JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

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



Archives

Schwarzenegger on ‘deniers’: Strap them to a tailpipe for an hour …

Arnold Schwarzenegger uses all his best scientific reasoning to wow the crowd at the annual National Clean Energy Summit on Tuesday in Las Vegas, Nevada:

Speaking of greenhouse gas deniers: “Strap some conservative-thinking people to a tailpipe for an hour and then they will agree it’s a pollutant!

 The Huffington Post reports

(H/t toJunkScience.com via ClimateDepot)

Steve Goddard responds: Guy With Thick German Accent Wants To Kill His Political Opponents Using Poison Gas?

Hey, but it was only a joke…  (a bit like leaving people who are not-good-with-numbers in charge of national accounts eh?)


VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (77 votes cast)
Schwarzenegger on ‘deniers’: Strap them to a tailpipe for an hour ..., 9.1 out of 10 based on 77 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/kws7l6m

329 comments to Schwarzenegger on ‘deniers’: Strap them to a tailpipe for an hour …

  • #
    Tony Bassi

    It takes much less than an hour to “prove” that water is a pollutant, by the same standards.

    360

  • #
    Glenn

    Oh, good lord, the old CO-CO2 switcheroo strikes again. What a moron.

    250

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Yes, well it stands to reason that CO2 must be twice as bad as CO1 /sarc

      100

      • #
        Ace

        No Rar’k’ you not know…ITS THE SEQUEL!

        50

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Trying to figure out which is best; yours or the one above you!

          Ha

          KK

          30

        • #
          ExWarmist

          @ACE,…”Sequel”…

          In which case it would be “only half as good”, or “twice as bad…”

          (Exceptions, Aliens, Terminator 2, and The Empire Strikes Back were all excellent sequels).

          20

          • #
            cohenite

            The Godfather Part 11 was much better than 1; and while not a sequel but a remake, the Kara Knightley version of P&P was simply much better than the mannered Greer Garson version.

            Apart from Terminator it’s hard to see any of Big A’s movies sustaining a sequel; although Commando 2 would have been fun.

            30

      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        @Rereke Whakaaro

        ‘Yes, well it stands to reason that CO2 must be twice as bad as CO1′

        How do we know it’s co2, well just watch this! What else could it be?

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JerFurLb8-k

        110

        • #
          Heywood

          Obviously missed his /sarc tag.

          Oh no you didn’t, another spam opportunity!

          30

          • #
            blackadderthe4th

            ‘Obviously missed his /sarc tag.’ no I didn’t! It was such a pathetic attempt at so called humour. I just had to point it out by drawing attention to the failure.

            110

            • #
              Heywood

              “pathetic attempt at so called humour”

              Is that anything like your pathetic attempts at trolling this blog?

              40

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘trolling this blog?’ what a load of taurus excrement! Because trolls spread lies, untruths, misinformation, disinformation, distortions, propaganda, economies of the truth and I don’t! Because you have never challenged me with a valid point on any statements I’ve made! So there is the gauntlet thrown down again, but you wont pick it up! Why not?

                [Go back and answer the challenges made to you by several people. If you say this again I'll snip the whole comment and perhaps go back and snip out everything you have said. YOU MAY NOT CLAIM THE "GAUNTLET" OR LIE ABOUT CHALLENGES AGAIN!] ED

                113

              • #
                Heywood

                In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

                If the cap fits…..

                60

            • #
              blackadderthe4th

              ‘posting inflammatory,extraneous,’ well that states a lot, because in these terms it means POSTING the TRUTH! And not your version of it! One mans toll is another mans spreader of the truth. It just depends on your position!

              FAO ED
              ‘Go back and answer the challenges made to you by several people.’ where, when? methinks this is just another attempt to ‘move the goal posts’! Make rules up on the fly to catch people out with.

              ‘YOU MAY NOT CLAIM THE “GAUNTLET” OR LIE(?) ABOUT CHALLENGES AGAIN!’ why not? it his a well know phrase that immediately translates into I WANT AN ANSWER! Anyhow it is miles better and more acceptable than what I Heard Jo Nova saying in a recent radio broadcast!

              112

              • #
                Heywood

                “because in these terms it means POSTING the TRUTH! ”

                in·flam·ma·to·ry  
                /inˈflaməˌtôrē/
                Adjective
                Relating to or causing inflammation of a part of the body.
                Arousing or intended to arouse angry or violent feelings

                Nope. Nothing about truth in that one.

                ex·tra·ne·ous  
                /ikˈstrānēəs/
                Adjective
                Irrelevant or unrelated to the subject being dealt with.Of external origin.

                Nothing about truth there either.

                How about getting a grasp of the English language.

