-general’s personal assistant should sign for it.

The BBC crumbled and cut the programme from 90 minutes to an hour, taking out the overwhelming majority of the vicious nonsense. There were still some objectionable points, so I went into court.

I fought the case myself. When I introduced the two barristers and three solicitors for the Beeb, the judge interrupted me and said: “Lord Monckton, I fear I must draw your attention to a potential conflict of interest. You see, I am a member of your club.”

I had no objection and invited the BBC’s expensive QC to give his opinion. He had no objection either, but added: “Er, I too have a conflict of interest. I also am a member of Lord Monckton’s club.”

The judge did not prevent the Beeb from leaving a few barbs in my side. The BBC issued a lying statement that I had lost. But the judge held that I had “substantially won” the action. A 90-minute programme had become 60 minutes. The Beeb had lost. Big-time.

One interesting follow-up. The creep who made the programme had visited me in Scotland and asked me, on camera, about the medical invention that cured me of 25 years’ crippling illness four years ago. I had said it showed promise against various infections, but until we had done the clinical trials that are now in preparation we were not making any claims.

The creep said my answer was too long and complicated. He asked me simply to list the diseases the invention might be effective against. I said, “We have had some promising indications and, subject to clinicial trials, it is possible that we can cure [followed by a list of infections]”. The clip was edited dishonestly. What was broadcast was “We can cure the list of infections]”.

In no time an Australian climate extremist at Melbourne “University” had complained to the medical regulators in the UK that I was conducting unauthorized clinical trials. The complaint failed when I pointed out that the BBC programme had evilly tampered with what I had said, the extremist had lied in correspondence and, in any event, he had no standing to interfere.

From now on, it’s no more Mr. Nice Guy. If the various authorities to whom I have complained about la Caldiclott and “Dr.” dePress fail to respond, the next thing they will get is court orders requiring them to reply properly, with costs and indemnity orders too.

Then the police will be called in, and any regulator failing to investigate my complaints will be prosecuted as an accessory after the fact of organized, systematic fraud.

Now that I have seen and heard the heartbreaking stories of farmers driven off their land by crazed officials threatening to prosecuting them for shifting a rock; of fishermen tricked out of their fishing grounds by crafty bureaucrats asking them to nominate zones they did not want regulated and then regulating only those zones; of miners driven to bankruptcy as their industry dies; of householders having their electricity cut off because they cannot pay the monstrous carbon-tax-driven increases; of businessmen terrified that if they mention the carbon tax at all they can be fined $1.1 million; of the regime of terror in the countryside that has driven thousands of farmers off the land in the name of absurd environmental over-regulation; now that I have seen all this and more in just a few weeks, I am not prepared to sit back and let the liars, cheats and fraudsters win.

In most instances where I should like to help, I have no standing to intervene. But if the liars tell lies about me, if the fraudsters deny the scientific truth when I speak it, if the cheats make up baseless personal attacks on me, then I have the opportunity to fight back, not so much on my own behalf as on behalf of the silent, broken millions who cannot speak for themselves and whom your political class no longer bothers to represent. Someone must speak for them and fight for them. It may as well be me.

————————————-

Friday: Minor post editing has taken place for clarity.

—————-

Monday am – in light of the news about partial discovery the words fabricator, dodges and falsely were changed.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (337 votes cast)
Monckton explains why taking climate extremists to court works (and Uni Tas agrees to investigate)., 9.2 out of 10 based on 337 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/bdg9fp2

461 comments to Monckton explains why taking climate extremists to court works (and Uni Tas agrees to investigate).

  • #
    Dennis

    Christopher Monckton is a legend, his exposure of the socialist parasites and deceivers and therefore standing up for the silent majority places him high on the honour roll of decent human beings.


    Report this

    13210

    • #
      turnedoutnice

      What you must understand is that the Windmill cult is a new Pagan religion akin to the Easter Island Statue Cult.

      It has emerged because the elite, who in Oz happen to be the people who control the Unions and the bureaucrats, it’s different in the UK, are able to use the Marxist academics as a front. Hence it’s these people who abuse their position of trust to lie blatantly. Therefore thye have to be shut up by making them legally liable.

      In the UK, the UEA is the centre of Marxist/Fabian Common Purpose movement which I suspect Rudd and Gillard belong to, essentially a replacement for freemasonry by the left. This is the link up with EU carbon trading and Obama. There is also in the UK a connection to the Wiccan witchcraft cult.

      The windmills and carbon trading are in reality the destruction of the honest working class, with power and wealth going to the new elite who own the windmills with the rest just serfs.


      Report this

      798

      • #
        Ricardo K

        Awesome conspiracy theory. Windmills and Marxist Fabian witchcraft? Please explain. [SNIP. IF you are going to blather with OT snark, you might get away with it at the bottom of a long thread. Please don't dominate or dilute threads. Commenters must self-censor. - Jo]


        Report this

        1089

        • #
          Ace

          [Snip. This thread is not about Ricardo or Ace. For the sake of the thumbs, these comments are at #61. No more. please. Jo]


          Report this

          382

          • #
          • #
            Ricardo K

            [SNIP]

            038

          • #
          • #
          • #
            wes george

            One or two commenters on the postings about “Dr.” Helen Caldicott on the unspeakable ABC and “Dr.” Tony dePress at the “University” of Tasmania have whinged that one ought not to seek to get “scientists” struck off or dismissed just because they have flagrantly breached professional ethics, lied, cheated and committed scientific fraud.

            Lord Monckton has enough bona fide grievance to employ a law firm for years to come. And he’s well within his right to seek remedy. I sympathise with the individual injury and pain he’s suffered and wish him the best of luck with a very fickle court system, which we would do well to remember is just another government bureaucracy chalk full of its own inane legal technicalities and systemic biasing factors, which render the courts the arbiter of last resort for “the truth” especially scientific truths.

            Lord Monckton’s post above has not answered to the “whinges” of the “one or two commenters” who expressed concern that the tactic of using the courts to go after scientists and academics for “lies, cheating and committing scientific fraud” may backfire by playing into the hands of Greens who are currently proposing further limits on political speech in parliament.

            No one questions anyone’s individual right to seek legal redress in matters where they have been personally defamed or slandered, but if it is elevated to a general principle that our political opposition should be systematically prosecuted for fraud it raises some concern for the effect this emerging gestalt might have for the larger political climate and our civil liberties in the long run.

            In fact, Lord Monckton avoided even mentioning the topic of how a policy of using the courts to challenge warmist political speech might help erode our civil liberties and national discourse in the longer term, if only by promoting a less than liberal understanding of the role of free speech, no matter how ignorant or wrongheaded, in a free society. This is particularly worrying, as Lord Monckton’s admirers are the same people one might expect to have the best understanding of the value of jealously guarding our civil liberties, especially the right to free speech and the right not to have our private property seized by the government or suffer imprisonment for our political advocacy. Lord Monckton by making public statements in support of imprisoning lying, cheating climate scientists, bureaucrats and other who offend “The Truth” without elaborating a coherent philosophy in support of free expression leaves the waters very murky and may result in one of two things 1. Conceding the high ground of defending free speech to the Greens. (unlikely imo opinion) 2. Channel tacit support to the Greens attempts to curb free speech from the very people who should be most opposed to limits on free speech.

            Bear in mind that Lord Monckton is well within his individual right to sue the bejesus out of whoever he wants for whatever reason, however, I’d like to spell out one reason why adopting this as general approach by the skeptical community might be poisonous to the overall political climate.

            First, let’s recall that the political climate in Australia as set by the Labor/Green government and the state-owned media is highly toxic to our rights to freely express ourselves… Already, many Australians are happily engaged in a debate about how to further limit our right to freely express our opinions in the public space so as to “protect the rights of others” not to hear ideas which challenge their worldview or identity. Much of the discourse centres on limiting “untrue” speech. Naturally, the government reserves the “right” to determine what is true and what is not. The gestalt of Monckton’s highly public legal challenges is to tacitly approve of the government’s (illegitimate, in my view) role in arbitrating “truth” and punitively regulating political speech.

            Laws are being considered in parliament, which would outlaw all speech that isn’t so innocuous that no one could claim to be “offended.” And if charged with “offending” someone, you’ll have to prove that you’re innocent, thus the law as proposed was to also reverse the burden of evidence. Of course, it’s impossible to prove you didn’t offend someone because their word is rolled-gold proof that you did. There are also laws pending in parliament to limit media ownership to favour those who best please the government. And already Australia has “racial vilification” laws, which have been used inappropriately to shut down national debate on topics the government wants to shield from public scrutiny.

            The civil liberty climate in Australia is the worst it has ever been in the entire history of federation. The Greens especially want to literally outlaw all speech that is “untrue.”

            Into this toxic political environment waltzes a new meme, which threatens freedom of political speech, this time from the right-of-center politically. As expressed here… “Liars, cheats and climate fraudsters” should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law. Paradoxically, the Greens believe exactly the same thing.

            Shocking, isn’t it? The Greens and some skeptics have finally found common ground. Only the truth should be allowed to be spoken in public!

            Hold on a second – you’ll no doubt interject – the skeptics are right, we are literally in possession of “THE TRUTH”, the Green’s truth is a Lie and a Fraud, so why not use the full force of legal truncheons to bash those who LIE. Although it’s based upon the questionable assumption that courts are reliably friendly arbiters of “the truth.”

            …but have the unintended consequences been considered?

            What are the larger political implications of a righteous faith in The Truth and government’s coercive powers to enforce The Truth over the liberty to be wrongheaded and ignorant?…Could seeking to punish speech which is not “true” quickly degenerate into… ONLY THE TRUTH MAY BE SPOKEN.. ?

            I’ll leave it to your imagination as to why this might not be a healthy direction for our nation and why it is utterly the antithesis of skepticism to believe “truth” should not have to suffer challenge by “lies.”


            Report this

            189

          • #
            Streetcred

            @Wes. Wes I normally enjoy your missives but in this case you are dead wrong. The Courts are our defence against the abuse of free-speech. Australians get walked all over by the ‘ruling class’ of latte sucking chattering socialists constantly complaining and bringing false allegations against the purveyors of TRUTH. They have enjoyed the support of numerous corrupt regulating commissions and shonky judicial representatives in suppressing any degree of dissent … Conroy’s most recent rants are a fine example of what is install for us under this Fabian/Marxist coalition regime called the Federal Government.

            I’ve had a gutfull of this BS of turning the other cheek because it would be the “antithesis of skepticism” … I’d rather not be shackled by socialist policies relying on your superior interpretation of “skepticism” to harness this nation to its form of modern day slavery.

            Get one thing straight, this is not about science, it is about socialist domination … Science is a spectator and the scientists involved have become useful idiots. It will take scientist a very long time to recover their reputations and social standing following the capitulation of Science to greed and lust for a few dollars of funding … they are the modern Judas’ who have betrayed Science for a few pieces of silver.

            The fight against the corruption of Science does not take prisoners.

            All strength to the good Lord Monckton !!!


            Report this

            405

          • #
            NoFixedAddress

            @wes george 12.12pm

            Dear Sir,

            Chamberlain advanced a similar argument, for his time.

            It then took a fair bit of the then known world to ‘fix’ that particular ‘problem’ Chamberlain claimed he had fixed!

            Hopefully Lord Monckton, for a Lord he is, can put some ‘British steel’ into the arguments and lead the way for a host of others that have been similarly maligned.

            I am all for robust debate, in or out of court.

            Kind Regards
            NFA


            Report this

            174

          • #
            wes george

            Streetcred,

            The only remedy “against the abuse of free-speech” is more free speech.

            No one asked you to turn the other cheek. Quite the opposite. Punch back twice as hard.

            I encourage you to stand up and fight the political good fight with everything you got. But it would best to not to self-harm while in the battle with socialist bastards by adopting their limits on our liberties as your standard battle cry against them.

            You can not fight tribal groupthink by playing by the rules of tribal groupthink without promoting the methods of tribal groupthink.

            If we surrender what we are fighting for in the battle, then what have we left to fight for?

            We do remember what we are fighting for. Right?


            Report this

            131

        • #
          Ace

          Ricardo: “Oh right, the 15 green thumbs and counting for the comment at 1.1 were ironic, were they? Gee, we need a way of indicating that, to stop fickos like me getting confoosed.”

          I didnt say you missed irony…I used an inability to perceive irony as an illustration of a person who takes things literally, without the subtlety of comprehension to understand figuration or analogy or allusion. The fact that you mistook what I wrote as saying the comment should be thought ironic SIMPLY PROVES MY POINT.


          Report this

          100

          • #
            Ace

            [Snip Ace, you make fair points, but we should have snipped comments with-little-content sooner. Too many comments about commenters - especially anonymous ones - dilutes the threads. Comments that explain tactics that divert threads are welcome. Thanks. - Jo]


            Report this

            70

          • #
            Ricardo K

            [snip. The thread is not about Ricardo or Ace - Jo]

            Anyway, none of this changes the fact that too much CO2 can mess about with the climate, but it’s not too late. We can slow things down, give up smoking, and have a better chance of living until our kids grow up.

            But Monckton isn’t helping. In my opinion, he’s a deluded tosspot [SNIP... Ricardo, you are not contributing by spouting off stuff you have no evidence for. - Jo]


            Report this

            162

          • #
            Backslider

            Anyway, none of this changes the fact that too much CO2 can mess about with the climate

            Where is the proof of that? You say its a fact, so where is the proof?


            Report this

            331

          • #
            Ace

            This RICARDO is really quite funny, …even AFTEr my quip about “I told you a million times dont exaggerate”…even AFTER I had to explain that to him, even AFTER I hadto explain the explanation…he then remains so cluelessly thick and incomprehending of English prosidy or any kind of literary technique as to REPEAT the numb-nut thing that I had illustrated in all the above, by writing:

            “Don’t you hate it when you think of something you should have said? Happens to you a lot, doesn’t it Ace? Hence the double-posts, …”


            Report this

            110

          • #
            Ace

            ….Doh!…he juss doan geddit duzzy!


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Ace

            a bit more of RICARDO:
            “Mate, I don’t miss irony at all, not since I got wrinkle-free shirts. But I am a bit disturbed by your obsession with Cat, mon. You sound more and more like Rimmer all the time….”

            Well I explained several posts back why THERE WAS NO IRONY ALLEGED on my part, but hes just to thick to geddit. Just as he doesnt get either the meaning of those phrases or the joke written into Red Dwarf when they gave that character his name.

            Maybe he needs someone to give him a bit of CBT.

            However, his last paras, self-parodying as they are, really reveal the vacuity behind the mask: Ricardo doesnt give a monkeys about the climate, he.s just some pissabout with excess timeon his hands. Whats it called now…


            Report this

            40

          • #
            Ace

            …thjats it, “troll”.


            Report this

            20

        • #
          laborofsydney

          These endless spats are boring. Why not restrict the number of “comments” this kind of repetitious person can make about any particular post. Say 3.

          I strongly support Christopher. He is a brave man.

          [Thanks. CTS and I have both done a lot of SNIPPING> People need to self-censor, and Ricardo especially will need to show he can in future. - Jo ]


          Report this

          71

    • #
      wes george

      A senior Australian police officer specializing in organized-crime frauds tells me the pattern of fraud on the part of a handful of climate scientists may yet lead to prosecutions.

      When the cell door slams on the first bad scientist, the rest will scuttle for cover. Only then will the climate scare – mankind’s strangest and costliest intellectual aberration – be truly over.

      Lord Monckton

      What? Just a handful?….Once a change of government finally happens it’s time to round up and arrest all academics, climate researchers, BOM sods, windmill investors, government officials, including members of parliament, journalists, media personalities, teachers, bloggers and blog commenters who knowingly, willfully and maliciously misrepresented the climate truth. The truth as defined by Science!

      Then the police will be called in, and any regulator failing to investigate my complaints will be prosecuted as an accessory after the fact of organized, systematic fraud.

      Of course, the police don’t have the manpower required, so the ADF will be seconded to help with the round up and detention of the climate change liars…The mass trials should be broadcast live on the ABC as a warning to anyone who in the future might be tempted to LIE! …OK, the ADF will also have to man the TV studio as 99% of ABC staffers will be in the dock.

      By prosecuting all CLIMATE LIARS to the fullest extent of the law — and hopefully adding robust new laws to protect the truth so that government can better ferret out and punish untruths of all varieties more efficiently, perhaps eliminating time consuming archaic due process — we will guarantee that in the future only the truth will safe to utter outside the privacy of one own’s sound-proof basement. A world full of nothing but the truth, imagine how prosperous the farmers and fishermen and housewives once driven off their land by LIES will be!


      Report this

      295

      • #

        Wes,

        The whole point of the lies and misrepresentations apart from the money is to make the visual image of that hockey stick or the polar bear on a floe or icebergs melting the metaphor that filters the next Generation in power’s perceptions of the issue. In the social sciences deliberately cultivated false beliefs are still consequential in driving and changing future behavior. Get money now and change the future.

        I have been researching Systems Thinking and have been able to nail down the confessions that creating the driving conceptual filters that encounter daily reality and skew it as desired is exactly what is intended in education and this CAGW hyping. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/aspiring-to-create-new-habits-of-mind-and-mental-models-suitable-for-a-new-culture-society-and-economy/ explains it using the actual words of two of the futurists the UN’s IHDP, the International Human Dimensions Programme, says the UN relies on to get desired changes globally.


        Report this

        112

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Robin,

          If you are really interested in Systems Thinking, you should do a search for Elspeth Campbell on LinkedIn. She, and some others, do not share the normal group-think around that particular field. Climate Science is not the only field where dogmatism reigns.


          Report this

          20

          • #

            Thank you Rereke. Just saw your comment.

            And I have to be interested in systems thinking. It is literally how our schoolchildren are being trained to think. Seeing the world in terms of relationships that do not actually exist. But that work well to change future behavior.


            Report this

            10

      • #
        Joe V.

        Wes,
        You are confusing free speech and professional misconduct.
        Monckton is going after misconduct from professionals, who should know better and because their professional standing gives extra credence to their claims. If their professional bodies won’t hold them to account then that professional body may itself need holding to account. And if those whose job it is to and because their professional standing gives extra credence to their claims. to account, then they should be held to account.

        The personal slights are incidental, though may be used as evidence of the said questionable professional behaviour.


        Report this

        120

        • #
          wes george

          Joe V.

          You’re confusing litigation for debate.

          If you define professional misconduct as people saying stuff you think is total crap, well then just about every “professional” (whatever that is) deserves to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law by some aggrieved party.

          You’ve completely missed the point… If you deny your opposition the power of free speech then you have also denied yourself the power of free speech.

          Duh?


          Report this

          01

          • #
            Eddie Sharpe

            With professional standing comes responsibility. That’s why professional’s behaviour can be expected to stear clear of talking ‘total crap’ , as you so nicely put it.


            Report this

            10

      • #
        mullumhillbilly

        Wes, did you forget to close with /sarc.?


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Dennis

    Which leads me to SBS News: January 2013 is the hottest since records began (early 1900s). Oh really, could this be weather related, could weather be influenced by Earth cycles, could weather be variable?

    Climate change: SBS also reported that the planet is warming …… the propaganda continues to ignore the facts.


    Report this

    391

    • #
      shirl

      Check out the same drivel on “tonights” ABC news(propaganda) Blatant effing lies again about hottest ever and record temps


      Report this

      343

      • #
        Ricardo K

        Yeah. Who’d believe a journalist like Jo Nova or Chris Monckton? Let’s see what the experts at the Bureau of Meteorology say: Bureau of Meteorology confirms it’s been the hottest summer on record.


        Report this

        671

        • #

          Been cold and cloudy here in Toowoomba the last month.
          The BoM are a branch of organised crime aka the Australian Government.


          Report this

          413

        • #

          For real!! Note to self. Must vote Labour.


          Report this

          220

        • #
          Ace

          Ricardholder says:
          “…Let’s see what the experts at the Bureau of Meteorology say: Bureau of Meteorology …” (known as the Metereological Office in the UK) say: No warming for sixteen years.


