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

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Unthreaded Weekend

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 6.1/10 (18 votes cast)
Unthreaded Weekend, 6.1 out of 10 based on 18 ratings

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

108 comments to Unthreaded Weekend

  • #
    Otter

    I was hoping for one of these.

    Question to Everyone!

    I find I am often accused of ‘linking to ultra-conservative sites’ when it comes to climate change and skeptics. Which, in my opinion, is absolute BULL$#!+

    So, here’s my question: May I ask each and everyone’s political leanings, and why they are a skeptic? If that is permitted, of course.

    I’d like to be able to provide examples in one of my own future articles- with your permission, of course! (Errr…. how does one go about requesting that their (My) email, be made available to any skeptic who is willing to answer the above?)


    Report this

    41

    • #

      … why they are a skeptic?

      Have a look at
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/25/my-personal-path-to-catastrophic-agw-skepticism/
      424 responses to date.

      … political leanings

      LOL. “Non-aligned”. Spent a large part of my professional life advising politicians. The stand-out ones were gut socialists who were careful to conserve what was essential to progress, or worth conserving at reasonable cost for its intrinsic value. Looks like that branch of the species has become extinct.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I am totally apolitical.

      I read all party manifesto’s, and do an analysis on the societal benefit for each, and then vote accordingly. Doesn’t everybody do that?

      In regard to my skepticism, like Martin, I have done a lot of work with politicians, of all political hues, and with executives across a range of industries, and have come to the realisation that they are all systematically lied to, most of the time.

      They are not lied to by intent. But the systematic norm is that; when they request information, be it from government departments, or from research institutions, or even from their own staff; it is generally presented in the most positive light possible. “Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative” as the old song goes.

      I am a skeptic, because those with power over the livelihoods of others – the real decision makers – sometimes need to have access to a skeptical viewpoint that questions their original thinking, or calls their advice into question (which are good things, especially if they are going to make a public statement). Alternatively, considering a skeptical view, can act to clarify their thinking, and in the process, adds some value to their proposition.

      Of course, the role I perform, used to be the role performed by the academic peer review process, before it became subordinated into the role of being an inexact measure of general agreement, rather that a real critique.

      Most of the trolls we get here, just don’t get that, and so they miss out on the value of constructive debate.


      Report this

      60

    • #
      MadJak

      Hi Otter,

      Seriously, if I could vote (in either the Australian or New Zealand elections, of which I am prohibited to vote in either), I would actually find it difficult to vote for any party. It would be like trying to choose the least worst option, which in the three elections in my life where I have been able to vote, the decision has been made based on this.

      You see, I have limited libertarian leanings, limited capitalist leanings and limited socialist leanings. What does that mean? Well, whilst I agree that people should be enabled and take more accountability for their actions, and that government should be heavily limited in the amount of control it exerts, I also think that there are areas where this model doesn’t work. I am pro capitalism, but more with a small business entrepreneurial leanings rather than the whole merchant bankers systems manipulating markets crap (wouldn’t it be nice if the sharemarket went back to being somewhere to raise capital rather than where to make a quick buck out of producing nothing). Socialist leanings? Struggling working people or people who really cannot support themselves should be assisted, but it should not become a lifestyle choice.

      So does that put me on the centre of the spectrum? I am pro capital punishment for the most heinous crimes, which puts me way on the right end of the scale, apparently. But then if I heard of say some group dumping toxic waste or something in a river, or a private school graduate getting out of a prison sentence for assault because he won’t cope in prison and it would be too embarrassing for him, I would be calling for the authorities to toughen up and do their effing job properly.

      The view that sceptics are conservative is bunkum, imo. With the great scare happening, it has diluted the focus on other environmental issues significantly, of which I think a few of the main antagonists have profited quite nicely from.

      I think it’s fair to say that in the last election I would have voted liberal (If I could, which I cannot), the election before that I really don’t know.

      In short, it depends on the issue.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        MadJak

        And finishing off the answer as to what turned me into a sceptic, well many things, but my BS meter actually got triggered when i watched Al Gores an inconvenient truth.

        I sat there watching it, assuming the UN had done their homework, but as I saw al gores spin and theatrics, I found myself asking some questions like ‘surely this isn’t all based on this?”

        From there, I was sceptical on the topic. Then climategate happened. All over red rover.


        Report this

        41

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      I am sceptical of the existence of Sasquatch and alien abduction and wild moose in Fjordland New Zealand, simply because of a lack of evidence. I must admit that there is at least SOME evidence, for these phenomena, albeit anecdotal at best. To me, scepticism implies some doubt.
      I am not sceptical of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or any significant causative effects of carbon dioxide on atmospheric temperature, because for these there is simply no evidence of any kind.
      Ever since Maurice Strong began to influence Herbert Lamb at the UN, I have maintained that I am not sceptical, because that implies some doubt. I KNOW that it is deceitful fraud, because I come from the same place as Strong and am well aware of his and his family’s influence regarding International Communism as far back as the Winnipeg General Strike.
      None of this has anything to do with ‘political leanings’, and more to do with the knowledge and experience I have acquired as an applied scientist.
      While I have been described as “a little to the right of Genghis Kahn”, I am in fact completely in tune with the ideology of John Stuart Mill, Ayn Rand, and Rand Paul, and have little use for the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’. I regard ideologies as being like a horse shoe, with liberty and freedom being at the front, and the extremes of the left side and the right side of nearly touching in similarity at the back.
      Does that answer your question?


      Report this

      30

    • #
      AndyG55

      Alright. I have been a Labor voter, teacher’s union type all my life.

      How does that shake your cherries :-)

      ……..

      I woke up in 1998 when I left teaching, and now look at policies and the character of the people in charge.

      I was never going to vote for Gillard, I don’t like lies and spin.

      And I will never vote for KRudd, he is an un-principled egotistical megalomaniac and will be a total disaster for Australia.

      So, much as I dislike the wishy washy Liberal policies re the climate fraud, I will be voting Liberal this time.


      Report this

      50

      • #
        AndyG55

        ps.. by looking at the character of the person in charge, you can gauge the people who put them their.

        I can only conclude that in the case of KRudd, the Labor party are a pack of moronic brain-dead sycophants, that should NEVER, NEVER be in charge of ANYTHING !!!


        Report this

        31

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          There is a big difference between voting for somebody, and voting against their opponent. I suspect a majority of the caucus voted against Gillard.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Bob Massey

      Personally Otter I don’t know how anyone could have swallowed this tripe in the first place..no history needed IMO


      Report this

      50

    • #
      Speedy

      Otter

      As an engineer, I’m a sceptic by profession. The alarm bells for me came after seeing how much of the AGW “evidence” was based on computer based models; we all know that garbage in equals garbage out. Around the time that Ian Plimer wrote “Heaven and Earth”, I also read David Archibald’s book “Solar Cycle 24″. The clincher for me was the Beer-Lambert law applying to infra-red absorption by CO2; the simple fact is that although CO2 does absorb infrared at about 15 microns, there is so little of it left that the additional absorbtion has no practical impact. (But would be debated ad infinitum by the more impractical end of academia.) Copenhagen and Climategate just showed how dangerous it was to hand over power to these fools.