                41

              • #
                Heywood

                “ his a well know phrase that immediately translates into I WANT AN ANSWER!”

                And who the f#&k are you to demand ANYTHING on this blog you arrogant turd?

                41

              • #
                Heywood

                “ his a well know phrase that immediately translates into I WANT AN ANSWER!”

                And who the f#&k are you to demand ANYTHING on this blog you arrogant turd?

                21

              • #

                Trolls are trolls because they have bad attitudes and bad behaviour. There are skeptics who behave the same way. No one is making up rules. If you people who yell “unfair” about banning would bother to read other comments, you would see a clear pattern. Or maybe not–I’m giving the benefit of believing you are capable of independent thought.

                Rule: If you make a statement, back it up with science. Stop making so many comments you can’t remember where the goal posts were (common troll behaviour). If you make comments like your last one, you must produce the comments and a link to back up the charge. Otherwise, we can just start answering you with: “Not as stupid as what blackadderthe 4th said on “x” blog on “xadate”. You know, like that comment you made on a blog I read on the 6th of August that showed how really, really uninformed and unscientific you are. Now, come back and ask what blog it was……..See how far you get. If you just make things up, people will respond in the same manner.

                50

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘No one is making up rules’ is this directed at me? Because I got a message off the mod which went something like this, ‘posting rules are subjective and likely to change without notice’, that seems that rules are made up the fly! What else could it mean? Methinks the ‘goal posts’ are on wheels!
                [I do not make any rules, but I do expect everybody to be rational, show respect to others, and generally behave in a civilised manner -Fly]

                05

              • #

                I would also note that it’s “funny” to say to tape people to tailpipes of running cars and it’s perfectly acceptable to insult and threaten skeptics, but don’t do that to the anointed ones in climate change. If you call them names or threaten, it’s a horrible crime and they whine for months. Advocates can threaten to burn houses down, but use profanity against a professor (who probably used the same term to describe those who failed to follow his enlightened path) and it’s a crime against humanity. They have a godlike status.

                If all of this makes climate science look exactly like politics, well, think about it. If it looks like politics, functions like politics…..

                50

              • #

                To blackadderthe4th’s last comment: Thou doesn’t not thinketh. That beeth the problem.

                50

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘Methinks the lady doth protest too much’, meaning that the lady objects and her credibility takes a dive!

                19

              • #

                So all of your protests here are proof that you have no credibility. Thank you for that very revealing admission. Blackadderthe4th verifies his lack of credibility. Thank you, sir, thank you so much!

                50

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘So all of your protests here are proof that you have no credibility’ far from it! because I suspect you haven’t even watched the links and they no way be said to be protests! Merely the truth and nobody has offered any valid evidence to say otherwise!

                06

              • #

                ‘”Methinks the lady doth protest too much’, meaning that the lady objects and her credibility takes a dive!” Thus, blackaddrthe4th protesting too much=loses credibility. If I have no credibility, then neither have you. You made the statement–it’s your rule. Seems you can’t even follow your own rules/statements.

                If you did not protest, then neither did I. I merely spoketh the truth. Just as you claim you are doing. Works both ways, in spite of your insistence that you are exempt from your rules. Claim away–everyone sees who you are and how foolish you really are. If nothing else, you’re great evidence that warmists have no legitimate claims. The more you spout this hypocritical junk, the worse the warmists look.

                40

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘Thus, blackaddrthe4th protesting too much=loses credibility’ it’s not very clever just to bounce my statements back at me, it shows a crassness, lack of humour, revealing a sign of desperation, come on make some effort! Phew I don’t know, the anti-science brigade are not as formidable as they used to be! Try quoting some science in support of your position or even find some flaws in my links. Now that must be a challenge you can’t resist. But you will fail to make much headway! ‘The more you spout this hypocritical junk, the worse the warmists look.’ well come on show me where it is! Oh yes anybody can say it’s junk, when they don’t have much to offer in opposition.

                16

              • #

                The fact that your statements can be bounced back at you shows either stupidity or gullibility. You chose–maybe both. I haven’t stated any position, merely pointing out the hypocrisy and idiocy of your posts. The hypocritical junk is your saying my protesting is losing credibility and yours is not.

                Here, I will try to bring this down to a level you can understand:
                If Johnny says Billy was drinking his koolaid and then Johnny drinks Billy’s koolaid and says that’s okay, Johnny is a hypocrite.
                If Susie steals Janie’s blanket and then Susie cries foul when Janie steals hers, Susie is a hypocrite.
                If BAT4th says someone loses credibility for an action, then he commits the same action and changes the subject, BAT4th is a hypocrite.