          Report this

          472

          • #
            Ricardo K

            [snip. mindless. OT]


            Report this

            029

          • #
          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            If you go to the official Met Office site at http://www.metoffice.govt.uk/climate-change/policy-relevant-science/the-climate-in-2011, And enlarge the graph entitled “Global near-surface temperature”, you can see that temperatures have remained constantly fluctuating around an anomaly of 0.45 since 1997 until at least 2011.

            That was a 14 year period with no appreciable warming, and yet CO2 emissions continued to rise. I have heard no comment from the UK Met Office that the lull in temperature variation has changed. I would be interested if somebody could point me to a bona fide report that does.

            One final point. Please notice that the URL includes the phrase “policy relevant science”. Many people take this to mean that the science is presented in a form that meets the policy requirements. In climate science nothing can be taken as an absolute fact.


            Report this

            72

          • #
            SimonV

            …except the UK Met Office didn’t say that!

            You should show more scepticism of stuff you read on the internet: some of it is inaccurate!

            “The latest decadal forecast, issued in December 2012, show that the Earth is expected to maintain the record warmth that has been observed over the last decade, and furthermore a substantial proportion of the forecasts show that new record global temperatures may be reached in the next 5 years.”

            http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/decadal-forecasting


            Report this

            43

            • #
              Brian H

              “Maintain” is distinct from “increase”. It’s stopped increasing. It is no longer warming. AGW validation requires increase, and in fact accelerating increase. FAIL.


              Report this

              10

          • #
            Wooster

            Yes, SimonV

            Taking into account that ten of the warmest years have occurred since 1998 – 2005 and 2010 tied for warmest years on record.

            “No warming” translates into the reality of a plateau at “record temperatures”.


            Report this

            32

          • #
            SimonV

            Wooster, have you asked an expert for their opinion on whether what you just said is sensible or not?

            The last La Nina was the hottest La Nina on record. That’s not really pointing at any kind of “plateau” that I can see…


            Report this

            15

        • #
          bananabender

          Brisbane has just had the coldest summer in decades.


          Report this

          201

          • #
            Ricardo K

            Source for that, BB?

            Eldersweather.com.au reports average max for Brisbane in Dec 2012 was 30.5, 1.3 above average. For January 30.5, 0.3 above average. February was 28.5, 1.5 below average. Those averages are 2000-12, btw.


            Report this

            120

          • #

            Purely anecdotal I know; but relatives living in Cairns and Brisbane confirm that this Summer is wetter and cooler than usual. Flights were being cancelled because of the rain. Confirmed in a Skype call from Brisbane airport last week. Locals were complaining about the ‘cold’ (20 degrees Celsius!)

            But I’m sure it’s all because the ‘Earth has a fever’ /snark


            Report this

            20

        • #
          John Brookes

          But Ricardo, any evidence in favour of AGW has been cooked up as part of the great big conspiracy. So you never need to change your mind, Its easy once you get the hang of it.


          Report this

          540

          • #
            Sonny

            Smart est thing ya said


            Report this

            40

          • #
            Eddy Aruda

            So, John, what evidence is there of CAGW?

            The chairman of the IPCC has confirmed the finding of the UKs Met office that there has been no warming for 17 years. That means that every claim made about global warming effecting change on the weather or biosphere are absolute BS because there was no warming!

            The shortest list in the world has got to be citation(s) by John Brooks to bolster his “appeal to authority” belief in CAGW!


            Report this

            481

          • #
            Ian H

            The evidence I really want to see John, is evidence of the existence of these positive feedbacks; the ones that are supposed to turn the harmless mild warming from the direct effect of CO2 into a runaway global catastrophe. My mind is not closed. All you have to do to convince me that global warming might actually be a real problem is to produce some evidence that this absolutely critical conjectured positive feedback exists. All evidence that I have seen so far actually suggests that feedback is negative.


            Report this

            380

          • #
          • #
            Streetcred

            jb, I had an annoying little sister like you … she eventually got married and is now annoying some other undeserving bloke.


            Report this

            60

          • #
            SimonV

            Why would people continue spreading this myth about a “UK Met Office” finding that was invented by a journalist?

            http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/decadal-forecasting

            The latest decadal forecast, issued in December 2012, show that the Earth is expected to maintain the record warmth that has been observed over the last decade, and furthermore a substantial proportion of the forecasts show that new record global temperatures may be reached in the next 5 years.

            How embarrassing, Eddy – what would Monckton say?


            Report this

            12

        • #
          PeterB in Indinapolis

          The Australian land-mass covers approximately 2% of the globe. Even if you did have the “hottest summer EVAH” down there (which is a subject of great debate), it didn’t affect things much globally.

          Regional weather is not climate.


          Report this

          161

          • #
            SimonV

            The logical outcome of your argument is that there was no such thing as any “Mediaeval Warm Period”.

            Regional weather is not climate.


            Report this

            21

        • #
          Alice Thermopolis

          Article in today’s Australian – “Country left dry or drenched as hottest summer ends”.

          According to Dr Blair Trewin, a climatologist at the National Climate Centre, two factors drove the abnormal heat: a weak and inconsistent tropical monsoon and persistent high pressure over the southern half, which blocked cooler changes.

          “When the monsoon is more active there is widespread rain in the tropics and that cools things down…but that didn’t really happen this year.”

          Alarmists therefore have to show the monsoon was “less active” this year because of increased AGHG emissions and/or AGW.

          And where is the causal linkage between atmospheric carbon dioxide content and the perisistent high pressure over southern Australia?


          Report this

          60

          • #
            SimonV

            So what you’re saying, is – it’s just weather.

            Fair enough.

            What about the fact that three times as many hot records are being broken as cold records?
            Just weather?

            The dwindling number of frost nights?
            Weather?

            If it’s all “just weather”, why is it that the past decade is the hottest decade on record – shouldn’t we have a year that is as cold as a year in the 1980s?


            Report this

            35

  • #
    Tristan

    He’s leaving a wake behind him. He’s called for one Doctor’s deregistration, and one university Prof to be investigated for fraud

    Doesn’t quite appear to be a wake, or even a ripple…

    As for the masquerading about as some avatar of justice, it shall surely be entertaining if he lives up to his words and attempts to take people to court.


    Report this

    786

    • #

      Well Tristan I’m going to enjoy it. You mightn’t. You see, he’s already taken people to court, and won. He might not be my favourite personality, but I hope he skewers the lying low lifes.


      Report this

      805

      • #
        SimonV

        Would this include his imaginary “win” against Monbiot for $60,000?

        What about Professor Abraham who made a very long presentation detailing all the things he disagreed with Monckton about – Monckton threatened to sue him and his uni – did that proceed in some parallel universe somewhere?


        Report this

        34

    • #
      John Brookes

      I am not prepared to sit back and let the liars, cheats and fraudsters win.

      You bet he’s not – he’s out there fighting the good fight with them!


      Report this

      584

      • #
        [SNIP]

        Good to see you agree with his stance for once, in fighting against your ilk. But you still get a thumbs-down.


        Report this

        71

      • #
        Neville

        Oh John, really! Are you seriously suggesting that a host of dedicated scientists (and non-scientists), and the bigger host of extensive reports, all presenting actual factual data, are all lumped in a category of “liars, cheats, and fraudsters”??? I am not aware of your academic specialty, but I think you may possibly be unaware of a historical paradigm called “scientific method” !!


        Report this

        140

    • #
      Catamon

      I look forward to the UT investigation results being made public. If daS Monkster continues his tanty and takes them to court will be great theatre. Have to laugh at the freedom with which he uses the “liars, cheats and fraudsters” line though. :)


      Report this

      439

      • #
        Joe V.

        The skill is in using the ‘liars, cheats & fraudsters’ generically though, while calling individuals to account on their specific behaviour.

        Amateurs trying it can get themselves in a right mess.


        Report this

        40

    • #
      Ace

      Tristan…would help you to actually read the article you are attempting to comment on. Lists in some detail the instances where he actually didtake people to court. I wnt sy mre n kp it shrt fo yo as yo cnt read lng stff.


      Report this

      100

      • #
        Tristan

        I read it darling.

        Note the lack of mention of all the times Mann and the UEA were investigated. I don’t recall any legal consequences.


        Report this

        131

        • #
          Joe V.

          Monckton is recounting from his personal experience in such proceedings, not from somebody else’s. He had no such involvement in the Mann & UAE cases.


          Report this

          60

      • #
        Ace

        No…read it BEFORE commenting, not after someone pointed out you hadn’t.

        And whats this “darling” are you a homophobic?

        Maybe they protest too much.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        Ricardo K

        Um, well, I’ll tell you who he didn’t take to court. Al Gore. The case was actually brought by a bloke called Stewart Dimmock, a school governor and a member of the New Party.

        Monckton egged Dimmock on, but did he actually take part in the court case? I can’t find any evidence that he did.

        And let’s review the judge’s actual findings: “Mr Justice Barton yesterday said that while the film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of climate change, he identified nine significant errors in the film, some of which, he said, had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration” to support the former US vice-president’s views on climate change.”

        Now, who else has Monckton threatened with legal action? Well, there’s Professor John Abraham of the University of St Thomas in Minnesota, who pulled Monckton to pieces on YouTube.

        What else? Chris Monckton, while ridiculing Al Gore in the post above for winning the Nobel Peace Prize, was happy to give himself the same label.

        And you take this man seriously? Have you bought any of his herpes cures? You might want to check with a doctor before trusting it.


        Report this

        439

      • #
        Tristan

        How on earth can the word ‘darling’ imply homophobia?


        Report this

        15

        • #
          Ricardo K

          Tristan, Ace got a bit over-heated by the Red Dwarfisms in our early discussion. Fuggedaboudit.


          Report this

          15

        • #
          Ace

          If its used sarcastically…well the sarcasm is acceptable, but some of the gays I’ve known might give you some “instruction” for the implication in the choice of sarcasm. And no, nothing I have written implies disrespect for them, only for those who havent the balls to accept or admit it in themselves. Which is straying way off topic but prompted by the aside.


          Report this

          20

  • #
    Popeye

    Says a lot that an English Lord is prepared to fight against tyranny and socialism against the current Australian government and their socialist supporters on behalf of all honest and hard working Australians.

    I believe he is an honest and genuine good hearted man.

    Pity about our socialist government!!!

    Cheers,


    Report this

    834

    • #
      Ricardo K

      Popeye, Monckton had an association with the New Party in the UK. One of their planks was “internationalism”. Sounds a bit commie to me. But hey, at least it’s not socialism.

      What is that anyway? Any idea?


      Report this

      128

      • #
        Tel

        The explanation of “internationalism” from the New Party in the UK is here:

        http://newparty.co.uk/other-articles/what-internationalism

        They are pluralist and believe in freedom of the individual, they are most certainly not Socialist, and their connection with International Socialism is at the very most a matter of “sounds a bit like” and nothing more. I’m sure you know this perfectly well (as would anyone doing a moment’s research), and your attempt to smear by vague association is both laughable and despicable.

        The connection between Monckton and the New Party is also very minor, basically they agree with his opinions on AGW. Big deal.


        Report this

        30

  • #
    Jack Savage

    I was unaware that the Tim Ball vs Michael Mann lawsuit had been resolved. Does anyone have a link?
    This is surely big news? Why have I not heard of it?


    Report this

    190

  • #
    Skitz

    Lord Christopher Monckton, I am in your corner ! Give em hell !


    Report this

    512

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    Lord Monckton, you appear to me as man of principle. For the many lives that are dependent upon you, I wish you every success.


    Report this

    484

  • #
    Brett_McS

    This is the right approach. The Left’s attitude is that laws are for others – since they are on a righteous crusade – and so can cheat and lie without consequence. Time for a reality check.

    The Concern Trolls are keen to prevent us from “lowering ourselves” and using “dirty tactics” – as if taking some public officer to caught for fraud is beyond the pale – and so maintain their “above the law” status.


    Report this

    242

  • #
    Peter Miller

    The CAGW cult is essentially a monstrous parasite industry which has somehow morphed the mildly interesting phenomenon of man made AGW – something which we do not have a clue how to measure – into the hugely scary concept of CAGW.

    The geological record shows beyond any doubt whatsoever that CAGW does not exist.

    So, it is now all about keeping the ‘climate scientists’ and their media supporters honest. This is clearly something they do not like and Monckton is leading the way here.

    I have to admit I originally thought Monckton was over-reacting with his lawsuits, but now I realise if sceptics had all behaved like him it is probable the CAGW cult would now be in its final death throes.

    If [snip... certain scientists] knew they were going to be sued for blatant data manipulation to produce distorted results in support of crass stupidity like carbon taxes, then they would doubtless stop their manipulations and fade back into the obscurity in which they belong as third rate scientists.

    No wonder the alarmist leaders always refuse to debate well-informed sceptics like Moncton for the flimsiest of reasons, like: “He is not a real scientist, or he is not a real lord”, when in actual fact they mean: “I don’t want to have my ‘science’ publicly sliced and diced and be made to look like the buffoon I am.”


    Report this

    462

  • #

    Love to hear Christoph Dollis’s view on this. Jo makes a very important point in her article. That being that just about the only place left for justice for the defense of SCIENCE on global warming is in a court of law. That’s actually a very sad state of affairs since science is supposed to be self evident. I sometimes wonder if the advent of computers whilst great for true scientists was actually bad for science itself. It gave a sort of legitimacy to shoddy work and the fifth column elements within the scientific community. Politicians eyes glazed over and they dropped the ball badly. The media found fertile ground to indulge themselves in the pessimistic fatalism they so love. I worship people like Monckton. With him I suspect it wouldn’t matter what the issue was, if he felt the truth was being bastardized he would stand up for it. Please show me his oil millions, his kickbacks, any damn thing. Make damn sure you provide incontestable evidence. Dollis may be well meaning but the time has passed for his reasonable stance. It is entirely reasonable to meet force with equal force since reason no longer controls this debate.


    Report this

    372

  • #
    Carbon500

    Bravo Lord Monckton!
    Would that our useless politicians in the UK had had a fraction of your level of insight before introducing the ludicrous Climate Change Act.
    Arthur C. Clarke couldn’t have written a better piece of science fiction than the CO2 story.
    How will it end, I wonder?


    Report this

    172

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    A great deal of division was evident in one of the previous posts concerning the Court Room approach to dealing with the CAGW monster.

    One who was posting there caught my notice, and maybe I was being too suspicious, but he seemed to be

    impeccable discussing the CAGW Fraud and when agreeing about how the warmers were lying BUT he was totally

    against any sort of sanction against them and most noticeably was a constant critic of Lord Monckton.

    The general nature of those posts caused me concern as I saw it, the main thrust of the poster being to rubbish LM on a personal level.

    just an observation.

    KK


    Report this

    140

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    This is the response I got from UTAS relative my complaint regarding the Press interview:
    Dear Rod Stuart

    Thank you for your email in relation to the views of Dr Tony Press reported in the media recently.

    The University of Tasmania, as the only university in Tasmania, plays an important role in encouraging discussion of all issues facing society, in the spirit of inquiry and critical debate.

    UTAS formally recognises the right of staff members to contribute to public debate, and supports open inquiry into controversial matters.

    As part of our mission we are also open to the use of our facilities for properly organised forums, lectures and debates, without necessarily endorsing the views of those speaking at such events. This allowed the hiring of our facilities by the Democratic Labor Party to host Lord Monckton last week.

    In matters of such importance, dialogue is an integral part of the process by which society understands and makes decisions on complex and difficult matters. We encourage courteous and respectful engagement on such issues and support those at UTAS who participate.

    Yours sincerely

    Professor Peter Rathjen

    Vice-Chancellor

    Office of the Vice Chancellor

    University of Tasmania | Private Bag 51, HOBART TAS 7001

    T: 6226 2003 | F: 6226 2001


    Report this

    90

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    I responded thusly:
    “dialogue is an integral part of the process by which society understands and makes decisions on complex and difficult matters’
    BULLSHIT
    Dialogue and discussion are about things that are debatable.
    Everything Press reported to the press is factually incorrect.


    Report this

    151

    • #
      John Brookes

      But why should Press have to play by different rules to the “climate skeptics”?


      Report this

      345

      • #
        Otter

        The word ‘Contempt’ does not begin to describe what I have for you.


        Report this

        151

      • #

        Sigh! You fill space John. Well done. You ARE.


        Report this

        100

      • #
        Ace

        Fair question: Because he is speaking in an official capacity, introduced as such, in a role for which he is paid out of govt funds, which post has ethical conditions attached.

        None of that applies to a member of the public.

        If he wants the same freedom to put an opinion as you or I he simply needs to do so AS a member of the public, not under umbrella of his professional body.

        But of course, if that were the casse, noone in the media would have any interest in talking to him.


        Report this

        110

      • #
        NoFixedAddress

        @john brookes 8.40

        But why should Press have to play by different rules to the “climate skeptics”?

        Exactly John.

        Why should Press have to present empirical evidence for anything, after all he’s an ‘academic’.

        Climate Sceptics are the only one’s that can present evidence!

        Kind Regards
        NFA


        Report this

        31

    • #
      Ricardo K

      That’s RIGHT. Nut them in the head. Kick ‘em while they’re down. Drag ‘em off to the cells and zap ‘em with the Taser. Then you can start asking questions.

      What relative were you complaining about, again?


      Report this

      116

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    It’s quite simple – Australia is sparsely populated. Australia looks like being the EU’s (and the UN’s) laboratory experiment of observing the effects of depopulating an island continent of humans.

    Then why not New Zealand?

    Think about it. Study the methodology of the Fabians and learn what they are up to. CM has.


    Report this

    171

    • #
      NoFixedAddress

      @Louis,

      And why are we still a signatory to the UN?


      Report this

      70

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Good point.

        Australia can do more good in the world by harboring resources that previously went to the UN and applying them as required.

        The flow through rate of funds to worthy targets is abysmal;

        it is an insult to Australian Taxpayers and hardly beneficial to the “recipients” of our support.

        The UN head office, however, thinks it’s wonderful.

        KK


        Report this

        30

  • #
    The Black Adder

    Well said My Lord.

    Bravo to you for all you say… For a Pom, you have a bigger set of Balls and Brains then I have met on an Englishman ever before!! I’m with the picture mate :)

    I see on your tour dates you have a couple of weeks off from Qld to New Zealand.

    Any, any chance of u coming up to Cairns, Far North Qld for a special visit and talk??

    I’ll make sure you get a taste of the best Coral Trout you’ve ever tasted …

    Nothing beats our Coral Trout or our women for that matter !! Sorry Jo :)

    The Black Adder is willing to abdicate local judicial responsibilities for the day or two you are here in the north…. I trust you would use it wisely…

    I await your reply, Jo also has my details…

    We need you in Cairns mate, come on up for a beer!!


    Report this

    150

    • #
      Ricardo K

      Blackie, you really want to take a “peer” to the Pier? Let me know when, I’ll bring my hockey stick along.

      (I have been reading through the thread and see that despite your many comments posted you say little of value and frequently waaay off topic that I am now prepared to start deleting your comments entirely if you continue to waste our time with your off topic comments and getting others to follow your bad habit on being off topic) CTS


      Report this

      018

    • #
      NoFixedAddress

      @The Black Adder,

      I second your request and I am sure there are many more in Cairns that would be pleased to hear him speak.

      Jo has my email if you need a hand to help organise.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    Matt J

    PRAISE THE LORD! This man is a REAL activist. He does things, he doesn’t sit and whinge. Taking the letter in and making them sign for it – this exemplifies for me a man of experience with a practical knowledge of the system. As opposed to a twittering gen-y whinger who communicates in half-sentence cliches.

    Monckton demonstrates that an eccentric of the left is a figure of worship, while an eccentric on the right is an object of ridicule.


    Report this

    232

  • #
    Ricardo K

    In my opinion, this is a hilarious piece of self-serving twaddle, just like Mr Monckton’s previous post.

    It isn’t just the BBC that thought “Lord” Monckton lost his court case against the BBC.