      As to politics? Probably more liberterian and not interested in big government. The role of government is to serve people, not the other way around – many pollies and bureacrats tend to forget this. In considering politicians and political theories, it is important to distinguish between what the pollies say and what they actually do in both their public and private lives. Our most recent, unlamented PM being a case in point. I commend Paul Johnson’s “Intellectuals” to you, with reference to his chapter on Karl Marx.

      Cheers,

      Speedy


      Report this

      50

    • #
      bobl

      I am an individualist. I believe the government should clear the way for me to be a success ( Ie Build Roads, Airports, Railways) maintain the common service, water and so on (including certain laws prohibiting violence and exploitation) and yes they should provide a subsistence level of welfare – but not allow it to be a profession, then they should get out of the b****y way.

      However I have a green tinge. I believe that we should preserve nature, not despoil the planet, leave a legacy, and protect future generations (Of Humans – just in case it wasn’t clear to the greenies out there) but it is an individual moral responsibility not a collectivist one. I hate the government legislating on morality, I don’t need to be told under threat that my dog shouldn’t poop on someone else’s lawn, or how much water I’m allowed to use out of my own tank, how many fish I can take out of my own dam, or how many animals I can keep on my property, or what friggin light bulbs I should use! I object to paying a trillion dollars for the government’s ridiculous but fashionable quest to cool the planet by a whole 0.000024 degrees in 100 years time and that’s if sensitivity is 3. If it’s 1.4 then is a whole 0.00001 degrees. I can think of MUCH better things to spend a trillion dollars on.

      Government should stick to common space and not intrude it’s wicked sticky fingers beyond my front gate.

      I identify as a centre left, but reading what I just wrote I’m probably more of a conservative with a green streak, tend to vote Labor – But not this time!


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Winston

      Otter,
      I think you are asking the wrong question, but I’ll get to that later.

      As far as political persuasion, my earliest recollection was of bewilderment at age of 8 or 9 that John Gorton was such a lush, and then that Billy McMahon was such an incongruous man to have a wife like Sonia (I always thought she and Bill Sneddon would have made a cute couple- but I digress). Living in Canberra at the time, at age 11, I well remember the initial excitement at Whitlam’s election, an optimism I shared even at this tender age. I observed Malcolm Fraser’s Machiavellian scheming as he worked his way to the Liberal Party leadership by clearly underhanded means, then blocked supply to thwart Whitlam in bald faced ambition worthy of MacBeth. I also observed Whitlam to be a pompous and conceited man, with an inflated ego and grandiose ideas, without the foggiest idea of how to implement them. I thought John Kerr did the only reasonable thing anyone with a conscience and concern for the nation could do and that was to give the issue back to the people to decide. They did so and voted with resounding mandate to oust an incompetent and economy wrecking government.

      Then Fraser, who predictably was a poor PM, and whom I loathed with a passion, given that he was an utterly unscrupulous and ambitious man without the slightest regard for the people he governed. So, having reached 18yo, I was finally able to vote in 1983 for the first time, whereupon I forgave the hubris of the Whitlam years and voted Labor, with my senate ticket vote going to one of the few politicians I actually admired, Don Chipp. I voted Labor again at the next election but subsequently thought the GST was necessary due to the need to diversify the tax base with a discretionary tax on spending (and didn’t like Keating backflipping on that issue), given that we were faced with an ageing population and a diminishing base of productive people to tax in terms of purely income. So I voted for Hewson (unsuccessfully as it turned out) and then Howard, who eventually became what amounts to being (from a very poor list of opponents I grant you) the “best” PM we have had in the last 40 years. I will be the first to acknowledge that I did not agree with many of his policy decisions (particularly the “baby bonus” which was stupid in the extreme), but in combination with Costello they did what no other government in the Western world managed to do and that was wind down our national debt to a net surplus, putting funds away for a future fund for upcoming liabilities. This in spite of an Asian economic crisis with all our major trading partners, this single feat places him and Costello head and shoulders above everyone else.

      In 2007, I thought Rudd was a narcissist running a Presidential style campaign, complete with appearances on Rove etc, that made me deeply suspicious that he was all style and no substance, and I thought Gillard was a Trotskyite who never grew up from student politics and with no morals whatsoever, a woman who would do or say anything to further her political aspirations. We, the people were entirely secondary to that. I am unashamed to say I like Abbott as a man. I suspect he is going to be soft left Liberal as PM, and that I will be disappointed in him, but I think he is one of the few people in politics who is at his core pragmatic and has the people’s interests at heart. Even though I personally don’t ascribe to any religious belief, I see his faith, which he does not ram down peoples throats, as a positive not a negative, since he has a track record of personally applying effort for the good of the community and those around him. He is the antithesis of the inner city Melbourne shiraz socialist moron who never does one thing to help the disadvantaged or the community, but pontificate endlessly about such issues without ever actually lifting a finger to aid those they profess to care about. Were Malcolm Turnbull be Liberal leader I would vote informal, of for Themm as MV suggests, and I would happily vote Labor again if they could ever demonstrate to me a level of competence above 6th grade Primary School level.

      Getting back to my initial point, a more pertinent question is “What is your religious affiliation?”, since universally most religious people and the majority of agnostics are not CAGW believers. Those at the vanguard of this movement are atheists to a man. It is their religion! The faithless have found their faith, and I can say that objectively as up until very recently I was also an avowed atheist, so I know exactly the mindset of these people. They consider themselves above their fellow man, they have a callous disregard for family, community, individuality and deviation from their proscribed belief system. They have established a creed that is more intolerant than most other religions could ever hope to be, and much as I reject other organised religions, I completely reject their particular brand of anti-human zealotry also. So, what does that make me? If somebody knows by all means let me know.


      Report this

      90

      • #
        David

        “So what does that make me?” – someone who thinks for himself. Bravo Winston.


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Mark D.

        Winston, I read this shortly after you posted it but I didn’t want to agitate some of the other folks that I’ve had “discussions” with on similar topics. I just wanted to say that this:

        Those at the vanguard of this movement are atheists to a man.

        Wasn’t missed by me and you are spot on.


        Report this

        20

    • #

      I have been way beyond being a skeptic since the time people started worrying about the effect of man adding a trace amount to a trace gas in the atmosphere. The thought that such a trivial modification of a trivial amount could cause a catastrophic failure in our climate system was beyond absurd and deeply into the stark raving mad zone. My evidence? We are here, alive, in a usually benign climate after roughly four billion years. There have been good times, bad times, and locally catastrophic events but no global system failure or we would not be here. Hence it takes a lot more than adding a few parts per million of plant food to the atmosphere to cause the feared total collapse. All the rest showing the idea is totally bogus is mere technical detail hardly worth mentioning by comparison.

      My politics is so close to anarchism you would need a microscope to see the difference. There is a proper function for government but I doubt that there is a way to make it stick to it. Hence, no matter how little government we have, we need less until it serves only that singular purpose: to protect and defend the preexisting natural rights of individuals. The wants, needs, wishes, and demand of groups can go to hell for all I care. Such a government has never existed. Not even our so called constitutional republic in its earliest years. Consider the Whiskey Tax War that George Washington waged upon the “free” peoples of the United States. He was a bleeping Tyrant from that act alone. Hence, even then we had much too much government.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Mark D.

        Lionell, you say this:

        My politics is so close to anarchism you would need a microscope to see the difference.

        There was a time when I would have thought that was crazy talk.