                Now, if you want to discuss science, bring it on. I’m game. Ready with the bat and ball. Go for it. Pick a link and I’ll answer.

                30

              • #

                PS YouTube is not science. It’s for idiots who like to watch video and get their faces on TV. Use journal articles, blog articles or a doctoral thesis. Otherwise, I will assume you are incapable of actually understanding the science and merely parrot whatever your owner teaches you to say.

                40

              • #
                Heywood

                Sheri,

                All he has is his YouTube channel. He is merely trying to increase his view count as an increasing number arouses him somehow.

                There is nothing you can say that will get through his thick skull. Any challenge will result in him linking to another video, usually on a strawman topic.

                He is, by definition, a troll, and a pathetic one at that.

                41

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘Now, if you want to discuss science, BRING IT ON. I’m game. Ready with the bat and ball. Go for it. Pick a link and I’ll answer’,if co2 is forcing GW, why was there a 800 year lag before the co2 rose?

                The reason for the temperature rise and the co2 800 year lag.

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8r46j2WrNk

                03

              • #
                MemoryVault

                Dribblebladder,

                Posting a link to a YouTube clip is NOT “having a debate”.
                Two (or more) people can have a debate. A person and a video clip cannot.

                You tell us here, on this blog, in your own words, your explanation for the 800 year lag, and maybe, just maybe, somebody will debate the issue with you (although probably not on a three day old thread).

                Otherwise, in the immortal words of Ace, fek off. None of us are interested in trying to argue with a pre-recorded video.

                40

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘two (or more) people can have a debate’, oh, who is the pedant then!

                ‘You tell us here, on this blog’ why? I’ll just be saying what what is said in the link! So watch that, because it will be more word perfect than me, but it’s just basic science anyhow! Go one give it ago, see if you can see any flaws and if I can’t give an answer, highly unlikely, then we’ll PM Potholer and see what he has to say about it!

                (Why can’t you write in your own words and post evidence to support it? Trying to make people go watch a video is trying to force the debate is not acceptable) CTS

                05

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                (Why can’t you write in your own words and post evidence to support it? Trying to make people go watch a video is trying to force the debate is not acceptable) CTS

                What are talking about? FORCING, am I standing over them with an arm lock on them? No don’t thinks so!

                ‘Why can’t you write in your own words’ why can’t they view the links, is it because the truth hurts? Because I’ll only be saying what’s in the link,
                99.999999999999999999999999% guaranteed!

                ‘is not acceptable’ there is no forcing going on, but it’s acceptable to call me a Nazi or a turd, is it? Well I never, goal posts and moving comes to mind!

                05

              • #

                If BAT4th does not care enough about “the truth” to post here instead of using a YouTube link, why should anyone here care to watch the link? Talk about lousy sell. “My argument is so good I won’t post it here but I guarantee it’s good and you can see that on the video.” Are you really that dense that you think we don’t know you are just trying to increase the YouTube views (as noted by Heywood). Funny, the rest of us manage to post what we believe, even if means typing a lot of information and putting out there. If you’re too lazy to do that, why would anyone here care what you think? Basically, you have the usual troll behaviour–refuse to provide evidence and then claim no one wants to know the truth. Maybe that’s because you have zero interest in presenting it.

                Try again–NO YouTube. Real science literature. Otherwise, forget it.

                30

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘why should anyone here care to watch the link?’ because it is so full of facts and evidence! And there should be a link in the description to the original video, where you will find,in most cases,further links to scientific papers and journals. Because my vids are only edited under the fair usage policy, so I edit a clip out, to make a short and pertinent point, that is easily understood by anybody with average intelligence. So cast a side your misplaced prejudice and watch a few of them and the originals, which will covert any right thinking person to the truth! Ok it may take a few views, but you’ll get there.

                06

              • #

                BAT4th: Until you learn to use your words and stop babbling and pointing like a spoiled toddler, no one will care a bit about your ideas. You certainly are very good at driving people away from listening to you. Personally, I don’t understand taking the time to come on a blog and then refusing to do anything but babble, but it’s your life. Keep driving people away and your videos will be down to zero views. Which is probably where they belong.

                30

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Folks, BA4 doesn’t understand why we are reacting the way we do.

                See 2.1.2.2.3 for, what I hope is, a rational explanation.

                30

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                @Sheri

                ‘Now, if you want to discuss science, bring it on. I’m game. Ready with the bat and ball. Go for it. Pick a link and I’ll answer’, yeah right! Why is there a 800 year lag after the temperature rise and then co2 starts rising?

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8r46j2WrNk

                So it appears that you are NOT game at all! Because I’m still waiting for your answer! Perhaps we’ll get it when hell freezes over in the next new LIA! Hahahahaha…………….!