    And he isn’t a member of the House of Lords, despite his protestations. I can say I’m the full-forward of the Collingwood AFL team (although I never take the field and they won’t let me train with them), but I reckon if I said it often enough, Nathan Buckley would probably send me the same sort of letter that the Clerk of the Parliaments sent Mr Monckton in 2011. “I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not,” the Clerk of the Parliaments told Mr Monckton.

    Finally, just as <a href="“>Australians have been sceptical of his climate claims, I must say I am sceptical about Mr Monckton’s claim that has cured himself of thryotoxicosis or, as Jo put it, Graves disease. Actually, Graves’ disease, but whats an apostrophe between friends?


    Report this

    753

    • #
      Mark

      Yawn…….zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


      Report this

      181

      • #
        Joe V.

        I second that. If Christopher hadn’t been essentially cured of Graves’, then he wouldn’t be touring, the Global Warming Alarmists would still be in the ascendant and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.


        Report this

        91

    • #
      Louis Hissink

      Your reply is essentially an ad hominem, and artfully put but, none the less, an ad hominem; to this you join an enlarging corps of trolls here who excel in one skill – that of Messenger Shooting. That makes you rather stupid.


      Report this

      282

      • #
        • #
          cohenite

          The “young statisticians” were neither young or statisticians; I made this comment on that thread you link to:

          The usual insults about Monckton’s title; he is a hereditary peer entitled under the English system to call himself a Lord. What Lord Monckton [LM] cannot do is sit in the House of Lords [HOL] because the 1999 House of Lords Act capped the number of Lords who can sit. However if a vacancy occurs in the HOL LM can put forward his candidancy, as can any other hereditary or life peer.

          This complaint is a recurring and fatuous one.

          The more substantive complaint about LM’s interpretation of a graph is also wrong. The graph is this one:

          http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/image102.jpg

          This graph used by the IPCC is egregious in purporting to show an increase in the rate of temperature increase over the 20thC. This is End Point Fallacy, as any statistician would know. It is plain that the longer time period has a linear trend much less than the trend at the end of the data because the longer period features temperature decreases as well as increases. At earlier points on the data, notably from 1910-1940 the trend is as great as the end point trend from 1976 as this graph shows:

          http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1976/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/trend

          A statistical interpretation of climate data is only relevant if it is associated with real physical and climate events. The similarity of temperature increase between the early and late 20thC is due to climate cycles based on ENSO and PDO. What the IPCC graph simply shows is temperatures increasing in the warm, El Nino, part of the cycle without taking into account that temperatures DECREASE in the La Nina part of the cycle.

          LM has explained this numerous times; no wonder he got annoyed when self-described statistical experts argued the point.


          Report this

          322

          • #
            Ricardo K

            So you think a university lecturer in statistics is unqualified to debate statistics with a menswear retailer with a degree in classical architecture? And you don’t think 22 is young? Why else would Monckton call her a child, unless he was trying to belittle her age?

            Your first graph shows a 25-year temperature increase of 0.177 degree C +/- 0.052 per decade. The second one shows nothing relevant.

            The La Nina-dominated years of 2008, 2011 and 2012 were hotter than the El Nino years of 1983, 87, 92, 95 and every one before that. Check it out.

            As for your defence of Monckton “lordship”: I’m a member of the Collingwood football club, so theoretically they could call me up too. There’s as much chance of that as there is of Monckton getting elected to the House of Lords. He’s as popular with them as Julia Gillard is with the Australian electorate.


            Report this

            338

          • #
            cohenite

            The first graph is not mine but the IPCC’s, knucklehead, and it is a classic example of End Point Fallacy, which you have ignored.

            Your comment about the more recent El Nino years being warmer than the previous ones shows a basic lack of understanding of the fact that the 20thC featured 2 El Nino periods and only one La Nina period which is in itself sufficient to explain all the temperature increase, especially since the El Nino periods were also asymmetrically warmer than the La Nina periods were cooler; see Sun and Yu, Monahan et al, and Okumura et al.

            You are obviously a troll and your analogy between LM’s status and yours at your AR club is puerile.


            Report this

            292

          • #
            Tristan

            End Point Fallacy huh?

            Perhaps you can explain what that is, or link to somewhere that does.


            Report this

            117

          • #
            Tristan

            I’m glad that a lot of “skeptics” have hung their hat on AMO driving climate. Because we’re supposed to be in the middle of a cooling period now…that doesn’t seem to be happening. They’re hanging their hat on the next few years providing a measurable downwards trend.

            The problem for them is, if the AMO is a supposedly 60 year cycle, then the period from 1953-2013 captures that cycle. Currently that trendline is 0.13C/dec and its only going to go up.

            Ask a “skeptic” what they’ll think if that number continues to rise and they won’t have an answer. Their position is unfalsifiable; if you satisfy any claim they have, they’ll just switch claims.

            I dare a “skeptic” to name the conditions that would cause them to change their mind.

            If sea ice extent, sea level, 0-2000m OHC and Surface Air Temperatures all get back to 1990 levels, I’ll totally reverse my position.

            Hell I can probably do you better than that. If the 30 year trend from your favourite dataset, UAH, drops below .1C/dec I’ll swap sides!

            Anyone game to state their own conditions?


            Report this

            519

          • #
            PeterB in Indianapolis

            Tristan,

            Considering that global sea ice area is currently about 400,000 square kilometers ABOVE the 1979-2008 average, and is approaching the 1990 level, you may not have to wait very long for that condition to be met.


            Report this

            170

          • #
            cohenite

            Tristan, you can google endpoint fallacy; a simple example would be a running mean based on a trend which is contradicted by the end data; take these numbers:

            10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10

            A 6 point running mean will still be showing a trend increase after the last 15 even though the data is decreasing.

            AGW has been disproved Tristan, as you well know. Your conditions are still dependent on corrupt data so you are being disingenuous in naming them.


            Report this

            151

          • #
            Tristan

            Cohenite

            Is your problem that linear regressions don’t detect changes in trend?


            Report this

            25

          • #
            Tristan

            Cool Peter, only 3 more to go!


            Report this

            05

        • #
          Louis Hissink

          Ricardo,

          Your argument is, firstly, wrong. Monckton is a Lord, and entitled to a seat in the House of Lords but under existing political circumstances not allowed to vote.

          The loudest voices complaining this fact are among yours.

          Otherwise your complaints are irrelevant.


          Report this

          201

          • #
            Wooster

            Louis,

            Monckton is entitled to call himself a Lord. However, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that house – something which Lord Monckton does “not” possess.

            It’s got nothing to do with “existing political circumstances”.

            He’s not a member of the House of Lords, fullstop.


            Report this

            46

          • #
            Ricardo K

            Louis, “under existing political circumstances” women have the vote. It’s called the law. The law says Monckton can’t vote, can’t sit in the House of Lords and can’t call himself a member. They said so themselves. Arguing against facts doesn’t make them disappear.


            Report this

            517

          • #
            Tel

            Hugh O’Donoghue, a UK constitutional lawyer and an expert in their arcane peerage laws, has made a public statement that the UK law is firmly on Monckton’s side.

            The House of Lords has issued repeated “Cease and Desist” letters (both privately and on their website) to Monckton, who has ignored every one of them, and the House is yet to test their position in front of a court — even after many years of threatening to do so. I think they might be nervous or something.

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/20/dont-mock-the-monck/


            Report this

            30

        • #
          Louis Hissink

          Ricardo,

          I believe Cohenite has


          Report this

          70

        • #
          Ricardo K

          Cohenite, let me explain it again. El Nino = hot. La Nina = cold. 2008, 2011 and 2012 (cold) were hotter than the (hot) El Nino years of 1983, 87, 92, 95.

          So, cold years in the 21st century are hotter than hot years in the 20th century. Got it?

          Checking your links – thanks by the way for providing them – what they seem to suggest is that hot years are really hot and cold years aren’t very. Meanwhile, the baseline is getting warmer. Is that about right?


          Report this

          118

          • #
            PeterB in Indinapolis

            RicardoK,

            Your penchant for oversimplification is VAST.

            To state that El Nino = hot and La Nina = cold is not even factually correct. Perhaps you should understand the climatic phenomena you are attempting to address before further making a fool of yourself.


            Report this

            131

          • #
            PeterB in Indianapolis

            Your penchant for oversimplification is VAST.

            First of all, your statement that El Nino = Hot and La Nina = Cold only applies to the ENSO 3.4 region of the Pacific, not the entire globe.

            Perhaps you should read some Bob Tisdale regarding exactly what the mechanics of the ENSO variations really are, because El Nino has very little at all to do with “hot” and La Nina has very little at all to do with “cold”.


            Report this

            191

          • #
            cohenite

            Ricardo did you read my post on ENSO asymmetry? Obviously not; as I said ENSO asymmetry and the fact 2 El Nino periods occurred in the 20thC to only one La Nina period explains the temperature trend; it also explains why a La Nina year in an otherwise El Nino period or at the beginning of another La Nina period can be hotter than an El Nino year in an El Nino period.

            Collectively ENSO phases are described as PDO which are explained here.

            Do a little bit of research including, as PeterB suggests, on Bob Tisdale and then come back when you understand a bit more, ok?


            Report this

            60

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Ricardo,

          Nice link and an interesting critique by two young peer review fans:

          ‘The peer review process is the most important aspect of the scientific method.

          Who taught them that? Peer review has nothing to do with the scientific method. Peer review only has something to do with getting published. Usually it’s a screening to be sure you aren’t a heretic bucking the approved party line before they let you get into print.

          It should, of course, be just a screening to weed out trivial papers and find obvious mistakes. But is it part of the scientific method? No. Does it mean your conclusions are accepted as facts? No. Does it mean your conclusions are correct? No.

          What does peer review really mean? Nothing!


          Report this

          252

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          I was there; read my previous comments.

          They were there for one reason only: To confront him and big time themselves in the media and at UNi.

          When so much damage has been caused to so many people by this CAGW disaster, their lack of tact is deplorable.

          KK :)
          ——————————

          It’s interesting that the two students from the University of Newcastle have avoided the principal claims of climate science to focus on a small issue which anybody with any nous knows is a pimple on the backside of Global Warming.

          The real issue for “statisticians”, like myself, is that they avoided
          the statistical evaluation of the principal claims about CAGW which
          could be these.

          1. The temperature of the worlds atmosphere will increase as a result of increasing CO2 levels.

          2. Human combustion of fossil fuels creates large increases of atmospheric CO2 levels.

          3. Increased levels of CO2 are harmful to life on Earth.

          Each of these statements is a Hypothesis.

          Under strict Statistical Process all Hypotheses MUST be falsifiable.

          This means that the claim must be presented in such a way that another
          person can examine and test and attempt to disprove the claim.

          None of the above claims by the IPCC can be examined scientifically because there is no falsifiable hypothesis.

          This does not disprove CAGW, but there has been substantial analysis
          by reputable scientists to show that the proposed mechanisms by
          which CO2 is supposed to “heat” the air are quantitatively ridiculous.

          Further, there are substantial processes in orbital mechanics of the
          Earth in relation to the rest of the solar system, that demonstrate not
          only high correlation, but solid scientifically based mechanisms to
          explain heating and cooling cycles on Earth.

          Even discounting orbital mechanics( which you cant do) the sum total
          of all sources and sinks of CO2 on Earth is categorically behind the
          idea that Human CO2 production is puny and insignificant, even if the
          CO2 Warming Mechanism was real.

          These two statisticians avoided the main issue and chose to nit pick
          which says something about their real feelings about CAGW; it is a
          Cause, not a science.

          As further evidence of their leanings I would point to the frequent
          statistical ramblings of those talking on behalf of the CAGW meme in the media in general.

          Their comments are statistically horrifying but never get criticized.”

          ———————————————————–


          Report this

          30

    • #
      Diane's

      Not sitting in the ‘House of Lords’ does not take away the title of an hereditary peer. A Lord is still a lord with or without a seat in the House of Lords. The removal from the House did not remove the titles. Monckton is entitled it the honorific of lord as he is a viscount.

      It is you who is either misinformed or being dishonest, not Lord Monckton


      Report this

      170

    • #

      Geez Ricardo – imagine yourself trying to call 000 for a member of your family, but having the message constantly tampered with at every turn by the very bullies kicking that member of your family to death, simply because they can.

      You’d be doing exactly what Chris Monckton is.

      Although I would fight to the death for your right to speak your mind, it doesn’t change the fact your last rant was nothing more than repugnant and childish. You’re less a man than you profess.

      Have a nice day.


      Report this

      181

      • #
        Ricardo K

        Olaf, I’ve never professed to be a man. And please, no more fights to the death. I’ve seen them, and the after-effects: in Afghanistan, Palestine and Lebanon for starters. I don’t want you doing that, especially for me.

        Your defence of his “lordship” is bemusing however and extremely odd. To mis-quote a magistrate: “I refuse your application because the argument on which you rely lacks the clarity which you claim”.

        I always have a nice day.


        Report this

        230

        • #
          Louis Hissink

          Olaf, I’ve never professed to be a man.

          Quite. What sub human then?


          Report this

          122

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          And please, no more fights to the death. I’ve seen them, and the after-effects: in Afghanistan, Palestine and Lebanon for starters. I don’t want you doing that, especially for me.

          Good, Recardo, you have a real grip on death and what it means. Now if only your reasoning skills were as good…

          I do profess to be a man by the way.


          Report this

          70

    • #

      We don’t actually give a toss about your AFL credentials son, why did you mention that FFS. His peerage status matters not a jot with me (as if it fecking shouldn’t). What he has to say about rentseekers, frauds and blowhards like yerself milud is of more importance here, listen and have the courage to have doubt.


      Report this

      70

    • #
      Catamon

      Thanks for the links Ricardo K.

      The judge refused the application on the basis that the agreement on which Lord Monckton relied lacked the clarity which he submitted it had.

      Magistrate code for: “You are wasting my time you odious little twit, it doesn’t mean what you say it does, your are wrong, and you lose.”

      Who’d a thunk it??


      Report this

      421

    • #

      You would recognize it as such, all your favourite pollies do it.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Ace

      Just more nasal noises coming from a teenager who has just grown a beard and listens to Radiohead. Sorry, that actually should be “a person with the mentality of a teenager” not “a teenager”, but whither precision where a troll is concerned)


      Report this

      21

  • #
    Dave

    .
    Bullshltter 1: Ricardo K (see above)
    Bullshltter 2: Micheal E. Mann (see Below)

    Presented to:
    Michael E. Mann
    For Contributing to the Award of the
    Nobel Peace Prize
    For 2007 to the IPCC

    1) Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
    2) He did not receive any personal certificate. He has taken the diploma awarded in 2007 to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and to Al Gore) and made his own text underneath this authentic-looking diploma.
    3) The text underneath the diploma is entirely his own. We issued only the diploma to the IPCC as such. No individuals on the IPCC side received anything in 2007.”


    Report this

    180

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    The grim and moralistic Green/Leftists hate Monckton more than perhaps any other skeptic. Everything about him gets under their skin; he knows it and plays it up.

    The Leftists see a man who doesn’t take himself too seriously and make the mistake of thinking that therefore he doesn’t take his work seriously. Wrong.

    He takes it very seriously, and is very well informed, further infuriating the Green fantasists.

    What else can they do but throw ad hominems at him — or threaten to feed him DDT, as one of the posters at Lambert’s Mary Celeste blog suggested during his last Australian tour.


    Report this

    200

  • #

    Has Ricardo K ever added any value to this place? Enough is enough.


    Report this

    111

    • #
      Ricardo K

      A bit of humour perhaps? An alternative viewpoint, I like to think. Some facts. A dose of reality.


      Report this

      324

    • #
      Tristan

      Most people consider that alternate viewpoints add value. Clearly you’d prefer the place to remain an echo chamber.


      Report this

      67

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Most people consider that alternate viewpoints add value.

        And so do I. But I want to see real empirical evidence and sound logical argument for what it means. I want meat and potatoes but instead I get drivel; or worse.


        Report this

        161

      • #
        PeterB in Indianapolis

        Alternative viewpoints only add value under the following conditions:

        1. They are based in fact
        2. They are discussed reasonably
        3. They are logically and cogently presented

        I have no problem with Alternative Viewpoints.


        Report this

        130

  • #

    He and his ilk give us a punchbag to punch. It’s fun, join in.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Catamon

    This will be a bit of a blow for daS Monkers wot?


    Report this

    215

    • #
      Ricardo K

      All that follows is merely my opinion.

      I think Mopckton will ignore the latest evidence. He always does. He’s very clever, and knows that inconvenient facts can be ignored and IF YOU SHOUT LOUD ENOUGH you can intimidate most people, especially scientists.

      And then, if he’s badgered about it enough, he’ll insist that the numbers have been forged.

      If he’s pushed harder, he’ll dismiss it as irrelevant because “correlation does not imply causation”.

      If he’s really presed, he’ll accuse everyone who disagrees of being an ignoramous, a charlatan, beholden to the great global warmist conspiracy which has fiddled the thermometers for decades and melted the ice-caps for fun. He’ll threaten legal action.

      And then he’ll take a bow for his fans.

      But that’s just my opinion, not to be taken as grounds for legal action. Insults, however, are fair game.


      Report this

      431

      • #
        Ace

        Re Rick The Card Holder. The above swaggers with pompous assurance yet conflates climate and weather. He evidently didnt get the memo from his central bureau that such a confusion is supposed to be something only sceptics make (as though they do).

        Then he says: “…IF YOU SHOUT LOUD ENOUGH you can intimidate most people, especially scientists….” BUT that is EXACTLY WHAT HE IS DOING. O ye Pillock of zero self-awareness.

        He sneers at ““correlation does not imply causation”” but that IS a fundamental principle of science, otherwise we would be forced to conclude that night causes sunrise!

        Then he digs deeper into his pit of shite as follows:
        “If he’s really presed, he’ll accuse everyone who disagrees of being an ignoramous, a charlatan, beholden to the great global warmist conspiracy which has fiddled the thermometers for decades and melted the ice-caps for fun.”

        BUT…doh….its the AGW proponents who have claimed the data (cf thermometers) should be cherry-picked because they dont believe the figures (eg, Siberian tree rings) and whilst Antarctic ice area has INCREASED over the last decade Arctic ice has increased in depth.

        I do hope this Rick-o-lallia keeeps dribbling here as his comments offer such opportunity.


        Report this

        120

        • #
          Ricardo K

          Wish granted, Ace me old chuck,

          Shame you didn’t follow the link, which shows that maybe temperatures and CO2 rose and fell in tandem over the past 800,000 years. It’s not a new theory, I heard it a while back. There goes the ‘temperature lag’, one of the dearest fairy tales of the science rejectionists.

          I’m providing links and facts. You’re the one coming up with the sexual deviancy comments. Go for it. If you think I’m too prolific, well, type faster.

          Antartica has indeed added ice. About 20%, off the top of my head, what has been lost in the Arctic. Would you be happy dropping $100,000 on the stock market and getting $20,000 back?


          Report this

          121

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Those 800,000 years of correlation are worthless, Ricardo. Correlation is not causation and those graphs show that the CO2 rise and fall lags behind temperature rise and fall by an average of 800 years. Oops!

            If CO2 is to cause temperature then CO2 must come first, not second. Go back and retake basic cause and effect 101. It’s simple high school logic, really. Temperature change caused the CO2 change or it was only a coincidence. But CO2 could not have caused the temperature change.

            It is convenient to doctor up the theory after someone points out the flaw though, isn’t it?


            Report this

            110

          • #
            Ace

            So far all youve done is blabber and launch the very digression you referred to with all thecrp about Rimmer from Red Dwarf (maybe he gets thattheres a reason for the characters name now) and his mate the catamite coming on with the “darling” this and closet that.

            “Facts”? Huge soliloquys against Monckton that have no remotebearing on the topic he is addressing.

            Ok Ricardo, I understand why Monckton gets on your mammaries. That is all perfectly understandable. But two things:

            Firstly, you cannot honestly say that “your” side doesnt also have such characters, just one David Icke on his own equals a thousand of those caricatures of Monckton. So aint it a bit rich to rant on about the eccentric player on theoppositeteam when many of yourplayers are the basis ofthe very expression “Moonbat”? Thats not to say that faults their arguments. No itsonly you andyour like who one-sidedly go for the eccentricity factor in an attempt to discredit the message by discrediting the messenger. Hardly novel. Hardly bright. Definitely cheap.