        Report this

        10

    • #

      Otter,

      It’s so easy to keep your opinion to yourself on this subject. That has the distinct advantage of when something, anything, is proven, one way or the other, then you can say ….. “exactly as I thought.”

      The difficult thing is to actually commit to what you believe.

      For me, that came about in March of 2008. I was asked to contribute to a U.S. based blog site. I had an idea that I would like to say something, but then actually committing, and pressing the publish button meant that what I thought was now forever ….. out there.

      I hadn’t done anything like this before, and I was certain that my thoughts would tap out in half a dozen Posts at the absolute outside. That original Series stretched to more than 50 separate Posts and from there, I just kept going, and I now have more than 1,000 Posts at that site, the vast bulk of them related to electrical power generation and related subjects.

      That actual commitment to the first Post was the hardest because that sealed my position. At the time, I was still wavering, but over the following Months as I did literally hundreds of hours of research, now many thousands of hours, that original heart in the mouth commitment thing has been borne out.

      For more than those five years now, I’ve watched ….. and waited for someone to do something to solve this drastic problem that could mean the end of the World as we know it, only to find that despite literally Trillions of dollars being spent on it, they have effectively done nothing to actually STOP the problem. They talk ….. and they talk ….. and they talk. Then they take our money and waste it, but have they stopped the problem at the source. No! Only found ways to make money from it, money for themselves, money for their cronies, money for everyone with a vested interest, all of it just fiddling at the margins.

      After more than five years now, my original concern about that commitment has proved to be baseless.

      Occasionally, I look back at that original Post, something that could have caused me severe embarrassment, and while amateur in nature, the basics were all there, and I can stand by what I said then more now than I could have then.

      Making that original commitment then forced me to do something, to go and find out if my belief was actually founded. Not to sit back without writing it down, and just thinking it, safe in the knowledge that left unwritten, I could later confirm that I always believed one thing or the other.

      Now I had committed, I actually had to back that up, not just for whoever would read my Posts, but for me.

      That I did.

      I have the link to that first Post on the subject, and I sometimes like to point people to it so I can say that I was looking it this subject all that time back now.

      The link to that original Post is as follows.

      Kyoto – A Perspective (Part 1)

      Tony.

      POST SCRIPT: For those of you who do take the link and read it, look then at the Comments which follow the Post. There;s a link to an article from the Australian dated March 22 2008. It’s an interview with Jennifer Marohasy, and is very, very interesting, considering the date it was first published.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      incoherent rambler

      For me, I contend that any politician that accepts the AGW mantra is someone who is too stupid to deserve my vote.
      This means that the left has less chance of my vote than the conservatives.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Ian Hill

      I’ve been a labor voter all my life up to and including the last SA state election in early 2010. Never again though. I became a sceptic after watching Plimer vs Monbiot on the ABC in late 2009. Before that I was blissfully ignorant of the whole climate debate scene, including the possible consequences of Copenhagen.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      WhaleHunt Fun

      Extreme right wing.
      Became a skeptic when the medieval warming was absent from the hockey stick.
      And then when the “science was settled” it was game over. Utter oxymoron. If it is settled, it is not science.
      But the involvement of the UN always is a cause for intense scrutiny.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Jimmy Haigh

      Good question.

      I used to be a leftie – and was when I realized that CAGW was a crock of shit when it was first postulated in the late 80′s. Since then my politics have moved to the right quite a way but I still believe – no, wrong word – I still know that that CAGW is a total crock.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      RoHa

      I was educated in Adelaide in the 1950s and 60s, so I actually learned a few things. In the 70s, living in Britain, I became very interested in environmentalism, and studied it quite a bit. I paid particular attention to the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth scenarios. However, in the years that followed, I saw that (a) concern and care for the environment moved into the mainstream, and thus was well supported, (b) the scarier global scenarios had not happened, and (c) the alternative technologies just weren’t providing the goods. (How much electricity comes from Salter’s duck?) So when the Global Warming scare started getting publicity, I was somewhat inclined to accept the idea (I understood the proposed physics) but not totally convinced. Wouldn’t the CO2 be absorbed by plants? Was this another of the many promised catastrophes (such as the Ice Age threat of the 70s) that had failed to happen? How did this fit in with the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age? But I didn’t give it a lot of thought.

      The biggest obstacles were the supporters of the idea. It was endorsed and promoted by Margaret Thatcher, as part of her destruction of British industry. Slightly less poisonous was the push by a right-wing American politician, Al Gore. (American politicians are all either ordinary right-wingers, like Gore and Obama, or bat-shit crazy right wingers.) Since I was living in the US during the election in which he was cheated out of the Presidency, I was not impressed. I became even more suspicious when I saw the similarity between AGW belief and religious belief.

      In spite of this festering pollution, I tried to avoid falling for poisoning-the-well, guilt by association, and genetic fallacies, and told myself “Stick to the science.” That is, until the emission trading schemes started up. It was obvious that a bunch of nasty financial parasites (the type that Thatcher supported) were going to make huge amounts of money shuffling “credits” around, all at the expense of those who did useful, productive, work. We were all going to be screwed. At that point I started taking it seriously.

      And it did not take long to dig up flaws in the science. The biggest was the missing hot-spot (thanks, David Evans) which, for someone with a Popperian background like me, was a major failing. And the more I have read, the less convincing the AGW story seems. Now the whole thing seems to falling apart, and the profiteers are grabbing their dosh, and, like their rodent superiors, fleeing the sinking ship. The True Believers are desperately trying to prop it up, but even some of them are making slow, careful, retreats.

      A terrible cost, and a tragedy for science.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Eddie Sharpe

    I have a social conscience, but object to appointed authoritarians telling me how I should exercise it. True socialists don’t tolerate questioning of their motives, while they do it all the time, so I’ll have to stick with my own brand if socialism, thank you.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    farmerbraun

    I’m a skeptic mostly because I have a science background. What else could I be?
    Politics? Conservative- libertarian , depending on your definitions. Minimal government with maximum freedom (with the usual provisos , of course).


    Report this

    60

    • #
      farmerbraun

      Maybe this?
      “My ideal society would be one in which there is far more business mutuality and far less multinational bourse influence. One where the power of central politicians was massively reduced, where rich business interests were kept out of the process, where the community ideal was revived as, along with the family, the basis of a stable culture….and above all, individuals were encouraged throughout education to take responsibility and think for themselves.”

      Call it whatever you like.


      Report this

      60

  • #
    The Black Adder

    The latest Galaxy poll has it split 50-50!

    My god! How dumb are Australians?

    If Kruddy the Milky Bar Kid wins this election…
    I gotta zip outta this country, move somewhere much smarter like ….
    Bugger! There is socialism and Agenda 21 everywhere!

    Any suggestions?

    Perhaps the Moon!


    Report this

    50

    • #
      farmerbraun

      Try China. Not much social welfare there.


      Report this

      20

    • #

      M’Lud Edmund! Have you vanquished the troll pretender to your title?

      Pointman


      Report this

      40

      • #
        The Black Adder

        G’day Pointman,

        Never my loyal subject :)

        Just a bit jaded, that after all the hypocrisy that is Kevin Rudd, he still manages to garner 50% support! I’m staggered, tell you the truth!

        Next thing you know he’ll be saying Climate Change is our greatest moral challenge again!

        Grrrrrrr. It’s only 8am and I feel like a beer already !!