                ‘refuse to provide EVIDENCE’ liar, liar, pants on fire! As you can see from the link above, which you claimed ‘I’m game. Ready with the bat and ball’, or are you just too chicken to reply, as you know you haven’t anything to stand on?

                ‘Try again–NO YouTube’, clever, not, issuing limitations, because you know you can’t give a valid answer! By the way in the right hands, somebody like me for instance, Youtube is a very valuable tool to show up people who are ignoring the bleeding obvious, er that would be you!

                PS I do not appear in any of the links, so how am I going to get my face plastered all over the web?

                (Your name is listed along with EACH of those 194 videos meaning your name is indeed prominent with all of those video links.Indeed his list is titled,blackadderthe4′s channel) CTS

                So yet again as you PROMISED to give reply to the link, where is it?

                04

              • #
                MemoryVault

                Alright Dribblebladder,

                I went and wasted six minutes and 14 seconds of my life watching your video “evidence” – twice.
                From the top:

                The very first sentence is bullshit. The “lower troposphere anomaly” was never “resolved”. It was shown to be complete and utter BS. Given that, at the time, its very existence was supposed to be the “indelible fingerprint of AGW”, the fact that it turned out not to exist should have put paid to the AGW BS once and for all.

                .
                The video then explains the cyclical nature of warming and cooling known as glacials and interglacials, but the makes the extraordinary claim that these cycles require “triggers”.

                Why, Dribblebladder?

                I’ll let you in a little secret, Dribblebladder. Where I am right now it is winter. Pretty soon it will be spring. After that it will be summer, then autumn, and eventually it will be winter again. No trigger required. It’s just what happens in a cyclical system.

                The glacials and interglacials are cyclical. They require no “trigger” any more than the four seasons do.

                .
                Having artificially created a “need” for some kind of non-existent and unnecessary “trigger”, the presenter then describes this imaginary “trigger” as “positive feedback”.

                I’ll let you in another little secret, Dribblebladder. In Nature, there are NO self-sustaining positive feedbacks. Zero, zilch, zip. To even suggest such a thing forty years ago would be to get yourself thrown out of a junior high school science class.

                The whole fallacious concept of “self-sustaining positive feedback” only came into vogue when “climate scientists” discovered that atmospheric CO2, by itself, could not possibly do what they had been claiming it was doing – “heating the planet”, and so had to invent the concept of a self-sustaining positive feedback” between CO2 and water vapour.

                It doesn’t exist. Billions of dollars and years of research have been wasted trying to prove it does exist, but it doesn’t.

                Not for “global warming”, and not glacials and interglacials.

                .
                I could go on, but I’ve wasted enough of my time already. I think that’s enough to thoroughly rebut your stupid video clip. I certainly won’t be bothering to watch any more.

                60

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                @cts
                (Your NAME is listed along with EACH of those 194 videos meaning your name is indeed prominent with all of those video links.Indeed his list is titled,blackadderthe4′s channel) CTS

                So what? Anyhow not 100% of them are, anyhow blackadderthe4th is a ficticious character fron a sitcom, therefore it is not my name! Can’t understand how you make the mistake. The reason they are on my channel is because they are clips from much larger video, which usually go into deeper detail and can be viewed via the link in the description, but I want to make a spefic point and I know most people will not watch a full length video, infact it seems on this site they don’t want to watch a cut down version, but some people are, because the views are been logged in youtube I get statements like ‘I’m not going to watch them’, a very enlightened position to take! However Sheri said if I present one of my links she would watch it and express an opinion. She has not done so as far as I can see, which can mean she never viewed the link or she did and the wind has been taken out of her sails! What do you think Sheri has done?

                06

              • #
                MemoryVault

                .
                I watched it on behalf of all the skeptics here. It was crap, which I’ve critiqued above.

                How many of us do you expect to waste time watching your unscientific, easily rebutted crap?

                40

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘The glacials and interglacials are cyclical. They require no “trigger” any more than the four seasons do’, oh yes they do! And it is called the Milancovitch Cycle

                ‘Nearer our own time, the coming and going of the ice ages that have gripped the planet in the past two million years were probably triggered by fractional changes in solar heating (caused by wobbles in the planet’s orbit, known as Milankovitch cycles’

                Anyhow I notice you haven’t supplied a link, so I will know which vid we are talking about, please do so.

                ‘In Nature, there are NO self-sustaining positive feedbacks. Zero, zilch, zip.’ well you’re wrong there! As the the North Pole disappears, more of the Sun’s energy will be absorbed by the darker water increasing the temperature, a positive feedback. Very basic science.

                http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650-climate-myths-global-warming-is-down-to-the-sun-not-humans.html

                ‘I could go on, but I’ve wasted enough of my time already’ yes you have, because it looks like you have failed to understanding the science.