            Secondly, doesn’t it occur to you…(rhetorical question there folks)…that Monckton is using all of this maelstrom of attention to get more attention, largely by drawing in those who like yourself cannot as you say “forgeddabudit”. Which is why between the discussion before last and that last one I changed my mind over all the question of titles, etc. The fact he is irritating to you gets your attention. No, you cannnot deny it, we have masses of crap youve written above to prove my point. I dont know anything about you aside from what youve revealed, but I somehow suspect that in your narrowly self-delineated paramaters of acceptable “normality” you aint ever going to recive the level of attention in your life that Monckton does every day simply by breathing.

            When it comes to the actual issues, the message as opposed to the messenger,Sticking links up is not an argument for against anything. Its just whatsomeone does if they cannot make anargument. Links are OK if they add interest. But all trollsdo is say something and then post a link to someone elses argument. Thats pants and pathetic.

            As Roy points out, correlation is not causation, otherwise the fact sunrise always follows darkness would mean that darkness causes sunrise. Doh!

            I do conduct scientific experiments, I do know how to design and interpret them. There are armies of people working in science who call themselves scientist because that is in their job description but who havent aclue as to what science fundamentally requires. You could even be one of them.


            Report this

            60

          • #
            Catamon

            I’m providing links and facts. You’re the one coming up with the sexual deviancy comments.

            Give him a break Ric. Sexual Deviancy seems to be a very important topic for our Ace, and as such we should respect his attachment to it insofar as the moderators permit.

            Unless he slides over the edge into obsession and then we should send out the men in white coats to lock him up with all the liars, cheats and fraudsters in order to better punish them. :)


            Report this

            03

      • #
        inedible hyperbowl

        Christopher has the trolls out in numbers. The reaction by the trolls is indicative of the threat he presents.

        Empirical evidence, mathematics, reason and history versus he “I saw it in a movie” cult.
        One of the many reasons that one should not respond to trolls (as recorded above) is that you cannot have rational discussion with those who can only abuse and quote higher authorities (rather than evaluate empirical evidence and apply deductive reasoning skills). In other words someone who reaches adulthood and has never figured anything out for themselves is not going to start anytime soon.

        So may I suggest that regardless of the passions that the invective might induce, that we do not give them the satisfaction of knowing that they have raised our ire.


        Report this

        140

        • #
          Ricardo K

          Well, I’m taking that personally. Check my links, read a bit, get back to me. This is vapid generalised moaning: “the facts don’t fit my pre-conceived ideas, boo hoo.” Try a bit of learning Bowlie. It won’t kill you. Ignorance might.


          Report this

          214

          • #
            PeterB in Indianapolis

            Ricardo K,

            Global Sea Ice is currently well above normal, and the Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice seems to have hit minimum 5 days early this year and is now growing again even though we are just barely into March. Does that fit with any of YOUR preconceived notions?


            Report this

            90

          • #
            Ricardo K

            Peter B, I don’t know where you’re getting your information from, but you might want to check with Anthony Watts on your claim that sea ice is well above normal. Here’s the combined graphof Arctic and Antarctic for January 2013.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            PeterB in Indianapolis

            RicardoK,

            Come now, come now, stop being silly.

            I get my data directly from NSIDC, and it is updated DAILY. So, what is the point of you posting JANUARY 2013 data, when the CURRENT DATA for March is being updated on a daily basis by NSIDC???

            Maybe because January supports your position a little better than the CURRENT DATA DOES???

            Talk about sad… you gotta use data that is over a month old because the current data shows that the Southern Hemisphere minimum may have been a RECORD HIGH, and since January, Northern Hemisphere ice has grown at a record rate.

            Ah well, I already knew you weren’t very good at factual debate from your previous posts. Thanks for proving that.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        John Brookes

        And in my opinion he is a showman bully in the mould of Julius Sumner Miller and loves being the centre of attention. He’s chose his side in the climate change debate not because he believes what he says, but because he can be a “big fish” in a pond of “skeptical” minnows.

        But thats just my opinion.


        Report this

        328

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          He is in fact a very big fish and he’s swimming in your pond full of scientific minnows. I’d be looking over my shoulder, excuse me, dorsal fin if I were you.

          You can’t argue on the merit of your position but you can do name calling (bully) and act like a child. Well goody for you.


          Report this

          103

        • #
          john robertson

          Which is worth a lot less than we paid for it.
          Thank you for sharing.
          Showman bully? Like we will not show you the data, you just want to find fault with it.
          Like we have scientific proof of CAGW. But neither the public or court may see it, your honour?
          Like, Only I can understand the meaning of those Emails to and from myself, your honour?
          Must be tough wrapping yourself in invisible robes, how is the shallow end of the gene pool?


          Report this

          60

        • #
          Sean McHugh

          John Brookes said,

          Context unimportant (will explain):

          But thats just my opinion.

          And that’s at best and that goes for your other contributions here. You aren’t interested in actually backing up your sneers and ad hominem with evidence. That’s why I say the context doesn’t matter.

          John, you are not only disadvantaged in debate by having the weaker evidence; you are disadvantaged by being weaker.


          Report this

          61

      • #
        PeterB in Indianapolis

        Gee, those ice caps aren’t cooperating with you… NH Sea Ice is only 0.288M Km^2 below the 1979-2008 average, and SH Sea Ice is 0.680M Km^2 ABOVE the 1979-2008 average, so that means that total sea ice is currently nearly 400,000 square kilometers above normal.

        Sorry to shatter your bubble.


        Report this

        111

        • #
          Catamon

          Gee, those ice caps aren’t cooperating with you

          And the ice thickness is….?????

          Pardon the pun, but try not to look at this issue in a one dimensional fashion.


          Report this

          54

          • #
            PeterB in Indianapolis

            Catamon,

            Even the skeptics know that 2007 was a very low year for Northern Hemisphere sea ice, and even the skeptics know that in 2012 there was a massive storm that was centered right over the Arctic for DAYS which destroyed a large amount of the ice and flushed it out into the Bearing Sea where it subsequently melted, which is what caused the record melt of 2012.

            As such, even YOU should know that the Northern Hemisphere sea ice isn’t as thick as it could be, because a lot of the ice is NEW ICE. However, the fact that the ice area in the Northern Hemisphere is near normal is a sign of RECOVERY from the record low of 2012. It is NATURAL and NORMAL that you are going to have a lot of NEW ICE after a lot of the Arctic Ice was destroyed by a Summer Arctic Storm in 2012, yes???


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Catamon

            As such, even YOU should know that the Northern Hemisphere sea ice isn’t as thick as it could be, because a lot of the ice is NEW ICE.

            Yes Peter, even i get that. The “new ice” that is still only going to be 1 year thick ice come next melt season and so highly susceptible to disappearance through melting and break up due to storm action is it?


            Report this

            01

          • #
    • #
      Andrew McRae

      1. The paper is behind a paywall, which means most of us, and probably you, are unable to read the paper and figure out if it is believable or not.

      2. It was published yesterday, so any scientists who know this field and think this result is rubbish have not had a chance to write a response paper, which may not happen for 6 months to a year.

      3. They used a new dating technique based on N2 isotopes and failed to detect a 400 year lag, but you have fallaciously jumped to the conclusion that this means the lag does not exist. It doesn’t matter how many techniques FAIL to detect a phenomenon, the lag phenomenon was real because it was detected by previous analysis techniques.

      4. Show me the error bars. No error bars, no science.


      Report this

      60

      • #
        mullumhillbilly

        Exactly. The statement “here we propose a revised relative age scale” (for CO2 concs and temperature) could probably be rewritten as ” if we assume that unknown invisible forces have shifted the CO2 downwards in the ice cores”… And with that level of logic we can also prove that JB will be the new pope. Until that paper comes out from the pay wall, and others have had an opportunity to critique the methods and successfully repeat the experiments, it remains pure speculation and time lags continue to rule.


        Report this

        20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Understanding the role of atmospheric CO2 during past climate changes requires clear knowledge of how it varies in time relative to temperature. Antarctic ice cores preserve highly resolved records of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the past 800,000 years. Here we propose a revised relative age scale for the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the last deglacial warming, using data from five Antarctic ice cores. We infer the phasing between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature at four times when their trends change abruptly. We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2, as has been suggested by earlier studies.

      What the hell does all that mean? “We infer the phasing between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature at four times when their trends change abruptly.” Infer??? No, no, no! Measurement is believable. Inference is not. :-(

      I can hardly wait for this one to be ripped apart.


      Report this

      80

      • #
        AndyG55

        They have NO empirical proof that raising CO2 levels causes any warming at all in the open atmosphere.

        Vague correlations over a short period of massively adjusted temperatures is about all they have. Since 1998.. zero correlation.

        How long have they been searching and manipulating data……..

        but still, Nada, Zip, NOTHING !!!


        Report this

        60

  • #

    Good on you Lord Monckton – I hope to hear you in person when you visit Brisbane.


    Report this

    191

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      Be prepared to wade through a lot of green slime on the way to the building. Horrible little trolls handing out pamphlets and attempting to block your way.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Alfred Alexander

    When is the BBC going to begin filming their new
    Master Piece Classic “Monkton” ?

    I can’t wait!!!!!

    Alfred


    Report this

    010

  • #
    Tim

    As I would think Christopher Monckton well knows, people should not fear ‘global warming’, but fear instead Agenda 21 for the future of their children and grandchildren.

    CO2 and ‘sustainability’ propaganda is a major step in the process and will not be easily abandoned as they continue to bombard a naïve or complicit mainstream media and their equally gullible consumers with a continuing daily, global onslaught of PR BS. The equally naïve ‘useful idiots’ and the greedy paid mercenaries propagating this fraud should all be held to account.

    Thank you Lord Monckton.


    Report this

    181

    • #
      Ricardo K

      Tim, really? Not Agenda 21 again. Read it and tell me what you hate.

      It is about sustainable development. As opposed to the other kind. What’s that quote: “If you believe in infinite growth in a finite system, you are either a fool or an economist.” There has to be a limit to how much stuff we consume. Environmental impact = population x GDP x energy intensity.

      That doesn’t mean living in caves if we get the third part of that equation right – the first part is sorting itself out. Google “peak stuff”. The UK has recently seen a decrease in the amount of ‘stuff’ it uses, despite increasing population and GDP. We can do more with less. TVs today use half the stuff they did a few years ago, and less power if you’ve got an LCD. Some people like me don’t even bother with a TV, and stream video onto computer screens. Cars are lighter and get better fuel efficiency. Solar panels and wind power won’t replace every coal and gas power station in the world, but they sure help. Local seasonal food is tastier and more nutritious than ‘meat’ lasagne shipped halfway around the world.

      It’s not rocket surgery, and it’s not a plot to steal your identity. Facebook does that a hell of a lot better than the UN ever could.


      Report this

      129

      • #
        Tim

        So you’re OK that there’s a United Nations scheme to surreptitiously seize property rights from people worldwide and pack the world’s populations into tiny micro-cities controlled by a centralized government?

        The scam plans to eliminate national and social sovereignty and enslave humanity under the guise of the “sustainability” BS you have fallen for. Do you enjoy personal property ownership, the ability to travel freely, the ability to live without government intrusion in every area of your life? You might just lose these and many other liberties.

        It’s not just about doing more with less, but maybe doing more research would help.


        Report this

        181

        • #
          Ricardo K

          You didn’t follow the link, did you?

          Tim, check the PATRIOT act if you’re scared of the government. That’ll make you squeal. If you’re in Australia, check out the data retention suggestions floating around.

          The UN isn’t that organised. Or that well-funded. Their job is to stop wars, feed the starving, teach kids, heal the sick and dig wells. Keeps them kind of busy.

          Conspiracy theory: Israel locked up a dual citizen with multiple Australian passports. Proved. Israel and the US developed Stuxnet to mess about with the Iranian nuclear program. Proved. The UN is trying to control your life. No evidence. The US government caused 9/11. Say what? CO2 causes global warming. Proved.

          All I’m asking is that you step outside your box, think a bit. Don’t take my word for it. Do your own research. Go to the source.


          Report this

          215

          • #
            Winston

            CO2 causes global warming. Proved.

            Complete rubbish Ricardo, no such “proof” exists, and those propagating that lie have had ample opportunity to do so and have failed to make a compelling, or even persuasive case. CAGW relies upon an assumption that net feedbacks in the hydrological cycle are positive and amplify the supposed GHG effect of CO2. There has not to this date been any evidence to “prove” or even support this contention whatsoever. You try to conflate various ideas to “prove” this. I would contend that the intention is to obscure the facts and not enlighten, so lets break it down a bit:

            1) CO2 is rising through the 20th century- evidence strongly supports this contention but it is not “proven”, nor is it at all clear that proxies for past CO2 in the pre 1900′s are at all accurate beyond perhaps a rough guide to trends.

            2)Temperatures have been steadily rising since the Dalton minimum as a global average- evidence moderately supports this, noting that the rate of increase pre 1945 and post 1945 (pre-anthropogenic CO2 and post-anthropogenic CO2) are largely unchanged unless one cherry picks end points to confirm a belief. So, there is also much lesser evidence to support an anthropogenic signal, and even if so, to what extent it is an artefact of measurement errors, altered land use and urbanisation, adjustments of dubious merit and objectivity, etc.

            3) That current global temperatures are unusual or outside the natural, largely unexplained variability seen in Earth’s climate since the last glacial period >11,000 years ago. No evidence proves this contention, very little supports it and, in the words of climate scientists, multiple lines of evidence suggest that the Holocene climate optimum was up to 4 degrees hotter than today, the Minoan period was likely warmer, the Roman period was not as warm as the Minoan but close and still likely higher than the current period, and the MWP was at least equivalent to todays temperatures, if not slightly higher. The attempt by Mann et al. to localise and/or downright discredit the MWP was transparently false and has been debunked so often that it is a zombie corpse that refuses to die due to denialists like you, Ricardo. Thousands of peer reviewed papers at “CO2 Science” website show the MWP was global and probably, though not definitely, warmer than today with NO POSSIBLE ATTRIBUTION TO CO2 OR MAN’S INFLUENCE. So just who is not informing themselves, Ricardo? If a theory fails to explain these variations within its framework, then how is that theory “proven” noting that the onus of proof is upon the PROPONENTS of a theory. I’m happy for you to show me how CO2 variations are the main driver of climate change across the last 11,000 years and explain all the rapid climate change fluctuations across the Holocene- I’d love to see that one! In fact the course of temperatures since the last glacial period is tracking down in an arc, with most colder periods being colder than the one before it and most warmer period peaks being less warm than the one before- I think that trend taking a broader view than you are prepared to acknowledge is far more worrying for the fate of humanity.

            I don’t want to ramble further except to say that your case is not proven because you say so. As to Agenda 21 and the UN, let me just say that your comments re the UN show a staggering naivety. The UN, IMF and the World Bank are doing nothing to alleviate world poverty. I see only sovereign nation debt enslavement and propping up 3rd world despots to allow them to further enslave their populations. Money sent to the UN is 75% taken up in administration of itself, it has no interest in global prosperity, alleviating hunger, improving infrastructure, etc. It is a bottomless trough for the snouts of globalist pigs to incessantly feed from. Just where is the evidence that any African country for example has been better off for UN and IMF and World Bank intervention? Funny how the US government can give zero percent loans to the world’s biggest banks to prop them up, yet the poorest countries in the world are exacerbated through interest payments they can ill afford. Your support for that corrupt institution does you no favours at all. It is the place where failed politicians and 3rd world dictators go to die. Any “good” you think they do is a token, as a proportion of their funding it is an obscene joke to kiss up to them so shamelessly- their “achievements” for want of a better word are PATHETIC.

            The Patriot Act- Neo-Con fascism. Obama’s administration has only ramped up Bush’s worst excesses. Cut from the same cloth- Banker tools both- bought and paid for- one just has better speech writers. Both empty soulless vessels presiding over the slow economic death of America.

            Agenda 21- Hitler would have loved it, it enshrines Mein Kampf ideology in one easy to read document – it is the longest suicide note for all of mankind, dictated by morons who have ordained themselves as arbiters of our fate through collective narcissism- a sad end indeed for our civilisation- the end of innovation, creativity, free association of ideas, freedom of expression, ambition, drive to succeed, etc, etc. The only evidence of this is the ability to read- it is spelled out. All command economies devolve into totalitarianism, murder, mayhem and death, only this time on a global scale- all cheered on by the naive self-appointed “intellectuals” such as yourself Ricardo.

            Finally I couldn’t let this go by without comment-

            Environmental impact = population x GDP x energy intensity.

            In short this equation clearly sums up your mindset, and though it may be a false attribution of true causes of environmental degradation and leaves out such things as technological innovation and progress, nonetheless you’ve put it “out there”- so essentially to minimise environmental damage or impact we must do one or all of the following- dramatically reduce the world’s population (ie Global war, genocide, global pandemic or all of the above- charming- look forward to it!), GDP globally needs to be minimised (poverty for all- won’t that just be great for the environment- we can all burn dung and pick fleas off one another for fun- great!- even though evidence shows that the poorest countries have the worst environmental stewardship…..but hey whatever floats your boat) and energy intensity needs to drastically reduce (- so the why are we wasting trillions of dollars on technology that generates nothing and are energy dense in their manufacture and distribution and maintenance?- if the whole world of 7 billion people reverted to a stone age existence, we would not be lessening or environmental impact at all- we would be living in our own filth, preyed upon like wild animals, and the first people to die at the hands of the Alpha males with the warrior genes would be the actors, the poets, the economists and the politically minded imbeciles that drove us there.


            Report this

            141

      • #
        John Brookes

        You are such a mug Ricardo! They make it sound like sustainability and harmless stuff like that, but they will come and murder you in your bed! These guys make Adolf Hitler look half hearted. Next to them Genghis Khan is a slightly nutty uncle. They believe that Mao and Pol Pot had the right idea, but just botched the implementation. And Julia Gillard will lead us into this trap unless we vote for the Mad Monk.

        Oh woe is us. Woe is us.


        Report this

        223

        • #
          Ian H

          They have such good intentions.


          Report this

          20

        • #
          Ace

          Well theyve already killed about 250 million people in the last 50 years through the near total banning of DDT to suppress ||Malaria.

          Thats more people killed by Environmentalists than Hitler, Stalin, Mao and anyone else combined.


          Report this

          72

        • #
          Tristan

          And we all know where that road paved with good intentions leads to, don’t we?

          Rome?


          Report this

          14

        • #
          Catamon

          You are such a mug Ricardo!

          Damn straight. Ric has outed himself as an agent of the forces of evil and darkness come among us to inflict the evil that Sonny has been warning of all these weeks!! Is it any coincidence that this happens just as the Vicar of Christ retires gaga and the hotline to God goes on hold?? I think not!


          Report this

          14

      • #
        PeterB in Indinapolis

        Development is, always was, and always will be sustainable Ricardo.

        Where are the LEAST POLLUTED countries in the world? Well, let’s see, that would be the ones with the highest technological development and the highest wealth.


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Ricardo,

        Prior to what you just said at #26.1 I thought you were a fool. Now you have confirmed my suspicion.

        Let me offer you some advice — people are becoming pissed off at the pointless interference in their lives. You should remember that a pissed off population successfully told the King of England to get lost. Not even his mighty army and navy could stop the revolt. It can happen again.


        Report this

        160

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          Roy, in this new book philosopher Aaron James defines the sort of person these trolls are:
          (1.) allows himself to enjoy special advantages and does so systematically;
          (2.) does this out of an entrenched sense of entitlement; and
          (3.) is immunized by his sense of entitlement against the complaints of other people (p. 5).