        Report this

        60

    • #
      • #
        Mike Jowsey

        I posted a comment on this article:

        Peter Griffin, this is a trash piece of ‘journalism’ unworthy of publication anywhere let alone in the National Business Review. Such surveys are inherently error-prone, with the wording of the questions creating ambiguity. Where are the error bars in these results? While I am all in favour of a little friendly rivalry with our Aussie neighbours, your cheap-shot headline, followed by very little of the ‘science’ you espouse, is simply not up to par.


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Your reference article says: “… only 6 in 10 Aussies think it takes one year for the Earth to orbit the Sun.”

        The Earth takes 365.2425 days to complete an orbit around the sun, which is slightly longer than a year, which is why we have to add an extra day in every forth year, unless the year number is divisible … etc.

        Alternatively, if we consider that the sun itself is moving through space, relative to the centre of the galaxy, then it will take even longer for the Earth to complete a full orbit. In fact it takes 365.256365 days to complete a sidereal year.

        I am surprised that 6 in 10 Aussies didn’t know those facts. :-)

        In reality, it was a crap question in the survey, because we don’t know how many of the respondents were Cosmologists.


        Report this

        50

        • #

          The definition of a solar year is simply the time it takes for the earth to orbit the sun. What calendar you use is totally and completely arbitrary. The calendar year in our usual calendar is rounded down form the solar year to an even number of days for three years and then rounded up one more day to make up for the lost time. Then every so often, more time is added to make up for the fact that even using a leap year doesn’t quite hit the mark. Then as clocks get more accurate, they add leap seconds, leap milliseconds, and even smaller chunks to make things match a solar year.

          The final complexity, is that no two solar years are the same. The earth is actually slowing down. So each solar year is a bit longer than the last. This is so even though one’s subjective time seems to go faster as the years pass. For example, it is almost August and it seems to me that last month had to have been April or May. I am not sure what happened to June or most of July even though I remember doing stuff during those months.

          Hence, that question is a trick question. It cannot be answered exactly until it is measured. Even then, there is measurement error and gravity caused time dilation to take into account. However, for most practical purposes the answer is that it takes approximately 365 and 1/4 days to a few parts in ten thousand.


          Report this

          20

          • #
            Ian Hill

            It amuses me that the terms “year” and “light year” are strictly relevent to Earth only. Any astronomers and physicists residing elsewhere in the universe will have their own units of time and distance. The speed of light to them will be whatever whatevers per whatever. One thing’s for sure, they won’t be looking at the third (big) rock from the (obscure star in whatever constellation) and using those parameters for their measurement units.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Streetcred

          In reality, it was a crap question in the survey, because we don’t know how many of the respondents were Cosmologists.

          … or vote Labor !

          Government, get out of my way !


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Heywood

      “Any suggestions?”

      Perhaps you can join me on a leaky fishing boat in Darwin. We could head north and claim asylum in Indonesia…


      Report this

      60

    • #
      MadJak

      Ironically,

      Russia, maybe?

      At least Putin can hunt.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        The Black Adder

        They have cheap vodka too…

        We will need a stiff drink if Kruddy wins!


        Report this

        40

        • #
          MadJak

          Honestly, if KRudd wins, I will be extremely despondent. And will be asking the question:

          If KRudd wins this election, who will be the PM at the next election?

          I cannot stand the idea that a populist gets voted in the first place. The only thing worse than that is having some nameless faceless unionists dictating who our PM is – that’s just the act of a despotic regime, imo.


          Report this

          50

          • #
            Speedy

            If the ABC was Relevant, (Part 48)
            (The Mechanic’s Shop.)

            [Scene: A motor mechanic’s workshop. BRYAN enters, where he meets JOHN.]

            Bryan: Gidday, I’m here for the Fustercluck.

            John: Ah – The Gillard! We’ve got her on the hoist out the back.

            Bryan: Did you have a look at the big end?

            John: It wasn’t pretty but there’s plenty else to worry about. What was she in for?

            Bryan: She’s been burning a lot of cash for a while. Always looking for a top-up.

            John: Yeah, Gillards do that. Anything else?

            Bryan: The ride’s been bumpy, policy handling is all over the place and she’s barely lurching from one crisis to another.

            John: Well, we did have a good look at the independent’s suspension.

            Bryan: Is it OK?

            John: They’re all shockers. One of them is a little Wilkie and another is completely Oakeshott.

            Bryan: That’d do it. Could you do anything about the economy?

            John: You’ve got to remember, Bryan, that the Gillard is a power-hungry beast. Which means the economy has got suffer…

            Bryan: Isn’t there anything you can do? This is killing me.

            John: Well, we Greeced the deficit, primed the pump and ratcheted up the spending but the economy is still flat.

            Bryan: Did you try a little inflation?

            John: I wouldn’t recommend it Bryan. This brand is bad for that – remember the Whitlam?

            Bryan: Yeah, and the Keating. Better give it a miss.

            John: What else was there?

            Bryan: Did you look at the air con?

            John: What about it?

            Bryan: Every time you use it, the engine cuts out.

            John: That’d be the climate control – it’s a green car initiative.

            Bryan: How’s that supposed to help?

            John: It’s a CSIRO idea – turns off your motor to prevent global warming.

            Bryan: Does it work?

            John: No, but it’s been extensively modeled.

            Bryan: Which is why they call it air con. How about the temperature gauge – it’s always reading hot.

            John: Nothing wrong with. As used by the BOM, old son.

            Bryan: What about the radio?

            John: Yeah?

            Bryan: I was expecting the National Broad Band and all I get is the ABC.

            John: That’s all you need.

            Bryan: And the speaker is pretty dodgy.

            John: The most expensive money can buy.

            Bryan: Did you notice the clock? It’s stuck at one minute to midnight – I can’t change it.

            John: Oh, that. It’s not a clock – it’s a Fuel Watch. They never worked.

            Bryan: So, that’s it. Couldn’t you fix anything?

            John: Not much I’m afraid. If I were you I’d ditch this one as quickly as you can. She’s a dud.

            Bryan: OK, thanks. No worries then. See you later.

            John: Before you go – there’s this – err… [Hands BILL to Bryan.]

            Bryan: [Reads bill.] Ten grand?!?! You must be kidding!

            John: Sorry mate. It’s the price of Labor.


            Report this

            140

          • #
            Ace

            Think big man.
            When Obama won I was ready to blow my brains out…only I had no gun to suit the job.


            Report this

            30

    • #
      Turtle of WA

      How’s David Cameron going?


      Report this

      30

    • #
      incoherent rambler

      My god! How dumb are Australians?

      Rhetorical question?


      Report this

      10

  • #
    RoHa

    The Warmists seem to have decided that the best way to “explain” the current stable temperature is to claim that the heat has now decided to go into the deep ocean, where it will lurk for a while and then come out and GET us. (And, no doubt, wake up Godzilla and send him on another rampage.) They are even claiming some observational support for this idea.

    So, Jo, if you’ve got a spare minute or two, could you and your spouse kindly provide us with a neat Sceptic’s-Case-type summary of why this idea is a load of old shoemakers?


    Report this

    30

    • #
      MemoryVault

      No need RoHa.

      The whole “theory” that the “missing heat” (energy) is somehow “finding its way into the oceans” defies the observed fact that the NET transfer of energy is FROM the oceans, TO the atmosphere. It’s called the Water, or Hydrologic Cycle. Here are some pretty pictures used to educate primary school children about it.