                15

              • #
                Rod Stuart

                Ole Bladderbreath undoubtedly has this motto:

                “I never let my schooling interfere with my education”

                40

              • #
                MemoryVault

                .
                Don’t be too hard Rod.

                I’ve always been curious about meeting somebody who has had a full frontal lobotomy.
                Not that I’m saying Dribblebadder has.
                I’m just not sure there is any identifiable difference between him, and someone who has.

                30

              • #
                MemoryVault

                Dribblebladder,

                So a “cycle” which is so readily identified as a “cycle” as to have its own name – the Milankovitch “Cycle”, is not a “cycle” at all, but a random event which requires a “trigger” to initiate it.

                And not just “any” trigger, but a self-sustaining, positive feedback “trigger”, which just happens to occur “cyclically”.

                And your idea of a “self-sustaining positive feedback” is sunlight warming water.

                Fine.

                .
                Tell you what, Dribblebladder. I only have a finite capacity for stupidity, and you have exhausted it for this weekend.

                Maybe we’ll chat some other time in the future.
                When my brain cells have recovered from this weekend’s grueling encounter.

                30

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘So a “cycle” which is so readily identified as …is not a “cycle” at all, but a random event which requires a “trigger” to initiate it. oh yes it is! From memory 100,000 years of ice age when the cycle is ‘active’ and 20,000 years of intergalactic when it is not! You do agree that The Rather has a wobble I take it, because it is basic science.

                ‘but a random event which requires a “trigger” to initiate it’ no, no, no, The Malinkovitch is the TRIGGER,(rookie mistake) you haven’t understood the vid have you?

                Here try again and take particular notice at about 2:40!

                05

              • #

                MemoryVault: You may be right on the similarity between BAT4th and a victim of lobotomy. Somehow he has rewritten the dialogue here and imagined that I actually agreed to watch a YouTube video. Wow, what an imagination. Probably accounts for his videos and other fantasy beliefs.

                Ah, I see BAT4th actually has a link to a paper. One that does what? Oh, I see. It says “were probably triggered by fractional changes in solar heating (caused by wobbles in the planet’s orbit, known as Milankovitch cycles).” So the Malinkovitch cycle is the trigger and he can say “told you so” to Memory Vault. Okay, one paper said that particular word. Go do your victory dance. And while you are dancing, consider that the seasons are “triggered” by a similar phenomena, meaning MV’s statement that it’s part of nature, is actually correct.

                30

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘and a victim of lobotomy’ well go and look in mirror and you’ll see the results of one!

                And I repeat for so others can make they mind up!

                Sheri
                August 17, 2013 at 8:06 am
                #2.1.2.1.13

                Now, if you want to discuss science, bring it on. I’m game. Ready with the bat and ball. Go for it. Pick a link and I’ll ANSWER.

                Whoops liar, liar, again,

                About he Milancovitch wont accept the bleeding obvious!

                The reason for the temperature rise and the co2 800 year lag.

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8r46j2WrNk

                04

              • #
                Heywood

                Still spamming with repetitive links to you boyfriend’s video huh?

                Didn’t you link to this one here and here??

                Do you honestly think that repeatedly spamming us with the same link will force us to watch it? You are thicker than I thought.

                “but some people are, because the views are been logged in youtube “

                So you ARE counting views. More proof that you are just a spamming troll.

                “It’s OK, because it’s just like water off a ducks back!”

                I bet that’s not the only thing you have dripping off your back.

                30

              • #

                2.1.2.1.14 PS YouTube is not science. It’s for idiots who like to watch video and get their faces on TV. Use journal articles, blog articles or a doctoral thesis. Otherwise, I will assume you are incapable of actually understanding the science and merely parrot whatever your owner teaches you to say.

                Guess that makes BAT4th a liar, liar, liar. Or too stupid to read the next comment–I’m not sure.

                I commented on the only REAL link entered.

                Do you carry that little piece of paper in your pocket that says “Breathe in, Breathe out”?

                30

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘It’s for idiots who like to watch video and get their faces on TV’ AS I have told you before I do not appear in any of vids, so HOW is that ‘and get their faces on TV’??? FAIL no1, Yet again as I has said go to the original, the link should be there in the description, there should be plenty of references for you to follow. FAIL no2. ‘YouTube is not science’ youtube is just a tool! Like books, journals, reports, peer-reviewing, it depends what they contain. Fail no3. ‘I commented on the only REAL link entered’ It’s no good changing your commitment when that wasn’t in your original challenge, what wrong seen it and left up the creek. FAIL no4.
                A failure from begining to end

                02

              • #
                Heywood

                “‘It’s for idiots who like to watch video and get their faces on TV’ AS I have told you before I do not appear in any of vids, so HOW is that ‘and get their faces on TV’”

                Read it again. “It’s for idiots who like to watch video and get their faces on TV”. Learn some comprehension skills.