          James asks a couple of questions “Why is the [troll] so infuriating, even when the harm he does is slight?” Second — and equally infuriating — “the [troll], unlike the psychopath, is morally motivated. It’s not just “morality be damned, I’m getting mine!” Rather, the [troll] feels morally entitled to special advantages”.
          Since they are only here because they get some perverted kick out of raising Hell, the best strategy is to ignore them. The joy for them is when we react to their nonsense. If they don’t get a response, they will just go away. (That’s my theory, anyhow)


          Report this

          40

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Rod,

            From my point of view:

            Yes, their sense of entitlement is certainly on display — entitled to always be right, their errors notwithstanding. And it’s not just on the Internet either. Infuriating is an understatement.

            But here’s a question back for Aaron James. What do you do when they effectively hijack the discussion, sometimes with the most outrageously wrong statements? What do you do when their every comment is ridicule? Either they own the discussion or a lot of it becomes about them because it’s not a good idea to let nonsense like the replay of 800,000 years worth of ice core data go unchallenged. If we don’t knock it down then that troll looks as authoritative as anyone else. An honest debate is fine with me. I’ve watched quite a few and enjoyed reading intelligent, honest disagreement. But Ricardo isn’t here for honest debate.

            Whatever people end up thinking of Christopher Monkton, his fighting back puts the fear factor back into this business of character assassination, lying, cheating and stealing while hiding behind the authority of a graduate degree or elected office. I think fighting back is a good idea. We may not win this fight but why go down whimpering. If I go down I want to go down fighting.

            I love the name of the book! Very fitting! :-)


            Report this

            30

          • #

            The defining characteristic of a troll is hubris.


            Report this

            10

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Ricardo K

        Where is the source for your formula that demonstrates the relationship between GDP and environmental impact?


        Report this

        100

        • #
          PeterB in Indianapolis

          He made it up because it looked good.

          However, it wouldn’t surprise me if a similar formula was found in the text of Agenda 21 somewhere or other.


          Report this

          50

      • #
        PeterB in Indianapolis

        Please explain why the countries with the least pollution are the ones with the highest levels of development and energy consumption.

        That fact proves your equation to be faulty.


        Report this

        50

      • #
        Carbon500

        Ricardo K : you say ‘wind power won’t replace every coal and gas power station in the world, but they sure help.’
        Here in the UK, the Department of Energy and Climate Change
        publishes its ‘Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics’ or DUKES annually.
        In 2011 the total UK electricity production was 364,897 GWh.
        Of this total, wind power produced a miserable 4% (15,750 GWh).
        We currently have 4,158 wind turbines in the UK cluttering up our seas and countryside. The trade body ‘Renewable UK’ tells us that each turbine ‘saves’ 2000 tonnes of CO2 annually.
        Given that 1 ppm of CO2 is equivalent to about 7.8Gt of CO2,I’ll leave it to you to work out the total tonnage of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the percentage of CO2 these machines actually save.
        Suffice it to say that wind turbines general derisory amounts of power, and save negligible amounts of CO2. They are effectively useless.
        As with the CO2 story, the public are being led by the nose. As always, follow the money.


        Report this

        121

      • #
        Ace

        Why the hell should I or anyone else be forced to suffer as we are for Ricardo and his children? Why should millions starve because crops have switched to fuel stock to supposedly help the prospects of Ricardo and his children? Does he think his precious “sustainable” ideal mmeans human life will continue indefinitely? What an idiot. Earthsresources are so immense they will exist long after human life has been extinguished by any one of many non-human and unavoidable extinction events that lay ahead. Obviously Ricardo knows very little about astronomy or the vulnerability of life on Earth.

        Message to planet Ricardo: if you worry about the future, dont have children, you selfish ba#$%ard! I am worrying about how I am going to pay my Green-taxed utilities bills now whilst my business goes down the pan due to Green-taxes collapsing my client base whilst you piss around in paradise heaping your shit onto our burden. You are a scummy, hypocritical, two-faced, slimy, cheap, nasty little child. I certainly hope you havent children anddo not have them…for their sake.

        What an a$%^&le.


        Report this

        100

      • #
        Backslider

        The UK has recently seen a decrease in the amount of ‘stuff’ it uses, despite increasing population and GDP. We can do more with less.

        Yes, they surely can do more with less. Its called “shivering”….. just ask them.


        Report this

        50

  • #
    Alfred Alexander

    (Snipped) CTS


    Report this

    41

    • #
      Tristan

      (Snipped) CTS


      Report this

      19

      • #
        Ricardo K

        (Snipped all three that were completely off topic that was about thumbs up and down and getting paid for it) CTS

        (There has been many waaay off topic comments today and for that you people are making me a busy moderator who is not happy to see so many bad comments showing up) CTS


        Report this

        010

    • #
      John Brookes

      Yes, but whenever I ask, Jo always says that the cheque is in the mail. I’m all for starting an investigation into Australia Post.


      Report this

      016

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Question Does Brookes get paid by the number of “thumbs down”?

      Either Jo has more patience than I ever would or these guys are paying her for the privilege. But every court must have its jester. Who else would keep us laughing?


      Report this

      70

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    Don’t know what LM’s family motto is but wouldn’t be surprised if it was nemo me inpune lacessit, a rough translation of which is ‘do you think you’re big enough pal?’
    Hopefully, EDF adopt the same motto and continue to prosecute those misguided protesters in the UK who shut down one of their facilities for a week!
    That actions have consequences is a lesson that,sadly, needs hammered home for some belief-blinded individuals!


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Ace

      If most of the sheep followers of AGW agitation were able to see the effects of their actions…death and missery of the innocent and poor…they would, I expect,pack it in straight away.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        …they would, I expect,pack it in straight away.

        If our society had not lost its nerve we would simply be dealing out consequences to these people in the first place. But now we’re afraid to make a judgment, afraid to say anything for fear of… …for fear of exactly what? Why should I care what someone who is out to hurt me might think of me for talking back? If more people simply spoke out it has a very large effect. But not enough will stand up and object.


        Report this

        60

  • #
    Ace

    Aside from residents Brookes and Matb there are a number of trolls who pop up here occasionally. That they have all been frantically posting here together today may be a coincidence, but it could indicate that they are co-ordinating on another site where they aggree their marching orders.


    Report this

    80

    • #
      John Brookes

      Damn, they are onto us!


      Report this

      29

      • #
        Tristan

        Just don’t say anyting about conspiratorial ideation Brooksy, or they’ll know we work with the Prof.


        Report this

        410

        • #
          Ricardo K

          I get my orders from the Doctor. We meet in the Tardis every week. I like K-9′s new coat, don’t you?


          Report this

          411

          • #
            AndyG55

            “I get my orders from the Doctor”

            I’m sure you mean “from your psychiatrist”.

            Poor guy must be working some serious overtime on you..

            but it ain’t working

            You can’t polish a t***…………… or reverse a lobotomy.

            How did they manage a brain transplant with a squid though.?


            Report this

            60

          • #
            Backslider

            or reverse a lobotomy

            I’d sooner a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy……


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            And what does your Doctor order for you, Ricardo? You piqued our interest, now give us the rest.


            Report this

            10

        • #
          Ace

          Come on…Ive seen such “coordination” on Conservative sites, you telling me you dont do it too?


          Report this

          20

          • #

            Note how they came out in force at the flood Post detailing how electrical power reduction didn’t lead to CO2 reduction.

            Obviously then, they agree with what was said. Either that, or they have no response when facts are pointed out.

            No need to baffle them with sierrahotelindiatango, when you can do it with facts.

            Tony.


            Report this

            100

          • #

            Yes, Tony, you raise the subject of one of those “climate events” they’re always cheering for, and mention the failure of their daffy ideas to reduce CO2…and GetUp gets up!

            You should do it more often, Tony.

            Warmies, you will never run out of “extreme weather” and “records ever” and “climate events”. Increased reportage and repetitive spin – you know how to do that, don’t you? – will create an illusion of increasing frequency. When events are fresh, just don’t waste ‘em. Be careful of that Arctic Ice thing though. It’s up and down like a yo-yo. Spread your bets.

            For “extreme weather” to cease would require a massive climate change. So you should be fine forever, or for as long as God keeps making Guardian readers.


            Report this

            40

          • #
            Tristan

            Ace, I’m sure some do!

            Tony, nice attempt to take credit there!


            Report this

            04

          • #

            Tristan,

            It puzzles me that I never see any of you guys to Comment there. When faced with something that goes against your religion, and shows it up for the comedy it is, it seems you all suffer from the Britney Spears effect.

            Tony.


            Report this

            50

          • #
            Tristan

            Tony

            To comment where, on your thread?

            I don’t have much to say on power generation.

            I’m nonreligious and don’t know what the Britney Sears effect is


            Report this

            03

          • #

            Aha!

            Thanks Tristan.

            That actually tells me quite a lot really.

            There’s people who come here to Joanne’s site to be informed. I was like that. I came here, and the more I looked the more I learned. You see, I wanted to know ‘stuff’. So I went looking, even at things I thought I would have little interest in, and you know what.

            I actually did start to learn ‘stuff’.

            I understand that there’s those who come to this site to just kibitz, (look it up) and some who come here just to see the replies to their comments. There’s a lot who just come here, and never leave a comment, but they, like me, learn ‘stuff’

            Then there’s others who come here thinking they are lobbing hand grenades, when in actual fact, they’re not even lobbing one Tom Thumb. (look it up)

            Then there’s others even, who confronted with something that goes against their politics their thinking, they say nothing, or they use the Britney Spears effect. (look it up here at this site)

            And had you actually looked at things here at this site, you would know well what I mean when I say that, because I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve said it.

            So, obviously, you’re one of those people who come here, not to actually learn ‘stuff’, but just to kibitz, lob Tom Thumbs, snigger at the bites you get, and use the Britney Spears effect.

            You guys are just so transparent.

            Thanks again for the insight.

            Tony.


            Report this

            80

          • #
            John Brookes

            I’m not looking it up, but I assume the Britney Spears effect is manifested by a sudden desire to go knickerless in public?


            Report this

            03

          • #
            Tristan

            No problem Tony, but I’m not looking it up either.

            I read stuff on this site and others. I don’t read about every topic, not enough time in the day. I’m more interested in the details of what’s happening than the details of the solution.

            The next aspect of the ‘solution’ that I’m planning on learning about are the ways of estimating, and the estimates for Energy Returns On Energy Invested for the various forms of power generation.


            Report this

            01

          • #

            I’m more interested in the details of what’s happening than the details of the solution.

            Figures!

            Chicken Little attitude that one.

            We have a problem, we have a problem, we have a problem.

            You keep telling us that you know for certain what the problem is, and yet, you couldn’t care less about finding out what the solution that you keep calling for actually means.

            For the life of me, I can’t figure you guys out.

            Tony.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Tristan

            Bit of a poor reading job there, Sonny Jim.

            Certainly didn’t say anything about “not caring less”, in fact I even specified the next topic in the area I was going to look into.

            I was under the strange impression that understanding more about the problem first would give me more context with which to absorb information about the mitigation.


            Report this

            01

          • #
            Catamon

            I’m not looking it up, but I assume the Britney Spears effect is manifested by a sudden desire to go knickerless in public?

            Right i’m up for that! :)


            Report this

            01

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Yep! Brittany Spears’ knickers is about where some of you are thinking — a tragic waste of intellect if you ask me.

            Big score for TonyFromOz! :-)


            Report this

            10

      • #
        Catamon

        So, the challenge for the true disbelievers is now to find the coordinating site where the Collective hatches its evil plots. Are they up to it??

        My promise. If you work it out i’ll confirm when you are correct. :)

        Off you go children.


        Report this

        12

  • #
    Alfred Alexander

    I fear my comment @#25 is being misunderstood.
    I like Monkton. A tv show about his actions would be great.
    MHO BBC execs should be having scripts writen, casts selected ect.

    Alfred


    Report this

    42

    • #
      Catamon

      Maybe a Manga themed animated series on his fight for truth, justice and the true disbelievers way? Plenty of heaving bosom and spiked heels to keep some of the 14 year olds here focused??


      Report this

      03

      • #

        Puerile garbage. No debate, plenty of mutual backslapping at stupid ad hom attacks and lame one liners. From what I’ve seen your team is dog tucker after the next election so I guess you’ll be barking at us from within the pound.


        Report this

        01

  • #
    Bernal

    “I would fight to the death for your right to speak your mind.”

    My advice, don’t do it Olaf. One less wanker pumping out CO2 can only help. It’s what s/he (what makes you think it’s a man?) wants, right, smaller carbon pump print.

    “I’ve seen them, and the after-effects: in Afghanistan, Palestine and Lebanon for starters.”

    OMG, I’ve gone and underestimated the prat, s/he loves the smell of napalm in the morning.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    klem

    Wow, when Monckton speaks the alarmist trolls come out of the woodwork! I had no idea he got under their skin so much, give ‘em hell Monckton!

    Wahoo!


    Report this

    100

    • #
      AndyG55

      Yep, its HILARIOUS how worried they are by him. :-)

      I love watching the pathetic little worms getting all het up and anxious.. many seem like they about to blow what little brain they have. !

      I wander what they will do once it becomes more obvious that the world is actually cooling, or if one of these cases actually goes to court and the truth is bought to the eye of the general public, (without the Mannian type backdown or payout).

      Go into an apopletic fit, is my guess. Poor little worms.

      POPCORN TIME ! :-)


      Report this

      72

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I am not prepared to sit back and let the liars, cheats and fraudsters win.

    Me neither! Thank God for a man with both the gumption and the means to go after them.


    Report this

    91

  • #
    Adri

    First: I think most here your are falling for Ricard and Brooke who are here to dilute the message my advice is DON’T ANSWER ANY of their postings. They really want you to get distracted they are probably here for that reason on behalf of WWF, Greepeace etc. Second: I would advise L Monckton to get lots of $dollars legal backing and use climate top Atmospheric Physicists such as Spencer, Lindzen, Singer, Dyson etc.. and sue Mann, UEA, BOM, and about another 25 person involved in prolonging the AGW fraud in Australia, the US and Britain. It seems most German Climate scientists except Rahmsdorh are massively abandoning the AGW meme so no worries there any more. Check Internet


    Report this

    141

    • #
      Tristan

      Now Singer and Dyson are atmospheric physicists. Was this a case of chinese whispers?

      CHECK INTERNET


      Report this

      113

      • #
        PeterB in Indianapolis

        Around 1979, Dyson worked with the Institute for Energy Analysis on climate studies. This group, under the direction of Alvin Weinberg, pioneered multidisciplinary climate studies, including a strong biology group.

        Let’s see, this would make Dyson one of the earliest “climate scientists” on record, and he is a physicist who probably has an immense understanding of the physics of the atmosphere, especially since he was capable of positing the Dyson Sphere.

        However, Dyson did not have formal training as an atmospheric physicist.

        On the other hand, Siegfried Fred Singer (born September 27, 1924) is an Austrian-born American physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.[1] Singer trained as an atmospheric physicist and is known for his work in space research, atmospheric pollution, rocket and satellite technology, his questioning of the link between UV-B and melanoma rates, and that between CFCs and stratospheric ozone loss.

        Gee, it says right there that he is TRAINED AS AN ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICIST, so I guess to answer your question, Dyson is a genius and probably one of the better atmospheric physicists in spite of his lack of formal training in that specific area, and YES, Singer IS an atmospheric physicist.

        Any other questions?


        Report this

        140

    • #
      Ricardo K

      Adri, I’m trying to participate. If you don’t want to play, that’s fine. All I’m suggesting is that you do your own research. You don’t have to follow my links, but please try reading some ‘news’ other than what is posted here. Australia really did just have a record-breakingly hot summer. Check google news or yahoo, whatever you like.

      CO2 causes global warming. Too much global warming too fast is not good – we can’t adapt our societies. There are ways of cutting back on CO2 emissions. If we adopt those measures, we’ll have a happier life.

      I’m not trying to take your BMW to feed the starving billions or for myself. I just sold mine – F650 Dakar, heaps of fun but I wasn’t using it.


      Report this

      223

      • #
        PeterB in Indinapolis

        Ricardo,

        Perhaps you should look up the definitions of PARTICIPATION and TROLLING.

        One adds value to a conversation or debate, and one is merely an attempt to derail a discussion or debate.

        Figure out which is which, and then figure out which the majority of your comments fall into. After that, get back with us.


        Report this

        51

      • #
        PeterB in Indianapolis

        “CO2 causes global warming. Too much global warming too fast is not good – we can’t adapt our societies. There are ways of cutting back on CO2 emissions. If we adopt those measures, we’ll have a happier life.”

        Your premise is faulty, therefore your conclusion is also faulty.

        CO2 causes global warming – ok, as far as it goes, but how much global warming and how fast??? CAGW believers think it may be as much as 3 to 5 degrees C per doubling of CO2 due to positive feedbacks, Skeptics believe it is probably more on the order of 0.8 to 1.6 degrees C per doubling of CO2 due to negative feedbacks.

        Too much global warming too fast is not good – we can’t adapt our societies. – Firstly, how much is too much, and how fast is too fast? So far, since 1850 we have warmed about 1.2 degrees C according to almost all sources I have seen, and so far we have adapted just fine. 1850 was at the tail end of the Little Ice Age, and conditions weren’t particularly pleasant or prosperous back then. Excessive cold causes famine, disease, and death. Warmth generally causes high crop yields, better health, and prosperity. Simply compare the Roman age (warm) to the Dark Ages (cold and filled with plagues) to the Modern age (warm). Would you prefer living in the Dark Ages? If so, why?

        There are ways of cutting back on CO2 emissions. – true, but is it really necessary? If so, why?

        If we adopt those measures, we’ll have a happier life. – Again, why? We have the highest worldwide crop-yields ever currently, we have conquered a vast number of life-threatening diseases, we have the most abundant and least costly energy available in history, and the global standard of living is increasing. Much of this is due to 2 things – first of all, it is (generally) warm, and not cold; and secondly, energy is abundant, available to more people now then ever before, and relatively cheap.

        What you are proposing would likely reverse many of those factors.

        I agree that CO2 can cause warming. What you don’t seem to understand is that the human contribution to the trace gas CO2 in the atmosphere is really quite small, and the overall concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is only approximately 400 PPM, which is 0.04% of the atmosphere.

        You also discount the fact that climate always changes. It always has, and it always will. Who are you to put an arbitrary value on what is “optimal” for the climate of the earth? It has been far colder in the past, and quite a bit hotter in the past as well, with everything in between. No matter how much (or how little) CO2 we emit as a species, it will get colder in the future, and hotter as well.

        The climate of the Earth would change even if the Earth were completely uninhabited. Climate is a non-linear, coupled chaotic system, which means that it is ALWAYS in flux.


        Report this

        121

      • #
        John Brookes

        A lesser man than his lordship would be somewhat embarrassed to be in Australia during our hottest summer ever recorded, arguing that its not getting hotter. Or arguing that if it is getting hotter, its not a problem.

        He might even be a little concerned that while bushfires ran rampant across large chunks of the country, other areas were getting flooded again and again and again.

        And heaven help us when we have the next big El Nino.


        Report this

        111

        • #

          And heaven help us when we have the next big El Nino.

          Phew!

          Thank heavens all the dams are full then!

          Tony.


          Report this

          40

          • #
            Mark

            Phew!

            Thank heavens all the dams are full then!

            Now Tony, them there full dams are mirages. Tim told me so!
            /sarc off.

            (And Tim can ‘sarc off’ too as far as I’m concerned.)


            Report this

            10

        • #
          Winston

          So, John, the fact that bushfires in this country are no more or less numerous than before and that floods as we have experienced are not even remotely unusual, why are we to attribute that to global warming? And if we were able by some magical ability to reduce our global atmospheric CO2 to say 280ppm, you contend that none of these events would have happened, that we would have been enjoying sultry languid breezes, a mild 22 degree days across the continent with light rain periodically, never a thunderstorm, a strong gust of wind or a bushfire to be seen?

          Honestly, John, what rock have you been living under in your 40+ years? It certainly can’t have been a rock in Australia because the continent I live in has always been thus- floods from Yasi were the same as 1973, cyclones are a FEATURE of our northern states climate, not an EXCEPTION, as are bushfires across Australia- that is why we have a bushfire season and a bushfire service (my brother in law is a fireman- our recent bushfires were a storm in a tea cup to him and he is after all an expert!