      Yes, I realise it’s sad that we have highly paid “scientists” with PhDs who apparently do not know what the average kid learns in Grade 5 or 6, but there you have it. Maybe they all missed school that day.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        bobl

        Oops, replied to the wrong article – see #6.1


        Report this

        00

        • #
          MemoryVault

          I’ll reply here to keep the thread together.

          Yes, the current theory of “Trenberth’s Travesty” ‘missing heat’ does apparently involve magic.

          No physics, but lots of magic.


          Report this

          30

          • #
            MemoryVault

            .
            I might add that Flannery, Steffen, Karoly, Chubb and Braganza are all on record as using this magic trick to explain the “missing heat”.

            When they did I wrote (emailed) and asked them how it worked in light of the Water Cycle and all. I also emailed the same question to their parent organisations – the Climate Commission, the CSIRO and the BoM. I even sent them all the above link to all the pretty pictures.

            I’ve been doing this repeatedly for the last six months, without ever receiving a reply.
            So I guess, like all good magic tricks, the methodology is meant to remain a closely guarded secret.


            Report this

            30

            • #
              Winston

              In order to be privy to such information, you will have to join The Loyal Guild of Climastrologists”, MV, and then, and only then will you learn the basis of these closely guarded secrets. Of course, you must learn also to master their secret handshake, and become Flannery’s blood brother in a highly sacred ceremony where you must stand hooded and stark naked in a circle of acolytes, all at a top secret location only known to the highest order of those in their inner sanctum. Sounds very scientific I know, but I’m sure you can handle it. The path to wisdom is not an easy one, grasshopper.


              Report this

              10

          • #
            RoHa

            I much prefer magic to physics. Not much mathematics needed for magic.


            Report this

            00

            • #
              AndyG55

              RoHa,
              The really good magicians use maths and engineering all the time.
              That’s their secret. Timing, mechanics etc etc.


              Report this

              00

              • #
                RoHa

                You are thinking of stage magicians, prestidigitators, illusionists, conjurors.
                I mean real, Harry Potter type, magic.
                That’s what Flannery and Co. use, isn’t it?


                Report this

                00

    • #
      Ace

      Course you know why Grrziller is always so het up.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Manfred

      One study suggested a little Ocean warming until 2004, which then stopped. Another, suggested no warming.
      The empirical evidence isn’t there. As for modeling, that’s something else.

      First, sea levels are not rising and oceans are not getting hotter. This alone disproves the entire CO2-induced global warming nonsense. By the warmists’ belief, the oceans must grow warmer, and the sea levels must increase as CO2 increases. Neither is happening. In fact, the opposite is happening. NASA and NOAA’s own data show this quite clearly. The chart below is from U. Colorado, and is based on NASA’s satellites that measure sea level. Note on the chart the dramatic decrease in trend starting in about 2005, and the sudden decrease in sea level in early 2010.

      http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.co.nz/2011/09/from-man-made-global-warmist-to-skeptic.html


      Report this

      20

  • #
    A C of Adelaide

    Some one may care to follow this clown up – Head of the SA Museum therefore, one assumes, “approved” by Tim Flannery

    Science communication…


    Report this

    10

    • #
      bobl

      I really don’t get how that works actually, so the heat is magically (presumably on it’s birthday) going to skip past the atmosphere into the ocean, an ocean of considerably greater mass than the atmosphere, where that energy makes a far smaller difference in temperature, maybe 0.003 degrees rather than IPCCs 3 degrees, and some how that 0.003 degrees is going to magically jump out of the ocean and make three degrees against every law of physics known to man. We’re supposed to be worried about this?

      If the energy is going into the ocean then it’s all over red rover, ocean warming is not any threat, just a mildly interesting phenomenon.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Mark Hladik

    Hi Otter,

    I am Mark Hladik, a resident of Casper, Wyoming, United States (wrong side of the Big Pond).

    Political leanings: since terminology can be confusing, I am politically an Independent, but lean towards the political philosophy of the Revolutionary Founding Fathers ( errr, that would be the revolt against the Crown; it was a few years ago … … … maybe you’ve heard something about it). I believe in limited Constitutional Government, the establishment and Rule of Law (as opposed to the Rule of Men, which too much of the world is subjected to, and unfortunately, my own government is trending towards — – ironically, we were warned that our government would become the monster it is turning into). I believe that human societies should be governed, by the consent of the governed, and not ruled. But, as Ben Franklin said, (paraphrase) ‘ … we have given you a Republic, IF you can keep it …’.

    If the phrase “T.E.A. Party” means anything in your lexicon, then you should know where my sympathies lie.

    I am a skeptic (American English spelling) from several decades ago. You may recall, and it has been oft-discussed, that the media (and scientific community, by the way) was near-apoplectic about the “decline” in average global temperatures, from the post-war period until the middle (or late, depending upon to whom you discuss the matter) 1970′s. The meme was “imminent ice-age!!!”, and as the well-archived articles from both ‘Time’ and ‘Newsweek’ prove that it was NOT just a ‘media event’, as one YOUNG participant in another discussion thread claimed to me (it was a brainless parroting of what (s)he had been told on something like ‘Real’(faux)’Climate’).

    I was just barely into my my freshman undergraduate year at a major American university when all the hysteria broke out, so I decided I should check the facts for myself. I went to the university Library, and dug into what was available in the field of paleoclimatology at the time. Trust me when I tell you, it was not much. One extensive reference (to which I still turn today) was Flint, on the subject of Quaternary Geology.

    After about two days of hit-and-miss research (encompassing some six-to-seven hours of actual reading and study), I came to the conclusion that the “drop” in average global temperatures (at the time) was nothing more than a natural variation, and we had nothing to worry about.

    So, here I was, this NOTHING piddly-little freshman, and I debunked the whole of the existent climatology community.

    Long story short, I graduated, started working in my field, married, etc etc etc … … …

    Then, here came the CAGW meme, on or about 1990. OK, back to the books, study up, … … … it’s all hokum. Same song, second verse, a little bit louder, a little bit worse.

    The kicker for me was the “models”. In my chosen field of work, I make (literally) dozens of models each week. Some are, err, … ahh, … well, they ‘kind of’ do sort of, maybe, a little bit, somewhat, … … … OK.

    Then there are the “other” results. Another long story short, the more complex the system being modeled, the less likely the model has any bearing on the reality of the system. In the case of ‘climate’ models, these charlatans claim to be able to model a non-linear (impossible) coupled (difficult, but not impossible) dynamic (possible, but take the results with a grain of salt) system. The number of variables, even if only in the hundreds (it’s actually several thousand, and that doesn’t even touch recursive variables), means that the number of permutations is in the ‘thousand millions’ (Americans call it ‘billions’), hence the system is unsolvable. Make just one or two incorrect assumptions, and your model is a waste of electrons.

    “Climategate” and other such nonsense just confirms to me that the CAGW crowd is just the latest incarnation of ‘snake oil’ salesman. Slowly, the victims are finding out they been sold a bill of goods, and the salesmen are in the process of leaving Dodge City.

    As far as I am concerned, their exit cannot take place fast enough, with the caveat that all of them will quickly latch onto some other scheme to fleece the public, and we will be forced to do battle with them again.