                “go to the original, the link should be there in the description, there should be plenty of references for you to follow”

                Another ploy to get someone to follow your YouTube links to increase your view count.

                “what wrong seen it and left up the creek”

                WTF???

                20

        • #
          blackadderthe4th

          ‘Arousing or intended to arouse angry or violent feelings’ I can’t help that, if you get angry about being told the uncomfortable truth! And all your pseudo gods crash down to Earth!

          17

          • #

            And all your pseudo gods crash down to Earth!

            You have outsmarted yourself again B4. On a post about warmists being nasty nutters you clocked in right on cue with another splendid performace.
            well done!

            31

          • #

            Maybe you would prefer John Cook’s method:

            In a similar vein, John Cook, manager of Skeptical Science, a blog that looks at climate change deniers, says moderators should “resist the temptation to reply to [trolls]. Instead, do what the troll hates most — simply remove the comment.”

            Shall we just follow the example of the supreme warmist blog?

            30

            • #
              blackadderthe4th

              ‘Shall we just follow the example of the supreme warmist blog?’, why not! It wont worry me, countless posts have gone off into cyber space, I just put that down the subject is too hot to handle, for the anti-science brigade!

              15

              • #

                Again, by your criteria, Cook is afraid of subjects too hot to handle. Otherwise, he would not be deleting posts. It seems warmists have an irrational (or maybe rational–they know lied) of anything not in line with their thinking. They fear any controversy and simply attempt to shout people down. Cook is one of the big pushers of this philosophy. You agree to deleting your posts from here as proof of the fear of subjects–thus assuring that Cook shares the same label. With advocates like you, who needs skeptics?

                30

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                And to think, that all of this “debate” has occurred because Blackadder4 relies on videos, which nobody looks at, and is therefore unable to make his point.

                Back at #2.1.2 he demanded I look at a video, which I ignored because I knew he had no other evidence to present, and had therefore lost the plot.

                31

            • #
              blackadderthe4th

              ‘he demanded {????} I look at a video, which I ignored because I knew he had no other evidence to present’ so how did you KNOW, if you never watched it??? Sounds like an oxymoron to me!

              [I do not make any rules, but I do expect everybody to be rational, show respect to others, and generally behave in a civilised manner -Fly]

              ‘show respect to others’ ah you mean when ‘they’ call me a Nazi or a turd, that sort of respect?

              You misunderstand me! On the ‘fly’, means on the go, rapid changes, changing things as you go along, making decisions in the moment! It is not any reference to you!

              23

              • #
                Heywood

                that sort of respect?

                Respect is earned. Spamming links to your own YouTube channel and demanding people watch them doesn’t gain respect from anyone here. So yes, you are an arrogant turd that nobody here has any respect for.

                You have already worn out your welcome on other blogs so you are very lucky not to be in moderation here.

                31

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                [show respect to others, and generally behave in a civilised manner -Fly]

                A message from a mod to me, so you’re showing respect by calling me a turd! Or is that one rule for some and another for others? It’s OK, because it’s just like water off a ducks back! Do carry on, in your own time.

                ‘very lucky not to be in moderation here’, er why? Is it because you can’t handle the truth in my links? Do tell!

                (You and others please get back on topic) CTS

                11

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                BlackAdder,

                I don’t bother watching videos, for a number of reasons:

                1. I generally don’t have the time. I can skim what somebody has typed, and then decide whether or not to read the whole text carefully. I cannot do that with a video, I am forced to watch the whole thing, or none of it. Faced with that decision, “none of it” becomes the default.

                2. Videos can be “enhanced”, in various ways, such as putting people in the frame, who were never physically there. The movie “Forest Gump” demonstrated that beautifully, when Tom Hanks is shown, on the White House Rose Garden patio, standing behind President Nixon. Techniques have gotten better since then, and are available to the amateur film maker. So they cease to have any credence in any debate, let alone a scientific debate. In some (most?) countries, videos are not accepted as evidence, unless a secure chain of custody can be established. YouTube is not a secure chain of custody.

                3. Videos, are accessed by a link. Anything on the web that is accessed by a link can be changed, post hoc, to say something different, and thereby make any comments to it look like the gibbering of an idiot. Therefore, anything I rely on for my professional opinion, that is accessed by a link, is copied onto my servers, and encrypted with the original date-time-stamp, so I have some evidence of later changes. I don’t have the time or disk space to waste, on doing that for comments on a blog.