          I think your increasingly docile posts are becoming embarrassing now. The leftists have overplayed their hand stupidly and are now going to be burned for it- perhaps you guys were suckered by some Neo-con conspiracy to make fools of yourselves? I know you blokes are found of conspiracy theories and all.


          Report this

          61

  • #
    PeterB in Indinapolis

    Monkton definitely has a modern-day “Don Quixotic” feel about him. After all, he is quite literally tilting at windmills :)

    You may not all like the man, but it must be recognized that sometimes the “elite” can only be brought down by one of their own. In this case, I am all for his efforts.


    Report this

    71

  • #
    PeterB in Indinapolis

    Just an aside – According to the NSIDC, Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice is now only 0.288M Km^2 below the 1979-2008 average, and Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice is now 0.680M Km^2 ABOVE the 1979-2008 average, and may have hit the annual minimum about 5 days early, as SH Sea Ice seems to already be expanding again.

    For those of you that can do actual simple math, this means that total global Sea Ice is now statistically well above “normal” for this date, and has been for several days in a row now.

    Depending on weather patterns, we may well see a Spring 2013 NH Sea Ice Maximum that is actually above the 1979-2008 average value, although I personally think we will fall short of average by about 100,000 Km^2. However, I also believe the SH Sea Ice will approach 850,000 Km^2 above normal extent within the next 3 weeks or so, so we will still have global sea ice about 3/4 of a million square kilometers above normal by March 21st or so.


    Report this

    30

  • #

    Lord Monckton says

    A mining engineer spoke up after my talk. His mine was having to pay an extra $1 million a year in carbon taxes. He will cling on for a few months in the hope that Tony Abbott, immediately on taking office, will zero the rate. Then, and only then, hundreds of workers’ jobs may survive.

    To the extent that carbon tax works, it does in two ways. First, by getting people to use less energy per unit of output. Second, to switch to lower (energy ) cost means of output. Third to reduce the high energy-consuming means of output.
    So if it ain’t hurting, it ain’t working.

    But to work efficiently (i.e. getting a high rate of CO2 emissions reductions per $) there needs to be:-
    1. All market players having the same structure.
    2. Extensive energy-saving opportunities that become viable with a low tax.
    3. A small number of very high energy-using, low employment, businesses that will be closed down.
    4. Only a small minority of energy consumers that absorb, or pass on, the costs, without reducing energy consumption.
    If these conditions are not met then the carbon tax could be hurting but not working. For instance, if manufacturing switches abroad. Or if some high energy uses (e.g. supermarkets, oil refineries) have no viable saving energy-saving measures, but can just increase prices. Or if domestic energy consumers just bear the extra fuel costs through lowering expenditure elsewhere. Or if the poorest domestic consumers are shielded from the energy cost increases.

    So it is Julia Gillard who should be trumpeting the small pain for huge gain. That is the huge increase in super-efficient energy-saving investments and the closure of some high-energy consuming, low employment businesses. If not, we should assume that her government is inflicting large pain for little or no gain.


    Report this

    80

    • #
      john robertson

      To the extent that any tax works right?
      Tax punishes behaviour those in power disapprove of.
      As punishing the productive is the real result, logically these are the actions government seeks to stop.
      The law of unintended consequences, is true of expert incompetence, but works for malice too.

      On topic, Monckton is right, most avenues for reasoned discussion have been closed by the tactics of the extortionists, but court of law is a forum they do not fully control and cannot manipulate the results of.
      Their terror is apparent in their tactics, even their trolls and other useful idiots can sense the fear, the Tim Ball libel suits are collapsing as Mann and Weaver have refused to comply with discovery.
      Mann versus Steyn seems heading into farce. The law is an arena these people fear.
      Strange for folk with “the Science” on their side.


      Report this

      130

      • #

        To the extent that any tax works right?

        Exactly. Like any snake-oil salesmen, there are claims about the efficacy of policy that go far beyond what any economic theory can support. There is also a clear evasion, even denial, of any adverse side effects.

        If a pharmaceutical company made similar claims about a product without any testing, it would never be allowed to get its product to market. It would be prosecuted for failing to follow proper standards. In a theoretical free market economy, if that company launched a product with false claims about its efficacy and ignoring the harmful side effects, it would be sued out of business. In both cases, the business would not be able to set the standards
        by which its product was evaluated. But when a Government launches destructive policies, paying for any critics to be shouted down, and retrospectively deciding the rules by which policy success is to be evaluated, then this is somehow seen as normal.


        Report this

        70

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          Generally good points there about taxes, Beanie, but this part…

          If a pharmaceutical company made similar claims about a product without any testing, it would never be allowed to get its product to market. It would be prosecuted for failing to follow proper standards. In a theoretical free market economy, if that company launched a product with false claims about its efficacy and ignoring the harmful side effects, it would be sued out of business. In both cases, the business would not be able to set the standards by which its product was evaluated.

          …is very generous and somewhat incompatible with how the FDA really operates.

          Actually all three of those points are untrue of the pharmaceuticals market. The reality is:
          1) Big Pharma does ignore harmful sideffects and products can go to market without adequate testing.
          2) Big Pharma wouldn’t be sued because it can’t be sued.
          3) Big Pharma does influence the standards by which it is evaluated.

          For example, Prozac was approved as effective based only on a 6 week trial. The rules for clinically controlled trials are very favourable to drugs companies.

          (CNN) — An internal document purportedly from Eli Lilly and Co. made public Monday appears to show that the drug maker had data more than 15 years ago showing that patients on its antidepressant Prozac were far more likely to attempt suicide and show hostility than were patients on other antidepressants and that the company attempted to minimize public awareness of the side effects.

          Meanwhile, the FDA’s original efficacy review of Prozac found that the drug was no more effective than a placebo. The FDA, for reasons that are not clear, told Eli Lilly to reevaluate the drug based on fewer variables. The manufacturer did so, reducing the number of variables by two-thirds, and issued a new evaluation of Prozac’s effectiveness. The FDA approved this new evaluation.
          — Null,Gary. “The Food-Mood-Body Connection: Nutrition-Based Approaches to Mental Health”, p428.

          The FDA has a pattern of sell first and ask questions later.

          The FDA announced last week that the 300mg generic version of Wellbutrin XL manufactured by Impax Laboratories and marketed by Teva Pharmaceuticals was being recalled because it did not work. And this wasn’t just a problem with one batch – this is a problem that has been going on with this particular drug for four or five years, and the FDA did everything it could to ignore it.
          — David Maris in Forbes.

          The pattern is established by frequent conflicts of interest between FDA investigators and the drug companies they are regulating.

          A lengthy investigation by FREEDOM and the Citizens Commission on Human Rights has linked the FDA committee’s failure to protect the public from the dangers of Prozac to improper relationships between its members and the drug companies which they are mandated to oversee. At least five out of 10 of the members on the FDA’s Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee had conflicts of interest based on business dealings with manufacturers of antidepressant drugs – including Lilly – totaling a minimum of $1,108,587.
          — Thomas G. Whittle and Richard Wieland, Aug 21, 1999.

          Not many FDA reviewers will admit to pressure from Big Pharma:

          It happened to Steve Koepke three times in his nine years as a reviewing chemist and midlevel manager at the FDA, from 1992 to 2001. [...] As Koepke recounted it, the congressional aide always said something like “This guy [pharmaceutical executive] is a good member of my district. Why are beating up on this drug?”.
          — Fran Hawthorne, Inside The FDA.

          Right now GSK is being bombarbed with product liability suits, many claiming that the company hid data on Paxil causing suicide. As I described in an earlier blog, the FDA has been going to court on behalf of drug companies like GSK to claim preemption — the principle that a company cannot be sued for negligence in the development of a product if the product has been approved by the FDA. The principle will soon be tested in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. If the court upholds preemption, it will become impossible to hold drug companies responsible for their rampant negligence in the developing and marketing of their products. The public is already kept in the shadows when drug companies withhold data about the risks of their drugs; the public will be kept wholly in the dark if the companies cannot be sued and forced to reveal their hidden data.
          Guess who was the architect of preemption? Yes, the same Daniel Troy when he was at the FDA, acting as Chief Counsel for the FDA with a special role as White House liasance. From FDA Chief Counsel to GSK General Counsel! Life rewards some people.
          — Dr Peter Breggin, From FDA to GSK: The Dangerous Partnership between Government and Big Pharma

          And it’s hardly a secret.

          GOP Presidential candidate Ron Paul rebuked the relationship between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the pharmaceutical industry during a press conference, stating that “the FDA and the drug companies are in bed together.”
          Ron Paul condemns close ties between FDA and Big Pharma.

          All of this indicates there is not a free market in pharmaceuticals. Perhaps the points you made about what would happen to drug companies selling bad drugs in that free market world are perfectly logical points, but we don’t live in that world.


          Report this

          20

    • #
      PeterB in Indianapolis

      I am inclined to agree with John Robertson here… Taxation has very little to do with economics, and very much to do with punishing behaviors which the government is not in favor of.

      We all know it is far more economic to use coal or natural gas to provide electricity than it is to use any other source, unless the government intervenes to make coal and natural gas less competitive.


      Report this

      111

      • #
        john robertson

        Thanks peter, actually I forgot my main point, the law, common law and equality before the law all arose from past abuses.The courts insistence on truth and verifiable evidence are remedy for past failures.
        No more inquisitions.
        Witch trails have strange parallels with these obscene human rights commissions.
        The behaviour of the carbon crooks identical to past efforts to whip up the mob.
        Their contempt for due process is a window into their souls.


        Report this

        70

  • #
    PeterB in Indianapolis

    I’m sad. It appears that about half a dozen of my comments from 1 to 2 hours ago got mass-dumpstered. I thought the majority of them were quite good!

    (I have approved them) CTS


    Report this

    20

  • #
    John Rolin

    I looked up the word whinged and could not find it. I assume it is Aussy slang?

    John From Pittsburgh, PA


    Report this

    11

  • #

    God Bless you, Sir, and all of your endeavors.

    Thankyou.


    Report this

    50

  • #

    For sure more use needs to be made of the legal framework we have in this country to ‘expose’ the lies and half truths exactly for what they are. The money that is going in flames on vapourware ideas has to be stopped.

    I really hope when we get a change in government later this year that we will see a bit of ‘house cleaning’ going on with all these quangos and useless but expensive ‘government initiatives’ – the very name gives away that it is nothing of the sort and has about as much chance of success as a one legged chair.

    BTW watch this: The Broken Window Fallacy


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      I was more amused by some of the “related” videos posted by MaostRebelNews2. Spouting “Cuba cures cancers” and “suck it capitalists!” hehehee. Even if Cuba had made effective vaccines for any cancer (using homeopathy ROFLMAO!!), you still wouldn’t want to live under a totalitarian government! Hel-loooo?? What’s the point of a cure for cancer if El Presidente can decide who gets it?
      These useful idiots really don’t know what they are asking for.

      But yes, broken window economics is a fallacy of broken Keynesian Monetarism, which believes that the key to kick starting an economy is to get people spending, whereas the Austrian view is that the key is boosting production. The broken window scenario shows how spending can be perverse and suboptimal, whereas in the preserved money case it allowed additional production of the new suit.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    drapetomania

    trolls not actually responding to moncktons points and still using ad hominem/smears and sneers.
    You dont need to even try and debate when the opposition sends in the d grade troops for own goals..
    Take heart trolls with the brilliant wit and science of one of your leaders here.
    Yep..thats science in action. :)
    Slightly off topic..the global cooling mania..(sounds familiar) would have been promoted by the same mindless trolls if it occurred today..good links here.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Ricardo K

      Here’s a response to your point – which hopefully won’t be cut as were my responses to Chris Monckton.

      There were studies in the 1970s which predicted the globe could cool, based on long-term cycles and human forcing through release of aerosols into the atmosphere. There were also six times as many studies in the 1970s which predicted global warming.

      Between 1991 and 2012, there were 13,950 peer-reviewed articles concerning the climate published. 24 of them rejected global warming. That’s more than 99% agreement.


      Report this

      01

  • #
    Magoo

    Hear, hear!! Good on you Chris!!


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Anyone who has seen or met Lord Monckton would understand how formidable and effective he truly is, the proof is in the way warmists who seemingly have more numbers, money, position’s, are genuinely scared of Monckton and more so the fact he has genuine science and truth as weapons, here the warmists and trolls cannot hold a valid argument against proven evidence and as such can only snipe and bicker their way through a thread. I don’t think I will ever see a troll engage Monckton in person with their point of view as from my experience keyboard warriors are the ultimate chocolate soldiers.


    Report this

    141

  • #
    Ross

    Well done to Jo and the other skeptic blogs. Did not need to go to court for this WIN.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/friday-funny-john-cooks-withdrawal-symptoms/#more-81117

    John Cook and SkScience run for cover –they pull out of the bloggie award contest.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    old bloke

    There’s too many trolls on this blog, flatulence everywhere.

    Would it be possible for the mods to devise a troll roster to limit their numbers on each thread? It would help GetUp too, they wouldn’t have to pay weekend rates for so many space wasters.


    Report this

    31

    • #
      llew Jones

      That’s one way of looking at it.

      On the other hand they, as representative of their believing community, do help confirm the conviction that the skeptics, generally, are far and away a lot brighter than the weird ragbag of alarmists and thus to be more trustworthy in their analysis of the science. Add to that the essential driver of climate alarmism is not science but a naïve worldview.

      Their underlying worldview is transparent and tells us why they have joined the fellowship that decries the basis of modern successful technological societies. They all without exception haven’t got a clue about what drives those highly industrialised societies and how futile it would be to try and maintain the great standard of living such societies produce and enjoy by replacing what is at the heart of that success with what are essentially toys.

      That is the great, unrecognised dilemma for all of them, alarmist scientists included, they simply haven’t got a clue about what is required to produce real sustainability of and improvement of human lifestyle for each of 7 going on 9 billion of us. Why? They are technologically illiterate and thus cannot see the enormous harm that their basically Green/Pagan ideology would inflict not only on this generation but on those to come.

      Monckton has heard rightly. As one involved in engineering businesses I can confirm the enormous harm the Carbon Tax has already done to businesses and if not overturned the greater potential harm it will inflict on Australians generally. I notice in talking with people who are not scientifically literate that they can see where this sort of ideology leads and it is one important reason the present government is being deserted by former rusted on supporters.

      So it’s not all bad as the trolls visiting here confirm not only typical poor understanding of the science but also the destructive nature of their ideologically based solutions.


      Report this

      91

  • #

    Great work Lord Monckton! It’s good to see that an English Lord is prepared to fight against the fraud of CAGW and the machinations of the current Australian government on behalf of all Australians. We need all the help that we can get.


    Report this

    31

  • #
    Throgmorton

    That’s because there weren’t any legal investigations. Just semi-formal inquiries in their places of work where they were not asked any hard questions – just: “I say, have you done anything frightfully naughty?” – “No, It’s a conspiracy” – “Quite so, quite so”. It would be quite a different story if Driveling Phil, Trickey Mickey et pals had to account for themselves before a court of law and were subject to the process of discovery and cross examination where they would be obliged to answer fully and truthfully.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Mark

    Can’t believe what I just heard over 2UE news.

    Federal Government considering the abolition of the Department of Climate.

    Is reality finally dawning on some of the (electorally) endangered denizens of the ALP?


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Joe V.

      Is it April 1st ?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Ross

      You don’t need a hearing test Mark !! Here it is

      http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Climate-Change-Department-could-be-cut-in-budget-pd20130301-5DQ7Q

      Did that crack between the Greens and the ALP just become quite a bit bigger ???


      Report this

      10

    • #

      Take it with a grain of salt. Gillard has lied before. Turning her back on the Greens may look good (vote-wise – they know people are getting angry with the Greens) but is likely to be a ploy. She’s trying to get re-elected and if this swings more votes her way and – were she to win – that department will reappear pronto, likely with double the staff and a huge “welcome-home” party for the Greens.

      DON’T. TRUST. HER.


      Report this

      50

    • #
      Backslider

      This is just a case of Labor gearing up for the election. It goes hand in hand with their sudden “break” with the Greens.

      Essentially, its bullshit, designed to reel back voters. Were they to gain power again it would all start rolling again.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Yep, as the Australian article intro says, it’s
        “a cost-saving restructure that could see it merged with another government bureaucracy.”

        i.e. not actually scrapped, just shifted a few cm to the left and rebranded. Sort of like how a fund for getting AWU officials re-elected can be rebranded as a health and safety education fund.

        In the entire clean energy commission carbon tax administration green scheme boondogglesphere this restructure is a “saving” of 13% that would still leave us with a totally superfluous 1.4 billion dollar social parasite.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        Mark

        A.D.E. & Backslider:

        Your cynicism re the PM’s regard for the truth is certainly well-founded. Still, just maybe some backbenchers are forcing the pace here, sensing both electoral annihilation and vulnerability on her part. The ALP’s private polling must be absolutely, apocalyptically bad for these silver-tail socialists to feel they have to slum it with the peons and plebs of western Sydney.

        While I don’t care who starts and finishes the process of repealing the ‘carbon’ bills and just want it done, this smacks too much of a death-bed repentance to me and insincere to boot.


        Report this

        20

  • #
    bibiana

    Thanks Christopher Monkton for pointing out that Court action is the only way to bring government employed or subsidised liars, fraudsters and cheats to account. Few of their targets and victims have the financial resources to do this, so good on you for standing up and using your resources this way. You speak hope to many.

    My experience with public servant liars,fraudsters and cheats started nearly 3 decades ago, with the South Australian introduction of regulations under the Planning Act (12th May 1983)to control the clearance of native vegetation. A court case found the regulations invalid. (Regulations may not seek to exceed the powers of the Parent Act.)

    So the Native Vegetation Management Act 1985 was passed to remove clearance matters from the limitations of the Planning Act. Unfortunately it also effectively removed clearance mattes from judicial oversight by -

    1. Establishing a Native Vegetation Authority (of Minister appointed stakeholders, two representing conservation interests,two farm interests and an “independant” chairmant) to decide clearance matters.

    2. In giving clearance consent the Native Vegetation Authority had the option of imposing conditions (if any) that it saw fit.

    The NVA decisions were final, and there was no appeal against an NVA refusal, or a condition attached to a consent.

    Objections could only go to the Supreme Court as Administrative Appeal. The vast majority of applicants, small farmers, just could not afford the cost of appeal to the State’s costliest court. They were effectively disenfranchised from the protection of due and proper process. And some of the native vegetation bureaucrats, informing both the applicants on process, and the NVA on their recommended decisions, abused their position of public trust to both sides.

    First, often usually recommending that where consent could be supported that consent be conditional upon first signing a heritage agreement. SA Native Vegetation Heritage agreements were adopted into the NVAM Act 1985 as a means of obtaining some compensation for land refused clearance consent. Following a refusal a landowner had the right to ask the Minister to enter into a Heritage Agreement, (which would be implemented by the NVA. For the NVA to demand a Heritage Agreement as a condition of clearance consent was putting the cart before the horse, and therefore unlawful.

    I understand that almost every clearance consent approved by the NVA (about 3-5% of applications) was associated with the applicant also signing a native vegetation heritage agreement.

    The other doozy was the NVM Branch practice of supplying the applicants with a summary of Branch recommendations to theNVA, while the NVA got the full documents. Applicants have the legal right to see all information on which decisions are made. If the branch were playing both ends against each other by misrepresenting or omitting matters of substance (which happened to us) then the devil would be in the detail which the applicant could have picked up and corrected – if supplied with the full documentation which was their legal right.

    The folowing Native Vegetation Act 1991 was little better, still no appeal provision, so the severe disadvantage of applicants continued.

    Much later a sort of appeal provisions were introduced, where matters could be heard by the Environment court, but the considerations for this Court seem to be environmental – not whehter the disputed dicisions are BLOODY WELL LEGAL IN THE FIRST PLACE!

    Thats just for starters. Remove judicial oversight by sterilising appeal rights, or appointing Ministerial “Stakeholder” committees to make legal decisions, instead of making bureacrats legally directly responsible for their recommendations, and you can see the kind of laws that have so devastated Australian primary industries, and the fast fading rural communities.