    Unfortunately for us, they will have learned valuable lessons from this episode, and exposing them will take longer, and be more difficult, as they pass on their methods and knowledge to a new generation of antagonists.

    Sorry for the long-winded response, but as an elderly person, I have earned a few privileges in my day.

    In the words of our hostess,

    ‘G’day mate!’

    Mark H.
    Very old reader of blogs and participant in CAGW discussion threads


    Report this

    130

    • #
      Annie

      Mark, your reply is brilliant! I differ from you in that I am an English Monarchist but otherwise really love your post.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Mark Hladik

        Thank you for the kind words. There are very few who would put the word, “brilliant” in a sentence connected to me.

        As far as your support for the Monarchy, ’tis all well and good. Our differences only make us stronger!

        Regards,

        Mark H.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Ace

    Who thinks as I do that Water World is a shithole?


    Report this

    10

    • #
      MadJak

      Waterworld was a shithole of a movie, for sure

      Just like other catastrafarian propoganda classics


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Ace

        Not the movie, the place.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Yonniestone

          What Water World are you referring to Ace?


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Ace

            Every fecker who goes there…which round by here is every fecker…(Im watching Unforgiven at the moment) …comes back as under some manner of glammer that do have them say as its the most beutifuul wondrous marvel as was ever built on a muddy dyke. But it aint so.


            Report this

            00

            • #
              Yonniestone

              Ace if your talking about this Water World http://www.waterworld.co.uk/ then I’ll take your word for it :)
              We’ve got some great water parks down here one of the best is Wet ‘N’ Wild at the Gold Coast QLD, BTW don’t let kids search that name online without a filter on and don’t ask me how I know :(
              Unforgiven is one of my favorite westerns, the final shootout was described as the most realistic by one of my firearms instructors, as he survived 3 I’ll take it as being true.


              Report this

              10

              • #
                Ace

                Eh…never heard of that. Im talking about the Water World thats below sea-level and yet looks down on everyone. Thinks itself hot and cool both but is just a jumped up bog-estate with rows of Hannibal Lecter houses and Ed Geine Garrots.

                Im off to bed. See if you can give Water World its nom-de-ponse or map co-ordinates by time I come back.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Yonniestone

                How very cryptic of you, ok here goes.
                The term “Fecker” has surprisingly many meanings from loose women in Pittsburgh to a person of Feckuador South America but I figure you mean the Irish slang for a person.
                The movie Unforgiven about a gunslinger and the word “Glammer” used in Stephen Kings novel The Gunslinger set in an alternate time or parallel universe to ours suggests you believe that people are under a delusion upon return of this place.
                The spelling of beutifuul is a Hindi version of beautiful and it’s symbol is a lotus flower so taking the hint of a Hindu symbol in Europe leaves the Swastika adopted by the Nazis.
                Muddy dyke could be a female wrestler keen on other women but I’ll take it for the engineering version.
                Below sea level is many places but a young Hannibal Lecter grew up in Lithuania where it has a warm water port and cold water lakes, also the documented collaboration with the Nazis gives the impression of looking down in arrogance in general.
                The Ed Gein garrot’s quip would allude to the past and present political characters and the choking political climate and system in Lithuania.
                So how did I do?


                Report this

                10

              • #
              • #
                AndyG55

                “Wet ‘N’ Wild ”

                I didn’t know you were into that stuff !!


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Ace

                Yonnistone…Feckin brilliant analysis (even if in jest) except the Hannibal Lecter bit was misinterpreted. Remember Occams rule. Th simplest interpretation on Hannibal Lecter houses is aesthetic: they look like he would be at home in them. Ed Gein was the real life Hannibal Lecter and similarly creepy looking garrots was meant to put you in mind of tall houses with attic rooms.

                Glammer was spot on but no medal mate. Its not from a Stephen King novel but is an age old word that means what you said he used it to mean. Though “glammer” is a kind of Wild West spelling (its really “glamour”…which indicates what the real meaning of that word in its other use is, ie a “glamourous” woman is putting a spell on you). The Wild West theme was an irrelevant aspct of the way I felt like arranging my words and The Unforgiven just happenned to be a good example I was actually watching at the time. No relevance to Water World.

                Though you might be taking the piss and I make lots of typos, of which it was one, your Hindi reference fitted, by chance, correctly. I nearly included the word “Q..s…g” but thought the clue was tooooo obvious (hence the spaces). And yes, I DO use Anglo-Hindi words quite often, mainly “innit” (and sometimes the German equivalent, which I found it hilarious to discover there is: “genau”). In fact, I believe regular English contains at least 300 Hindi words in common use. But innit is a recent one from the late 20th century.

                So Lecter mislead you to Lithuania, but your description of that place fits Water World, only, think canals instead of lakes. There aint no beautifuul nature in Water World. A patch of grass there is cock-a-hoopla and a tree is almost a miracle. At least in the town centre, which is what I really mean by Water World.

                MemoryVault and AndyG55……oh dear, you didnt take heed of Yonniestiones earlier failed attempt to take that route. Remember, I said “Every fecker who goes there…which round by here is every fecker……” Now what kind of place would I live that everyone visits the same theme park? A bit implausible. No, clearly it cannot be a them park or anything whatsoever that is minor or of narrow appeal. If virtually everyone I meet has been there then it must be something more substantial and of wider appeal. Plus, I did say it looks down on everyone …which hardly suggests a poxy theme park, crikey, wheres your self respect?

                Anyway, I think the capital clue begins with “Q” and that Ive already let slip. Except its too easy, so Im blanking its other letters. If I used a certain word beginning with “T” it would give it away instantly.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Ace

                …Though, on reflection, it IS a theme park…the theme being itslf and its cocky sense of itslf and the few cool dudes that once lived there.


                Report this

                00

  • #
    Ace

    Every fecker who goes there…which round by here is every fecker…(Im watching Unforgiven at the moment) …comes back as under some manner of glammer that do have them say as its the most beutifuul wondrous marvel as was ever built on a muddy dyke. But it aint so.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    How the hell did Bolt allow Rudd to get away with the false claim of 4000 IPCC scientist.

    By the way Jo and all us skeptics are ungodly, oh the shame, the shame, I’m on my knees praying for forgiveness.


    Report this

    50

    • #
      MadJak

      I agree,

      It was more of an argument than an interview. He didn’t even pillory him on the $300 savings per year thing which turns out to be ~300 for year one (dependant on the market) and possibly -$500/year after that – dependant on locust funds.

      Most disappointed. Rudd did equate sceptics to deniers though, so everyone here – if you have doubts about global warming, the Australian prime minister reckons you’re a denier – just like those holocaust deniers (bastards).

      I am offended, but then again, I come to expect it from the elite communists in power at the moment.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        bobl

        I was offended too, not a good look when you offend , what is it now? 58 % of the population that have doubts about the carbon tax… Let me call on all sceptics never to vote for anyone that calls you a denier… Oh unless you actually deny the Holocaust of course.

        Of course Bolts very generous figure of 0.004 is only wrong by a factor of 200, and that’s if climate sensitivity is 3 rather that the more realistic 1.4 recently shown by JB. I make the difference the carbon tax will make 0.000024 deg for a climate sensitivity of 3 and about 0.000011 deg for 1.4 (the actual sensitivity between the LIA and now). All that cooling for a mere trillion dollars


        Report this

        00

    • #
      The Black Adder

      Yes Bob, it seems we are all deniers according to that fu$&kwit!!