                20

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                BlackAdder, to continue.

                As I see it, you have two choices at this point: 1. You can continue to put up references to videos, that nobody will watch; or 2. You can type your opinions here, and have people either agree with you, or disagree with you.

                If they disagree, they will generally explain why (something that is harder to do, if you have to refer back to a video), and that gives you the opportunity to respond (in words) to agree, modify or rebut what they have said. That is what scientific debate is about. It is dynamic, and ever evolving, and we all learn from the process. Sometimes (although admittedly very rarely), somebody will come up with a question, or a statement, that will change the thinking and set science onto a different track. You don’t even need to be a scientist to do that (although the nearest scientist in the field will often claim the credit).

                In contrast, videos express one persons interpretation of something at a single point in time. To have appeal, they are usually designed to reach one particular group of people that will “connect” with the message. It is preaching to the converted, and that, they are good at.

                However, they are not good at changing opinion, because they present an argument in a serial way, so as soon as you say anything in a video, that that the viewer disagree with, you have lost them, and they will get increasingly more sceptical, as the video continues, and eventually watch to see if they can figure out how the effects are done, and spot the bloopers. James Cameron has possibly created more sceptics, than any other film maker. Think on it.

                40

          • #
            blackadderthe4th

            ‘that nobody will watch’, so how come view are being logged in youtube as coming from this site?

            ‘That is what scientific debate is about. It is dynamic, and ever evolving’, which is something on this site don’t like doing!

            ‘that that the viewer disagree with, you have lost them’ not my fault! If they want to ignore well proven science as apposed to dis-information, untruths and out right lies! that’s their problem! And doomed to live in a fantasy world.

            06

    • #
      Jon

      I agree it would be the CO that would kill you if you inhale exhaust from a cars tailpipe. Anyone that deny this simple fact? What is Arnold’s point?
      ???

      40

      • #
        Jon

        Here is Arnold’s best ever movie?
        http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ftgmdRlDkko

        ?

        20

      • #

        Could be. Many people do not understand the difference between CO and CO2, plus climate change science has so elevated CO2 that every expects anything with carbon (as seen in “carbon-free sugar”) to be bad. More importantly, Arnie does clearly does not understand how little CO2 there is the atmosphere as a percentage, versus a tailpipe. Unless of course he considers CO a “forcing” which would launch him to the forefront of CO2 “tailpipe killer” science. Using CO as a forcing certainly makes CO2 deadly in every case.

        Actually, maybe we should suggest he put a paper bag over his head and experience CO2.

        10

      • #
        Jon

        In this case the death would be lack of O2?

        00

  • #
    Dave

    Yup,

    Unimog Vandal Green Wenkers.

    And here’s J Cook (the other wenker)with Arnie.

    Arnie and Michael 2, Blackadiot, Doctor Brian, Kevin Rudd, Tim Flannery aet al and the rest of the money grabbing hypocrites can all go on a picnic to the local beach, but can escape when sea levels soak their little GREEN blanket.

    Oh, and it only costs US$250,000, but then again if Michael 2 can travel to 32 countries, why shouldn’t Arnie buy onr of these.

    Biggest bunch of FW I’ve ever come across.

    112

  • #
    John of Cloverdale WA

    He should know about gases. Wasn’t his father a member of the Nazi Party? Maybe the steroids have gone to Arnie’s head.

    112

    • #
      AndyG55

      umm.. do steroids seek empty space ???

      50

    • #

      To think this was the “Republican” governor of California. If ever there was a case where the term ‘RINO’ — Republican in Name Only — should be taken literally, it is with regard to Arnold Schwarzenegger who is a leftist through and through. Note that the event was hosted by Harry Reid, and included many Obama EPA & Interior officials, and slew of leftist politicians, but, as far as the HuffPost article reported, not a single other “Republican” was there.

      100

    • #
      michael hart

      Frankly, Arnie just doesn’t do it for me.

      Give me Kristanna Loken every time.

      60

  • #
    AndyG55

    Stick to action non-acting Arnie.. The only thing you are reasonably good at.

    Good fun NON-reality !!

    92

  • #
    Raven

    Arnie really should have stuck to acting and adultery , he was good at that , mostly .

    100

  • #
    Speedy

    Evening All.

    Is it just me, or is there something wrong with this picture?

    …at the annual National Clean Energy Summit on Tuesday in Las Vegas, Nevada.

    Las Vegas. That little island of restraint, good taste and sustainability in Nevada, USA.

    Perhaps the greenies don’t see the irony?