    Report this

    91

  • #
    pat

    incredible:

    Bloomberg-backed campaign says has helped retire 15 pct of U.S. coal capacity
    WASHINGTON, March 1 (Reuters) – New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the Sierra Club, an environmental group, said Friday they were halfway to their goal of getting one-third of U.S. coal-fired power plants retired by 2015 through a variety of civic actions…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.2204102?&ref=searchlist

    meanwhile in Germany:

    EnBW emissions rise 10 pct as coal use increases
    LONDON, Mar 1 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Energie Baden-Wuerttemberg AG (EnBW) emitted 10 percent more carbon dioxide (CO2) in 2012 as it made greater use of coal-fired units, the power generator said Friday, a hike in output that likely increased the company’s demand for emission permits…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2203513?&ref=searchlist


    Report this

    00

    • #

      I know this is off topic, but this is really funny.

      Bloomberg backed campaign has helped retire 15% of coal capacity.

      Every one of those coal fired power plants retired was time expired, all older than 40+ years most between 50 and 80 years old, and virtually none of them of greater Capacity than 100MW.

      Barely three years ago, the whole U.S. coal fired power plant fleet had an average age of 49+ years, and that’s the average, when a typical coal fired plant has a life span of 50 years.

      Now that so many of those tiny plants have retired, the average age of the whole fleet is down to around 47 years.

      What is also an indicator here is that even while so many of those small plants have retired, the amount of electricity provided by the remaining ones has not dropped by the same percentage, which immediately tells us two things. Those retired plants provided very little electricity and that most of them were used for spinning reserve, in other words turning and burning, but not delivering power until required to top up grids.

      And another thing about those retired coal fired plants, also indicating that they were only used for spinning reserve, most of them have been converted to Natural Gas fired consumption, shown by the dramatic and huge increase in power delivered from the Natural Gas fired sector, and by the consequent increase in consumption of Natural Gas in that sector, and those plants are all OCGT.

      Retired. Oh, what a laugh.

      Not one Plant of greater Capacity than 800MW has closed in five years.

      Those 160 large scale plants greater than 750MW are doing what they have always done for many decades now, still delivering the same huge amounts of power they deliver.

      Note there’s 160 plants greater than 750MW.

      There’s 450 Plants with a Capacity lower than 750MW.

      They could do as they want, close half the fleet, and that’s another 150 or so of those smaller plants, and what they will effectively be doing is removing around a further 5% of the total coal fired power Capacity, if that.

      Note they always use the words Plants when they say closed down, and not for actual delivered power.

      They say they have closed 15% of the coal capacity.

      The actual power delivered in that time from coal fired power has fallen from 47.5% to 44%

      Tony.


      Report this

      80

    • #

      Bloomberg…isn’t he the guy who forgot the bottled water? And left subways uncovered? Forgot the generators? Ran the marathon with services needed desperately elsewhere? Wait, wasn’t he one of those involved in ditching rubble into the Hudson, thus making some new Battery Park real estate out of flowing water and narrowing the river at the mouth by 700′. The guy who doesn’t know that a super-dense city near sea level needs all kinds of run-off and drainage? Is that the green guy we’re talking about?

      Let’s hope a category 5 hurricane doesn’t come to land as a cat 3, as happened in 1938. Or let’s hope that green billionaire isn’t in charge when it does. If you can’t plan for a Sandy, you definitely can’t plan for a Long Island Express. Or maybe our Green Betters have an interest in not mitigating natural disasters?


      Report this

      60

  • #
    graphicconception

    All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
    Edmund Burke
    Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 – 1797)


    Report this

    30

  • #
  • #

    This is truly brilliant, Lord Monckton. This is exactly the attitude that is needed and will win through. Much strength to you.


    Report this

    81

  • #

    Moderator? Any chance of trimming some of the trolls out? I normally don’t mind them as I enjoy the responses they get – but trying to read through this thread, I feel there are too many instances of petty abuse and name-calling going on, especially when you get the tolls one after another in batches.

    As many of them sound the same and are in exactly the same “happy-let’s-kick-him” frame of mind, it wouldn’t surprise me if many of them were one person kicking up a stink merely because this thread is about Lord Monckton.

    I really value Christopher Monckton’s work and words. Can we please not have discussion around him so diluted with crap?


    Report this

    91

    • #
      NoFixedAddress

      The more they are exposed the more fodder for Lord Monckton’s legal battles.

      Do not forget,

      1. to be able to post on here you have to at least give an email address; and
      2. Baron McAlpine is currently demonstrating that even tweets are subject to the law.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    Guy La China

    Once in a lifetime a man is born who has the strength to face and defeat evil. In my opinion Lord Monckton is that man.
    History will show that his fight saved us from tyranny. We are facing future Nazi and Stalinist regimes cloaked as climate protectors.
    Stalin murdered 22 million farmers to get control of the land and another 20 million for speaking against his policies.
    The climate criminals are driving farmers of the land and want to imprison everyone who has an opinion different to their own. Execution will follow. The parallels are clear and obvious.

    Mankind has not progressed enough to value life and differences of opinion. No where is that more evident than with the climate alarmist criminals.
    Thank you Lord Monckton.


    Report this

    81

  • #

    Hey, I know this is waaaaay off topic, but I’ll bet this will interest people.

    There’s a Company in the U.S. Abound Solar, makers of solar panels for rooftop units.

    They received a $400 Million Loan Guarantee from the Department of Energy, a loan that will never be repaid now they’ve, umm, gone bust.

    It seems they have been making, err, dud panels all along, and in fact, were aware of this prior to going under.

    Some panels worked, some worked partially, and some did not work at all. In fact:

    “Our solar modules worked as long as you didn’t put them in the sun,” an internal source told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

    The company knew its panels were faulty prior to obtaining taxpayer dollars, according to sources, but kept pushing product out the door in order to meet Department of Energy goals required for their $400 million loan guarantee.

    Panels have been returned, err, 100,000 of them in fact, and as the Company manufactured replacements for those returned panels, 160,000 of those replacement panels are also duds.

    Now, the further problem is this:

    Meanwhile, a subsidiary distributor, Green Choice says it is also stuck with thousands of Abound solar panels that are expensive to dispose of because all the panels contain cadmium telluride, a toxic substance.

    So now, all these hundreds of thousands of panels need to be disposed of and there are 2 choices, prior to burial.

    They have to bury them in Eastern Colorado, after either being encased in Concrete, or ground up somehow and then the remaining dust mixed in with cement dust and set in concrete.

    How pure green idealism turns quite literally toxic.

    Tony.


    Report this

    110

    • #

      “Our solar modules worked as long as you didn’t put them in the sun,” LMFAO. Are these Obama’s new “jobs”. Monty Python would’ve considered this too ridiculous for a sketch. Catamon, JB, Watchmacallit etc, this is your brave new world innit.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    “Dr.” Michael Mann, fabricator of the “hockey-stick” graph that falsely abolished the medieval warm period, sued Dr. Tim Ball for calling the graph scientific fraud. Tim Ball’s defence was to propose showing the judge the many dodges by which “Dr.” Mann had done what “Dr.” Overpeck had called for in 1995: “We have to abolish the medieval warm period.”

    Rather than face cross-examination, “Dr.” Mann gave up the case at a cost that cannot have been much less than $1 million.

    I knew about the case, but despite regularly checking for the latest developments in sceptical progress, I was unaware of Mann folding. A half hour of Googling has also failed to locate corroboration. Again, I’m mystified. I would be grateful if someone could provide me with a link to this nice (if so) development.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      John Brookes

      Is Mann independently wealthy? As a scientist he wouldn’t have a spare million lying around.


      Report this

      05

      • #
        Sean McHugh

        John Brookes asked:

        Is Mann independently wealthy? As a scientist he wouldn’t have a spare million lying around.

        Habitual suing in relatively high profile cases wouldn’t come cheap. So whatever is the cost one must assume that, by some means, he has the means.

        Our course everyone knows where our money comes from, Big Oil.


        Report this

        40

    • #
      Warren

      The case is still current


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Wooster

      Here’s part of Michael Mann’s response to Monckton’s article (above) posted today on his facebook page.

      “What is most peculiar about the false assertion that we ‘gave up’ the defamation suit against Mr Ball (it is very much alive and well thank you) is that this statement appeared on the very day that my lawyer, Canadian libel expert, Roger McConchie, was DEPOSING BALL as part of the discovery phase of the lawsuit.

      One would think that Ms Nova would have wanted to fact check such a claim. It would have been rather easy for her to contact my lawyer, for example, to see if there was any veracity to Monckton’s claim.”

      That should answer Sean McHugh’s question.

      Why does Monckton make statements that aren’t true? – it does nothing for his already shaky credibility.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        One might well ask “Why does Michael Mann continue to make stuff up and tell furphies and why has he done that all his life?” What is in it for him but the money?


        Report this

        01

      • #
        Tristan

        If you asked a “skeptic” how many times Lord Monckton would have to wilfully misrepresent the truth before they stopped putting his proclamations on a pedestal, you’d get nary a real answer.

        Just mention ‘resurrexi pharmaceutical’ to a Monckton supporter. They’ll twitch a couple times and then pretend they didn’t hear you.


        Report this

        11

      • #
        Chad

        There was no fact checking, The post remains factually incorrect.

        Is Ms Nova going to correct this or shall we assume she is uninterested in clarifying easily provable facts?


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Mike

    Well done Christopher Monckton, slaying the Climate Parasites.


    Report this

    31

  • #
    bibiana

    Tim, Thanks, but your link does not work.

    After our original application (over regrowth only, no oldgrowth) was refused consent because we objected to signing a heritage agreement over much of our regrowth, plus miles of untouched country alongside, which was outside our application area, we agreed to a NVA Branch request, on behalf of the NVA, to negotiate for a clearance consent/heritage agreement compromise – a package deal.

    But after 5 years of negotiation run-around, we found aourselves signing a heritage agreement under pressure, without any clearance consent.

    As we picked up the pieces I started to ask questions, trying to make sense of what had hapenned to us. It took years, including FOI searhes of our files, to uncover Branch lies by omission informing NVA decisions, and some unauthorised Branch alterations to a clearance application we had submitted in good faith – for clearance refusal. This was to enable the NVA to legally proceed with a heritage agreement over much of that country outside of our original application, to be part of the package deal. (The areas we nominated for clearance consent were deleted from our plan(map). I only discovered this in FOI searches of our files some years later)

    Following that refusal the the NV Branch promptly withdrew support for any clearance consent for us, and would only support heritage agreements from us. It felt like a bait-and-switch, and things got ugly from then on.

    I have tried every available and affordable appeal, from the Ombudsman to the Commissioner for Public Employment and several stops between. All just a wear-em-out run-around.

    Direct egal action is the only way to rein in these law-bending bullies, cheats, liars and frauds, who have so badly damaged the once trusted good name of our public service. Go Monkton!


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Boadicea

      Bibiana,

      “Direct legal action is the only way to rein in these law-bending bullies, cheats, liars and frauds, who have so badly damaged the once trusted good name of our public service.”

      I am not surprised at your conclusion bibiana, but the SA public service is not alone..it is common across the whole lot..including Canberra..and in my opinion is the consequence of the complete politicalisation of the PS perpetrated by both Labour and Libs…combined with the type or person now coming out of Universities. who are in the main credentialled to billio, but lacking in any moral and ethical framework

      But by far the worst has been Labour with the shoe horning of party members into the PS and the insiduous comrprmisingof it at every level

      The competence levels have certainly fallen, and in Canberra the stories coming out as to how they stuff things up, that should really have been just good management practice, are legendary.

      They cant run themselves properly, never mind do a job of work in the public interest.

      Internal personal reviews are so flawed that even just injecting different views into a debate can get one sanctioned…even when the views were correct. So even the Enlightened concept of debate and argumentation between colleagues doesnt result in the best decision. So peple with the skills and knowledged are bullied and intimidated into silence by the review and career management processes ..so that the hidden agenda can prevail.What a joke.

      Projects in the national interest are assigned to people who have no knowledge of the industry/subject matter. whilst those that do are sidelined, with the obvious consequence that the outcome is already a dud.

      It doesnt matter whether its the customs,police or the PMs area, its the same everywhere State and Federal.

      I am afraid that not only are we slowly losing our democracy but the concept of a PS staffed by the best people providing frank and fearless advice has long gone


      Report this

      20

      • #
        bibiana

        Tnaks, Boadicea for your comments.

        I am well aware that the rot has spread, but the weaknesses in the SA Native Vegetation Laws and how these weaknessews were gamed by some of the Native Vegetation Branch officers, set precedents for the conduct of other SA Environmental ans Planning agencies. This behavour has spread. this behaviour spread

        One solution to help clean up the stinking mess that is the reputation of much of our public service, is to be able to prosecute, with no time limits, any public employee who can be shown to have deliberately misinformed – by lies of commission or of omission of substantially relevant facts – the decision makers and Senior public servants and Ministers, who have to depend on factually corrrect reports to help inform their understanding and their decisions. Penalty – dismissal,or if already retired, loss of their publicly funded pension.

        The threat of such a consequence would do a lot to help clean up the current mess.


        Report this

        20

        • #
          Boadicea

          Hi bibiana,

          This article by Dr Walter Starck in Dec 2012 Issue of Quadrant might be of interest….just more evidence of the truth of the matter.

          http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/12/government-by-ngo

          At least we can work to make the public more aware of how NGOs as well as the politicians/PS are lieing and defrauding the wealth generators and employers


          Report this

          10

          • #
            bibiana

            Boadicea, I admire the work Walter Stark is doing, but this is the first time I have seen this report on the stakeholder industry. He is not holding anything back, is he?

            I have for years regarded this type of stakeholder as equivalent to meddling village busy-bodies, our to skin skin off the real stakeholders – those with their skins (assets and livelihoods) in the game. But this report points to deadly serious, blood sucking BIG BUSINESS.

            Walter is correct when he says that the poeple on the ground understand the real issues, and how to deal with them much better than the remote desktop Hitlers (my term for them).

            Our well paid, self appointed betters have sunk to the level of arrogantly demanding, via ever increasing regulatory burdens, first class conservation outcomes from second class citizens-those in the primary industries. Demands that, on the ground, are neither economically nor socially sustainable. without these two sustainabilities, the rural communities must inevitably fade away.


            Report this

            10

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Off Topic:

    Veteran journalist Peter Harvey dies at 68

    PETER Harvey, the journalist with the ‘voice of God’ who has been a loved and trusted face of Australian television news for almost 40 years, has died with his family by his bedside. He was 68.

    Harvey was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in October but was positive to the end, telling an interviewer that he would hang on to the possibility that “things are going to be better, not worse.

    “I don’t want worries about my day, ruining my tomorrows.”
    - See more at: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/veteran-journalist-peter-harvey-dies-at-68/story-fndo317g-1226589037334#sthash.C2vMU7dW.dpuf

    RIP Peter. One of few good people to work in the Canberra press gallery.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Mark

      In fact, it’s been a bad couple of days for deaths Bob. My local paper reports the death yesterday of Dr. John Hogg.

      His name won’t mean much to many but he was a well respected cardio-vascular surgeon who just happened to be on holiday in Bali at the time of the bombings. On hearing of the atrocity, he and his wife immediately left their hotel and rendered much needed assistance to the (overwhelmed) local medical staff. I understand that he made a number of trips back to Bali afterwards to help the injured Balinese who we tend to forget about.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Jo

    Righto, this drivel is repeated here (post SNIP) because some of it scored highly, but none of it deserves to be at the top. Please don’t continue the theme here either. Thanks. This is posted here partly to show people why commenters have to self moderate. Ricardo is wasting our time, diluting the thread. – Jo
    ——————————————————————–

    Ace
    March 1, 2013 at 10:53 pm · Reply · Edit

    Ricardo is the kind of person who if he hears someone say “I’ve told you a million times, don’t exaggerate” sniggers at the person saying it. Thick as two short planks.

    ———————————-

    301

    #
    Ace
    March 1, 2013 at 10:54 pm · Edit

    …probably has recently grown a beard and listens to Radiohead.

    Report this
    —————————
    150
    #
    Ricardo K
    March 2, 2013 at 12:19 am · Edit

    Oh right, the 15 green thumbs and counting for the comment at 1.1 were ironic, were they? Gee, we need a way of indicating that, to stop fickos like me getting confoosed.

    Thick as a rhino’s hide, Ace. I loathe Radiohead, by the way. Painful waily whingey nonces.

    Any relation to Ace Rimmer from Red Dwarf?

    (Now I’m off to shave my beard ;)

    ——————————-
    033
    #
    Tristan
    March 2, 2013 at 12:35 am · Edit

    I mostly like Radiohead, Red Dwarf is a bit painful though. I shave my beard every 2 months or so when I start looking like a tramp.

    ——————————
    09
    #
    Backslider
    March 2, 2013 at 5:42 am · Edit

    I shave my beard every 2 months or so when I start looking like a tramp.

    Oh, you are still pubescent! That explains a lot.
    ——————————–
    Ace
    March 2, 2013 at 6:15 am · Edit

    This RICARDO is really quite funny, …even AFTEr my quip about “I told you a million times dont exaggerate”…even AFTER I had to explain that to him, even AFTER I hadto explain the explanation…he then remains so cluelessly thick and incomprehending of English prosidy or any kind of literary technique as to REPEAT the numb-nut thing that I had illustrated in all the above, by writing:

    “Don’t you hate it when you think of something you should have said? Happens to you a lot, doesn’t it Ace? Hence the double-posts, …”

    Report this

    60
    #
    Ace
    March 2, 2013 at 6:16 am · Edit

    ….Doh!…he juss doan geddit duzzy!

    Report this

    00
    #
    Ace
    March 2, 2013 at 6:23 am · Edit

    a bit more of RICARDO:
    “Mate, I don’t miss irony at all, not since I got wrinkle-free shirts. But I am a bit disturbed by your obsession with Cat, mon. You sound more and more like Rimmer all the time….”

    Well I explained several posts back why THERE WAS NO IRONY ALLEGED on my part, but hes just to thick to geddit. Just as he doesnt get either the meaning of those phrases or the joke written into Red Dwarf when they gave that character his name.

    Maybe he needs someone to give him a bit of CBT.

    However, his last paras, self-parodying as they are, really reveal the vacuity behind the mask: Ricardo doesnt give a monkeys about the climate, he.s just some pissabout with excess timeon his hands. Whats it called now…

    Report this

    30
    #
    Ace
    March 2, 2013 at 6:24 am · Edit

    …thjats it, “troll”.


    Report this

    71

  • #
    wayne, s. Job

    Some one here may know the answer to the question, is it possible and by what mechanism to make Lord Monckton an honorary Australian. It would be in my opinion only fair for all his good work.

    Then being an aussie we might get him into our parliament as a minister in charge of the department for global warming. This is not sarc we could really use him in a new government.


    Report this

    54

    • #
      SimonV

      Yes, if Tony Abbott ends up running the country later this year, we will have a government in which Christopher Monckton would fit right in.


      Report this

      11

  • #
    SimonP

    Scientific debate should be conducted in peer-reviewed (not Peer reviewed :-) publications not courts of law. A useful case study is the misleadingly named New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust taking the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research over New Zealand’s temperature record. The NZCSET lost and had to pay significant damages. The Court will always defer to the experts in the field on scientific matters.


    Report this

    44

    • #
      Michael

      Yeah and in that case the judge ” Mr Justice Vennin” had “carbon farming interests” see http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/carbon-trader-judge-taints-bizarre-high-court-climate-ruling/

      Why did the skeptics lose? According to the news report, it was not because NIWA provided good answers, or found the missing data, but because the skeptics didn’t have “authority” to question it.

      Some evidence in the case was ruled inadmissible, including that of Terry Dunleavy, a former journalist who is a founding member of the trust and secretary of the associated NZ Climate Science Coalition.

      Justice Venning says Dunleavy “has no applicable qualifications” and “his interest in the area does not sufficiently qualify him as an expert”.