      He did not have an answer to the temp difference of 0.0048 of a degree though.

      He looked dumbfounded when pressed in this issue and kept referring back to the IPCC and the Corrupt CSIRO!!

      Charlatans, the lot of them!! And Kruddy is the King!!


      Report this

      30

      • #
        MadJak

        So Why on earth didn’t bolt quote Puchari regarding the 15 year absence of statistically significant warming?

        He had him, and he let him go. I couldn’t believe it.


        Report this

        20

      • #
        David

        “And Kruddy is the King” – and also a “Survivor of Kokoda” [he said it so it must be right] and now a survivor of Afghanistan [great photo of Kruddfuehrer with the ballistic vest on but no helmet lest it spoil his carefully coifed hair]. We are so fortunate as it has been a long time since a King in the English speaking world led his troops into battle so wait for the Kruddfuehrer’s version of the real Kingly warrior Henry’s address to the troops at Agincourt [well according to "the Bard" anyway]. I’m tired now – think I’ll go and take my medication.


        Report this

        10

        • #

          David, you say here:

          …..it has been a long time since a King in the English speaking world led his troops into battle……

          The last English speaking King to actually turn up on any field of Battle in more than 300 years was King George V, who did so on 12th August 1918.

          He went there for specifically one reason only.

          To bestow a Knighthood on an Australian.

          John Monash.

          He did this four days after the famous Monash planned Battle of Amiens.

          Monash, the bridge designing Civil Engineer from Melbourne, the only non U.S. General to ever command U.S. troops in battle.

          His is a truly wonderful story, and I have some of it at the following link, and read the astounding part where Monash, with American troops serving under him won the Battle of Hamel ….. in 93 minutes, three minutes longer than he planned for, this at a time when English Generals couldn’t take this much land back from the Germans in Months with the loss of thousands of men.

          Engineers can do anything.

          Remembrance Day And The Importance Of Australia’s General Sir John Monash

          Tony.


          Report this

          40

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            That depends on how you define a Battle.

            The Battle of Britain, and especially the Blitz of London, was intended to break the spirit of the British public. George VI and Queen Elizabeth remained in London, and made sure that they were seen to be involved in coping with the devastation. Of course, it was all staged, but the newsreels of the King inspecting piles of rubble, did wonders for morale.

            George VI had a speech impediment, and his ability to give the speeches to rally the population during the war, came down to an Aussie speech therapist called Lionel Logue, who helped the King to overcome his stammer.

            The film, “The King’s Speech” is highly recommended.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            David

            TfO perhaps I should have been a bit more specific. By leading I meant at the sharp end with weapon in hand. George V was a long way from the sharp end when he knighted John Monash and George VI and Queen Elizabeth were leading the “home front” by example and in as much danger as their fellow Londoners. Being but a simple ex-uniform type I took a more literal approach.


            Report this

            10

    • #
      Bob Massey

      I agree Bob. Andrew went a bit soft on him and I suspect it had to do with the Labor Party big wigs blacklisting him. I think Andrew was very tentative and very politically correct so as not to upset him too much.

      Little Kevni came out with the usually bluster and the D word about the climate another reason to throw what he said straight in the trash. I could think of a dozen better people to put on the show.

      4000 scientists pffft !!!


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      Krudd could only come to the CAGW party with logical fallacies.
      ‘Climate change’ is happening, because the International Propaganda and Corruption Cabal says so, and no-one had the right to challenge what ‘climate scientists’ say.
      Even though there is no space on Manus Island, and even though PNG doesn’t want non-Christian illegal immigrants, just give it time.
      The GFC was diverted by the wasteful spending of billions of dollars on nonsense.
      Are people really gullible enough to swallow this codswallop?


      Report this

      30

    • #

      I just sent an email off to Andrew Bolt asking why my comment in today’s “Tips” on his blog didn’t get published.

      Rudd got the better of you in the interview, Andrew.

      Rudd got away with using his fabricated International Panel of Climate Change scientists where “there are 4,000 scientists on that panel”.

      He also got away with stating that “There are two sources of authority that we should listen to, because we pay them for their best and considered advice. One is the International Panel of Climate Change scientists … And the CSIRO, which is a body which has existed in this country since the 1930s, analyses climate change science”.

      You know better than that, Andrew. There is no such thing as the International Panel of Climate Change scientists. The IPCC is the InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change which has, as its 195 members, the countries who joined it. There aren’t 4000 scientists on that panel.

      The forthcoming Assessment Report has 850 contributing authors; most of whom have no qualifications as climate scientists; in fact only a minority are physical scientists – the people whose stock and trade is to deal with the physics of the climate system. Most of the minions deal with the impact of the purported consequences of climate change (the really scary stories) and doing dubious economics that would probably have resulted in them failing their University degree studies.

      Rudd deliberately misrepresents the IPCC as an authoritative, scientific organization instead of the corrupt UN bureaucracy that it is in reality. Rudd didn’t mis-speak. He made a concerted effort to say the words on more than one occasion. It was deliberate.

      Rudd’s mentioning of CSIRO going back to the 1930′s (actually founded in 1926) is supposed to lend weight (authority) to their “work” in climate science with the implication that they’ve been doing climate science that long. All of that is of course codswallop because it’s not the institutions that are doing science, it’s the people working within the framework of the institution. There are almost no scientists left at CSIRO; it’s loaded with apparatchiks.The organization is being run (into the ground) by a former bank executive with no scientific qualifications or apparent interests.

      Rudd produced 2 classical, logical fallacies; argument from authority and argument by popularity. Additionally, he reasoned that simply because people are paid to do stuff, that they are authoritative.

      You’ve read Donna Laframboise’s book, haven’t you?

      Why did you let Rudd off the hook?


      Report this

      51

  • #
    pat

    as with virtually all CAGW pieces in recent days, it’s illustrated by the ridiculous chimney photo & no mention made of all the exported emissions. plus a reminder it’s “bipartisan”:

    27 July: Australian: Graham Lloyd: Carbon cuts won and more to come
    AUSTRALIA is on track to achieve almost half its bipartisan 5 per cent carbon dioxide emission reduction target without having to buy any permits on a global trading market, a survey of past and future trends has found.
    If all of the identified carbon savings were adopted, Australia could achieve at least a 25 per cent target on domestic action alone, the ClimateWorks Australia report, Tracking Progress Towards a Low Carbon Economy, says…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/nation-on-track-with-targets/story-fn59niix-1226686568456

    Newspoll gets the result it wants, & doesn’t even mention the percentage AGAINST! nice going:

    24 July: Australian: Damon Kitney: Nation warms to carbon price as execs worry
    A Newspoll conducted for The Australian’s Path to Prosperity series found 34 per cent of respondents were now totally in favour of having a price on carbon compared with the 32 per cent in favour recorded in a similar survey in October 2011…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/nation-warms-to-carbon-price-as-execs-worry/story-fni4k1kl-1226683997344

    there’s a business survey as well in the above, with business sounding extremely pessimistic. so, would the public want the “price” if it meant businesses going under, one wonders!


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    Low CO2 prices force UN to look at fee cut for CDM developers
    LONDON, July 25 (Reuters Point Carbon) – A U.N. panel will this week mull cutting fees for investors in emission reduction projects registered under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) after the costs of generating carbon credits has helped make many projects unprofitable…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2481910

    27 July: WUWT: American Academy of Arts and Sciences president to resign in resume scandal
    The American Academy of Arts and Sciences is big on pushing this pet project: “the Alternative Energy Future“…
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/27/american-academy-of-arts-and-sciences-president-to-resign-in-resume-scandal/#more-90529

    25 July: Bloomberg: Sally Bakewell: Insurance Bill for Renewables Seen Tripling to $2.8 Billion
    Insurance costs for the renewable energy industry may more than triple to $2.8 billion by 2020 as projects become more complex and risky, a report commissioned by Swiss Re Ltd. found…
    ***The increases will be driven by a move by the wind energy industry to generate more power from offshore farms and as more risk-averse investors such as pension funds enter the industry, the report for the world’s second-biggest re-insurer found…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-25/insurance-bill-for-renewables-may-rise-to-2-8-billion-by-2020.html


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    Since everyone seems to agree that ‘climate change’ does occur naturally, and of course over the course of geologic time it certainly has, I am curious about the extent to which associate ‘climate change’ with the use of fossil fuels. Logically, the only possible common denominator is the ubiquitous ‘global warming’.
    The other day, in desperation, I threw at a Greenie arguing that ‘climate change is happening’ “Describe the extent to which Australia’s climate is different now as compared to that in 1850.” I didn’t get an answer. To the extent that the deserts are where they have always been, the Great Barrier Reef is exactly as Cook found it (according to Bob Carter), temperatures vary from winter to summer to the same extent, the wooded areas are where they were, can anyone answer this? Obviously, there are changes to the LANDSCAPE due to human activity such as clearing, farming, mining, building cities, dams, etc. but these aren’t climate. Is there any reason to think differently? I have an illustrated book published in the mid 19th century, and I would suggest that nowhere has the climate changed significantly since then, other than some changes in the size and position of deserts.


    Report this

    20

  • #

    I saw Otter’s post yesterday and the more I thought about the more I realized what a difficult assignment he posed. After all, who wants to be the kind of person who tells you “Me Grandad voted “…”, my Dad voted “…” and if it was good enough for them, then it’s good enough for me”. I don’t actually know what I am politically, or where I fit in the political landscape. I tend to vote centre right on the basis that more often than not, they tend toward more rational solutions whereas the left tend to be emotional and irrational. Then I struggle with issues like abortion, gay marriage and euthanasia. The more I think about it I think that the old left/right paradigm is no longer a comfortable fit for society. As to my skepticism, there was an odour of political imperative behind the scientific posturing from the get go. IMHO no true scientist would be comfortable as a political poster boy/girl. That would make them too partisan. In truth we should all die wondering. “To know, is to know that you know nothing. That is the true meaning of knowledge” – Socrates.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    michael hart

    Otter,

    Politically, I am mildly left of centre in the British and American sense of the word. I have little experience of Australian politics. My politics are now such that any political party that supports measures to curtail human carbon dioxide emissions is seriously marked down. They had better have a damn good reason for me to vote for them otherwise. (The UK liberal party is now the last of three that I would vote for, having been the first for much of my life.)

    I have no basic objection to the state funding of scientific research and science education. I am a product of it, and I am grateful. I owe something in return. But the state should not fund foolishness. Especially when it becomes damaging to humans, and has zero, or less than zero, benefit to the environment. The campaign against carbon dioxide first came to my attention as a teenager in the 1970′s. I laughed at it then and, a state scientific education later, I have still seen no good evidence that it is a problem. If it had remained an obscure academic curiosity then the harm would have been minimized.

    But now I am a bit frightened, in a political sense. This cannot go on. I foresee a backlash against state science-funding, and against science itself. There are so many real problems in the world crying out for solutions, but here we are directing resources towards people looking for new problems, on the back of a whim or some vague concern for the environment.

    I’ve spent many of the best parts of my life walking and climbing on the environment. It offends me that I have to listen to “green” activists and government ministers with degrees in English lecturing me about the alleged damage that CO2 will cause.

    I really hope the English-speaking nations don’t continue to lose their way in the world because this century is likely to see a changing-of-the-guard in world politics, and the concept of liberal-democracy is not as entrenched as many of us like to think. The gains we have made through the (fossil-fuel powered) industrial revolution have also afforded us the social gains we treasure and take for granted.

    As Joanne says at the top “…hate to see a good civilization going to waste”

    I have no objection to Joanne making my email address available to you if she considers your research genuine.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Ace

      Dont worry mate…Im English and stuck in Britain too. I used to be bothered by the demographic certainty that Britain will be a Muslim majority nation within fifty years. Now I draw hop from it. All this other crap, eco, feminist, PC, health fascism, rule of HSE, and every other will be swept away like so much shite hosed out of a wet-floor nightclub after the rave is over.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Garhighway

    Meanwhile, Salby’s record as a grant-barred scammer has gotten clearer, the Mann vs cEI and NRO suit is shaping up nicely, and we are about a year out from the Watts study with it’s failure to understand or recognize TOBS. Good times.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    This is out of the blue but I wanted to record some personal opinions on the current El Nino SOI conditions.

    All the models project mild La Nina conditions heading toward neutral later in the year. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/poama.nino34.small.png

    However, the Nino indexes have been weird these last couple of months. The only missing ingredient at the moment is strong trade winds. If these trade winds pick-up, expect another summer from hell for the eastern and South Eastern parts of Australia a la’ 2010-11.
    In fact, current Nino 4 sea surface temperatures are warmer than back in 2010-11 so I’d expect some very heavy rainfall and possible cyclones off Queensland this coming summer.

    Hope my guesswork is wrong as I live in Brisbane and I suffered quite badly during the recent floods.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Oh boy – I hope this turns out to be an eco-activist


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JeffC

    I used to respect the “denier blog” Principia Scientific International but now it seems they have been just about taken over by a certain Alberto Miatello who has written a recent article supposedly “trumping” the “flat-earthers.”

    Seven of them have apparently “helped” with the article which is now supposed to represent their “important new energy model” but is in fact full of errors as several commenters have pointed out.

    But then, in the comment thread which I’ve been watching from the start, they have deleted without explanation several comments which I had read and which clearly and correctly pointed out the author’s errors. I have added a comment of my own which (in case it gets deleted) reads ..

    There is an obvious error in the calculations in this article, because the mean Solar radiation over the whole surface of Earth is most certainly not over 400W/m^2.

    It seems the author has overlooked the fact that, when the Sun’s rays strike the surface at an acute angle, then the intensity is reduced because the energy which passes through a 1m^2 cross-section of the radiation then falls over a larger surface area. For example, if the angle is 45 degrees then the surface area is 2m^2 based on the square of the cosine.

    The overall effect is that the mean intensity is reduced, not by 50% due to half the globe being in darkness, but by about 75% due to the additional fact explained above.

    PSI is barking up the wrong tree in trying to explain surface temperatures using calculations based on incident solar radiation, because the Earth’s surface does not act like a gray body with emissivity 0.88 or whatever. If it did, the Sun could heat the equatorial regions to nearly the boiling point of water, as happens on the Moon.

    I agree with Rojclague below. I trust this comment will not be deleted as I have seen several others with opposing views to the author have been without providing any reason. In my view they were valid comments.


    Report this

    00