      He also questioned the credentials of Bob Dedekind, a computer modelling and statistical analyst whose “general expertise in basic statistical techniques does not extend to any particular specialised experience of qualifications in the specific field of applying statistical techniques in the field of climate science”.

      Perhaps the judgement is quite different from what the NZ Business Review reported, but unless it is, the outcome had nothing to do with science, but everything to do with a logical fallacy.

      What’s unnerving about this is that if “authority” is determined not by behavior, logic or quality of reasoning, but simply by government decree, then the court becomes a de facto arm of the government — because only people who are funded by the government (all “climate scientists” are funded by government) can give evidence that the court recognizes. Who can criticize and hold government or statutory authorities to proper standards? Not the citizens, for they are not “qualified”.

      If non-experts protested unfairly at the NIWA results, surely NIWA would find it easy to explain why they were wrong, and a judge would be more than capable understanding, but if NIWA is not even expected to answer those questions then no justice has been done.

      The credibility of NIWA staff ought to rest on their record rather than their titles. The unscientific behaviour of Jim Salinger and others is endorsed by the court, apparently, as long as they are paid by the government.

      The courts are supposed to be independent of the government. When these two institutions are effectively working together we lose one of the major safeguards of democracy. All the more reason to fight to keep the free press, free. What else is left?

      And again, we get the line that NIWA is OK, because it’s just as bad and incompetent as all the other agencies around the world which adjust data without detailed explanations, and which lose data ad hoc:

      “I am satisfied that the methodology applied by NIWA was in accordance with internationally recognised and credible scientific methodology,” Justice Venning says.

      This decision is all the more preposterous given that even the highly questionable Australian BOM obviously didn’t endorse the NIWA methods and after asking for an Australian BOM review, NIWA went to extraordinary lengths to hide that review. Did they hide that review, because it would have lent support to the very evidence the so-called “non-experts” put forward?

      NIWA will say they have been vindicated, yet they still can’t explain or defend the adjustments. The raw observations suggest NZ has barely warmed by 0.06C over the last 150 years, yet the headlines produced by NIWA claimed rises of 0.9C in the last century.

      http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/nz-justice-shows-courts-are-useless-in-a-science-debate/


      Report this

      81

  • #
    Richard Campbell

    I can’t understand how a man who tells us Obama’s birth certificate is false, who tells us he has a cure for HIV and MS can be taking some one to court for making stuff up!
    He’s been reprimanded for his often repeated claims of membership to The House of Lords and lied about being “selected” as a representitive on the U.N panel on climate change.
    He has no scientific credentials as a climatologist or in atmospherics but somehow is given credibility solely for his skepticism.
    Is he promoted here on peer reviewed articles or only to suit the agenda of those in the minority in the climate change debate?
    Even Andrew Bolt is having second thoughts about his loopy ideas and associations.
    If you need to prove your theories I believe you would seem more credible without the endorsement from a man whose reputation is steadily sliding.
    His latest appearance with the loopy Pastor Danny and Rise Up Australia party surely cannot help the cause of of those with views contrary to scientific reasoning and evidence.
    Your “lies have consequences” line seems to ring hollow if you don’t include his.


    Report this

    814

  • #
    Joe V.

    Sometimes the authorities need a little ‘reminding’ of their responsibilities too:-

    “… The judge threw the case out. I recovered the position by instructing the lawyers to write to the judge asking if he had even seen Gore’s movie before he had reached his judgment without holding a hearing.

    Tellingly, the judge did not reply. I insisted on – and got – a new judge. This time the lawyers did what they were told. I wrote 80 pages of scientific testimony. 

    Who else but this man would have so persisted until he prevailed ?
    That’s what it takes, that dogged determined spirit that will not be cowed by mere authority. Australians will recognise it & it should give heart to many hard pressed Australians in these troubled times.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Anton

    There is such a thing as moral wrong without breaking the law, and in my opinion both Helen Caldicott and Tony dePress are in that category. If Monckton means what he says and is not bluffing then I think he is acting wildly and is riding for a fall in the law courts, which would be a great pity because I agree with him about global warming. Moreover these individuals are every bit as much “Dr” as Monckton is “Lord”…


    Report this

    12

    • #
      Boadicea

      Well you can look Caldicoot up on the Registration of Doctors…. and guess what ..she isnt.

      She is a Nurse, with qualifications that may previously enabled for her to be registered a Dr…. but a registered Dr she definitely isnt.

      She would be breaking the law in Australia if she did do so


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Joe V.

      Morality of it is beside the point. Deception to cause harm is wrong and the law provides recourse for redress.. They chose the wrong one to try and belittle. It’s not personal. He would have gone for anyone of them giving him the scope to act, as they have now so carelessly & foolishly done.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    John R. Walker

    “We have had some good court victories. In 2007 the London High Court condemned Al Gore’s mawkish sci-fi comedy-horror movie. It found nine errors so serious that the court ordered 77 pages of corrective guidance to be circulated to every school in England.”

    Does anybody know if this judgement also applies to Wales as well, please? Technically the school curriculum is different now in England and Wales.

    It appears from the media that kids in Wales are being greenwashed at an alarming rate!


    Report this

    21

    • #
      Joe V.

      That action was taken in relation to the distribution of & single film to all schools by the Secretary of State & the guidance to teachers which accompanied it.

      As can be seen from the Secretary of State’s statements accompanying the film the presumption that conditioning of children’s minds can be used to coerce the general population to a point of view is already held by Ministers.
      Such abuse is saddly endemic & is no doubt continuing to occur, despite this small but significant stand against it.


      Report this

      21

    • #
      SimonV

      In fact, the errors were minor enough that the court case *failed* in its bid to have the documentary banned from schools.


      Report this

      27

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        … the court case *failed* …

        That is only true if the intent was to have the documentary banned. That was not, as I understand it, the intent. The fact that teachers had to comply, by an order of the court, with 77 pages of corrective guidance, meant that the film was not shown in a large number of cases, and when it was, a significant amount of time was required of the teachers to explain the areas where it was wrong.

        I would say that was a success, because the children learnt that sometimes films get it wrong, or they might even lie. Knowledge that will stand them in good stead throughout their lives.


        Report this

        60

        • #
          SimonV

          What I said was true – the action in the High Court was to seek an order preventing the use of “An Inconvenient Truth” as educational material.

          The case failed in that objective.

          The reason it failed was there was nothing much wrong with it, except for 9 things in which the judge agreed clarifications should be offered. Not lies, that’s for sure.


          Report this

          06

          • #
            Quack

            A better movie is the great global warming swindle and that hsould be shoun in schools instead!!! although it has more facts than you could deal with!!!


            Report this

            31

          • #
            SimonV

            That’s the one where they showed carefully-edited footage of scientists saying stuff those scientists didn’t actually say? That had to have 1/4 of its length removed due to various similar frauds? That was so egregiously dishonest and riddled with errors that it seems to have vanished without a trace?

            Why would you want to show that to schoolchildren?
            Do you agree with Heartland that children should be misled by anti-educational propaganda?


            Report this

            16

          • #
            Chris M

            SimonV, I think that what most of us here would agree upon is that astroturfing is an odious activity. Who are you working for, The Greens, a green NGO, or “Skeptical Science” perchance?? Parents would be well advised to warn their kids about fanatical Gaia religionists like you. But the tide is turning, and I look forward to the day when all your falsehoods, distortions and self-delusions are swept away.


            Report this

            31

          • #
            Eddie Sharpe

            77 Pages of corrections !


            Report this

            20

          • #
            SimonV

            I can’t see anything in the judgment about “77 pages” – that appears to be another piece of information provided by the -ahem- ever-reliable Monckton.
            All I see in the judgment is the requirement that 9 minor points be clarified, such as the fact that a 6-metre-sea-level-rise is a long-term future effect of climate change, not a short-term one.
            Took me one sentence to do that 1 clarification – I don’t see why the other 8 would take 77 pages.
            Suspect yet more unreliable information from Monckton…..


            Report this

            14

          • #
            Eddie Sharpe

            77 Pages ! How many trees were sacrificed in the distribution of that movie, to every Secondary school in the land ?


            Report this

            20

          • #
            SimonV

            There is no evidence that this “77 pages” is a fact. It’s not in the judgment. It’s not anywhere that I can see.


            Report this

            01

          • #
            Tristan

            It’s fact that Monckton submitted 77 pages.
            Monckton submitted 77 pages of fact.
            Easy to confuse the two.


            Report this

            10

  • #

    [...] court hearings, which must be starting to scare the rest of the world’s warming shills. Monckton explains why taking climate extremists to court works (and Uni Tas agrees to investigate). Christopher Monckton is cutting across Australia and leaving a wake behind him. [...] Read it [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    michael james

    Thank you Boadicea. As one without a Dr to my name, just an aircraft engineer for 45 years, my voice is not heard, my opinion does not count. The lies that are told sicken me, the cost to Australian workers defies reality. To have someone to legally challenge these evil people gives me hope that the truth will out. Thank you Lord Monckton


    Report this

    21

  • #

    It’s an extremely well-written piece. It’s not for nothing I and others have pointed out Christopher Monckton’s great eloquence and precision.

    There remains a minor typo which doesn’t change the meaning: “… driven off their land by crazed officials threatening to prosecutinge them ….”

    I do take issue with this:

    “if the fraudsters deny the scientific truth when I speak it”

    In science as in life, people should be allowed to disagree with what truth is without heavy-handed reprisals, particularly instituted by those with whom they’re debating. To be a debater going around getting others fired from their institutions because they disagree with you and deny your facts, in perhaps very wrong-headed ways, is just going to far. It isn’t how science is meant to be done.

    Denial of consensus is a viewpoint worthy of protecting the free-speech rights of those espousing it. Similarly, mainstream opinion, however wrong, should be likewise protected speech.

    Hash it out in the spheres of intellect, public opinion, and so on.

    I agree with the points wes george made on this thread.


    Report this

    41

    • #
    • #
      SimonV

      Christopher Monckton’s great eloquence and precision.

      Too funny.

      What’s with Monckton claiming that Mann’s courtcase has been abandoned? It hasn’t.

      As for the Al Gore film, it’s telling that Monckton doesn’t actually quote directly from the judgment, where Justice Burton said things like:

      is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact,

      Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.

      As for Monckton claiming he won a court case against the BBC – even the Daily Mail disagreed:
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1352290/The-Climate-change-sceptic-loses-court-battle-BBC-right-reply.html
      Monckton lost that one.

      Ironic that he goes around trying to have everybody who disagrees with him sent off to the gulag, don’t you think?


      Report this

      99

      • #
        Joe V.

        Yeah, “substantially founded upon..”, ” …broadly…”. What does that mean ?

        Methinks the judge was just being broadly conciliatory, before launching his judgement that, but for all the required corrections

        “… the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act””

        Ie. it was political indoctrination of children, albeit broadly and substantially based on science.
        The best stories are often ‘based on’ the true events.


        Report this

        61

        • #
          SimonV

          The judge did not grant Monckton’s demand the film be banned from school use, because it was basically correct.


          Report this

          15

        • #
          Eddie Sharpe

          Isn’t that hard to imagine ? A movie that was basically right, needing over 70 pages of correction ! You could hardly make this stuff up.


          Report this

          41

          • #
            SimonV

            Where in the judgment did it demand 70 pages of correction?

            You’re not relying on Monckton for that claim, are you?


            Report this

            12

          • #
            Eddie Sharpe

            The judge didn’t specify. It was up to the promoters to keep correcting till the judge was persuaded. They must have been desperate.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            SimonV

            No, the judge didn’t specify: he made no order that the film be not shown, he made no order that the film be cut, and he didn’t even make an order that any corrections be made. He made no order at all.

            The “77 pages of corrections” is just another confabulation.


            Report this

            01

          • #
            Backslider

            Quoting the Judgement:

            “I viewed the film at the parties’ request. Although I can only express an opinion as a viewer rather than as a judge….”

            “It is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film….”

            “some of the errors, or departures from the mainstream, by Mr Gore in the AIT in the course of his dynamic exposition, do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis….”

            You will find, if you take the time to read the judgement yourself, that remedial action was in fact taken, thus the complainant did in fact win.

            As for the 70 pages: You cannot expect the Judgement itself to include these. They are referred to within the Judgement.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Backslider

            he didn’t even make an order that any corrections be made.

            You clearly have no idea at all of the Judicial process in matters like this. No, the Judge did not need to make direct orders, because he negotiated settlement. A very good Judge.


            Report this

            01

          • #
            SimonV

            :referred to in the judgment”, except you can’t find where that happened, can you?

            Face it: “77 pages” is another fantasy.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            SimonV

            Backslider – I’ve never heard of a High Court judge “negotiating a settlement”, but as I “have no idea at all of the Judicial process”, I’ll have to defer to your evident expert opinion.

            Tell me this: In this process, which was a process initiated by Monckton asking the High Court to ban the use of “Inconvenient Truth” in schools, did it result in :

            a/ the judge banning the use of “Inconvenient Truth” in schools

            or

            b/ the judge not banning the use of “Inconvenient Truth” in schools and allowing to continue to be shown, in schools, with nothing cut from it?


            Report this

            10

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    With regard to Al Gore’s film:

    You are quoting out of context. What did the preceding and following phrases and sentences say?

    And as for the second part of your comment, that was over a different matter entirely, and had nothing to do with Al Gore’s film. Why are you conflating the two ideas together? Do you want people to think that the court case was related to Gore’s movie?

    Silly, silly, tricksie little Hobbit.


    Report this

    31

  • #
    Aaron Michaux

    Jo, it just may be possible that Mann has given over everything required to replicate his studies. After-all, it has been done about a dozen times now. You think you know the facts, but really, you are insulating yourself from the facts. For example, did you ever read Mann’s paper? Did you ever read any of the replications and follow-on studies? Did you read the “debunks” from Pat Michaels, and later Soon and Baliunas? Did you read the follow-on critiques? Really, what do you know about hockey sticks at all? But for your readers, you are an *expert*. And that is the problem with the climate change controversy.


    Report this

    23

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      His hockey stick went where the moon don’t shine.
      It’s gone!


      Report this

      22

    • #
      wes george

      Whankers, like Aaron, are why a solid argument can be made that the Warmists have now crossed the line into psychological denial over the LACK of evidence for AGW.

      Worse, because they are demanding authoritarian solutions to a problem which now seems highly unlikely to be a worry they are entering into “denialism” in the sense that they are denying evidence to justify Green totalitarianism…. You know, just like those apologists who deny WWII Holocaust to justify fascism.

      The irony levels here are busting the meter.


      Report this

      35

      • #
        SimonV

        And yet…Mann’s hockey stick has been replicated by scientists interested in temperature reconstructions.
        It’s been replicated by scientists using ice cores instead.
        It’s been replicated by scientists using stalactites.
        In fact, it’s been replicated by about 2 dozen studies since MBH98 first appeared and gave birth to the hockey stick.

        Now, what would you call a “Hockey Stick” that has been repeatedly confirmed by independent studies, and never once contradicted by any study?

        What were you just saying about “psychological denial” and “irony level busting the meter”?


        Report this

        23

        • #
          Eddie Sharpe

          Indeed, didn’t they find it makes a hockey stick out of just about anything that’s fed into it.
          The Hockey Stick has already thoroughly established it’s place in history.


          Report this

          20

          • #
            SimonV

            Nope. That suggestion was arrived at by somebody who ran 100 simulations, kept 6 of them that showed a hockey stick, and pretended the 6 were a random selection.
            We call that fraud.


            Report this

            01

    • #
      Ross

      Aaron

      You probably have not read this blog much over the past few years. Pity because you could have learnt something. It may surprise you that very often even the skeptics on here disagree with each other.

      But have you read Jo’s “Skeptics Handbook” ? (Look at the top left of the blog home page) Have you read the “Hockey Stick Illusion” by AW Montford ?( You can probably get a 2nd hand one on Amazon –its been out for a while).
      There are always two sides to any debate.

      Since you are a great fan of Dr M Mann you should read Steve McIntyre’s latest piece on Mann’s AGU speech where he makes some more spectacular slight of hand moves.
      PS. I personally resent your implication that we cannot think for ourselves and take what Jo says verbatum. We are not religious fantactics like many on your side of the debate.


      Report this

      12

  • #
  • #

    Hmm I wish I had got in early to set up a poll on this one.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John in France

    Re Ball/Mann case: Why a “partial” discovery? Let’s hope the court will reject this as long as it is not “full”.
    Yes I too was surprised to hear a few months ago that Mann had given up. The case will certainly drag on for some time yet.

    Otherwise I do have some sympathy with Wes George and have the same distaste for systematic litigation. On the other hand Monckton’s attackers and attackers of sceptics in general repeatedly try to maintain the moral high ground through throwing out unsubstantiated statements. Can we think of any way other than by the courts to make them substantiate them? Wonderful if we could.

    It has to be a better method than calling them liars, cheats and fraudsters, because they can just scream the same back at us; but if they are unable to substantiate their statements, then conclusions must be drawn.


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Toby

    Mann has not “given up” anything.

    His case against Ball is still in progress.

    http://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/143643312468953


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Michael

    Toby I’m sorry but anything that Mann says,well [snip]……………. Dr Tim Ball on the other hand is totally believable and said that the Canadian Court has dropped the case,due to Mr Mann refusing to release documents requested by the said court. maybe you could provide a link to the case in question?

    [one must be careful] ED


    Report this

    11

    • #
      Wooster

      Michael,

      If you scroll back up to the body of the article, you’ll see that Jo has amended it, stating:

      “The case is still running. Tim Ball advises me that Mann’s lawyer gave a ‘partial’ Discovery on Friday…”


      Report this

      21

  • #
    BenFromMO

    Just remember, that anyone who claims that “warmest month ever” or “warmest decade ever” means anything in terms of whether the planet is warming is a fool.

    I say that because in basic statistics (stat 101) you learn that noisy data often produces records that don’t tell you a thing about the trend of the data. That is why scientists use this tool called “linear regression” to determine the delta of the data. (change).

    Its really surprising how many of the climate scientists claim this nonsense, and to think these morons are supposed to know statistics just boggles the mind. In any event, don’t pay attention to records that are more then likely just coincidence, remember that linear regression is the ONLY key to figuring out the true slope of the data. And also remember this: The temperature measurements tell us this: That the world was warming from the begginning of the data (end of the Little Ice Age) until roughly 15 years ago when the warming stopped. In that essence, the planet is at its warmest right now and right here. So breaking records for heat is not only expected, but we should count on it. That is why anyone who does repeat that nonsense is just repeating the captain obvious line: Of course the planet is warm, any moron can see that.

    I hope I wasn’t too tough on some people, but I don’t like ignorance and something that stupid just calls to be called out like that.


    Report this

    41

  • #
  • #
    Joe V.

    Is it true, that Lord Monckton is slumming it in Western Sydney, with the Prime Minister ?

    This morning a small group of anti-carbon tax protesters rallied outside the Rooty Hill hotel which Ms Gillard is staying in this week.

    High-profile British climate change sceptic Christopher Monckton is staying at the same hotel.
    From:- http://www.kevinrudd.org/?p=15735

    One might wonder who took the initiative first .


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Chris M

    More easy pickings for the good viscount, if he so chooses:

    Ms Gillard stepped from the lift at her Rooty Hill hotel a bit after dawn to be confronted by the self-proclaimed lord [...]

    http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/politics/pm-will-struggle-when-minders-lead-up-a-gully-20130304-2fgwh.html

    I recall Tony Wright writing pages and pages of absolute bollocks just before the 1996 election, claiming that Keating was great mates with a (now long-forgotten) outback cattle king, in an apparent last-ditch attempt at an image makeover to forestall the inevitable landslide. You’d think Tony would have developed some middle-aged perspective by now, but no, it seems not.


    Report this

    20

  • #
  • #
    Eddie Sharpe

    Mann o’ Mann.

    “To me more than anything else it’s a debate about what kind of world we leave for our children.”

    Mann moved to a photograph in his presentation, one of his daughter smiling, watching a polar bear swim overhead along a tall aquarium window.

    So much for hard dispassionate Science then.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Joe V.

    Is he going to Press for damages ?

    Boom , boom…


    Report this

    20