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    180

  • #
    MemoryVault

    Hey! Don’t knock the Big Guy.

    All Arnie has to do now, is strap himself to a pressurised supply of pure oxygen to show the difference between “derdy CO2″ and “pure air”.
    Once his [yup... we get the analogy, don't need the details ;-) - Jo]

    90

  • #
    Otter

    Huffpost is calling it ‘a joke.’ I suppose 11 million up the chimney was a joke…

    But then, when one skeptic presented a host of peer-reviewed papers on the same thread, one of the commenters also claimed those were ‘debunked.’
    I very much suspect that person did not even know what those papers were about.

    120

    • #

      A joke?

      American citizen Stuart Angel is not around to explain what it feels like but certainly wouldn’t have thought it was a joke:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Angel#Forced_disappearance_of_Stuart_Angel

      Excerpt from the link: According to political prisoner Alex Polari, who claimed to have witnessed the incident, Stuart was then tied to the back of a jeep with his mouth glued to the vehicle’s exhaust pipe and dragged through the courtyard of the Aeronautics headquarters, resulting in his death by asphyxiation and carbon monoxide poisoning.

      00

    • #

      My Real Science comment:
      Reminds me of some other things warmists want to do to skeptics. Do the warmists really want “open debate?” I don’t think so:
      “I propose another stunt for climate sceptics – put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas – say, carbon monoxide.” -Jill Singer, Australian Green
      “We have to undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers.” -ex Democratic senator Tim Wirth, 2011
      “Chief executives of large fossil fuel companies [should] be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature.” -James Hansen, NASA
      “Every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned.” -George Monbiot, UK Ecojournalist
      “It’s time for climate change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies. Not necessarily on the forehead; I’m a reasonable man. Just something along their arm or across their chest.” -leftist journalist Richard Glover, Sydney Morning Herald, 2011

      60

      • #

        Perhaps all the “deniers” should get tatoos that say “Climate Change Skeptic and Proud of It”. If you are like me and not fond of permanent ink, you can go with something temporary. However, the best way to cut this off is a pre-emptive strike, at least in cases where it’s not physically threatening.

        Or maybe tshirts? I bet those already exist, right?

        30

        • #
          Backslider

          Or maybe tshirts? I bet those already exist, right?

          I REALLY want a nice Greeny looking T-shirt that says “The Biosphere LOVES CO2″.

          80

        • #
          Ace

          In England a guy has ben arrested and charged with “incitement to raacial hatred” because he has a tattoo of a mosque with an explosion.
          OK, not the best message…but its a TATTOO! Whats are they going to do, force him to have laser-removal treatment?

          20

          • #
            Backslider

            tattoo of a mosque with an explosion

            But how can he be arrested for depicting reality? Mosques are blowing up left right and center…. and who is doing the blowing up?

            A mosque has nothing to do with race. I am northern European and if I so choose I could become a muslim and attend a Mosque. Its like saying that all people who attend a Christian church are a particular race….

            Another minus for the PC freaks…..

            60

      • #
        Eddie Sharpe

        Most leftists are just gullible, but give them the authority they crave and they lose all sense of proportion. Their frustrated, powerless fantasies are a good indicator for what they can be trusted with. Be thankful for free speech and their indiscretion.

        100

    • #
      Jon

      Their main objective is to make a better or fix the World?
      And they are going to do this with a great lie and “killing” deniers?
      Based on principles and values like these it’s more a dejavu with Catholic Church “Optimum” with Spanish Inquisitions and public witch burnings?
      GREAT …

      10

  • #
    AndyG55

    Poor Arnie.. all his movies were a light-hearted dose, void of reality.. even when he tried to be serious.

    His stint as Cali govna was just the same.

    50

  • #
    Gee Aye

    the Austrian accent really is quite distinct from the German

    25

    • #
      Otter

      Well, when you add the fact that he has huge lungs that are really great for screaming (as he does in several movies)…..

      40

    • #
      James (Aus.)

      Gee, you mean like Adolf’s?

      52

    • #
      MemoryVault

      the Austrian accent really is quite distinct from the German

      Yeah, all us non German-speaking people can tell the difference straight away.

      Their handwriting is even more telling.
      They cross their “i’s” and dot their “t’s” entirely differently.

      60

      • #
        Ace

        Germans from different parts of Germany can barely understand each other. You know, like Londoners cant understand Glaswegians. HochDeutsch it seems really sets some folk up on a pedestal, like they there Junkers I guess. But when it comes to handwriting the interesting thing is it has to be utterly precise. Anything less than totally…fanatically…perfect writing they seem incapable of deciphering, whatever the language.

        10

        • #

          You’re painting a picture much worse than reality. Are you applying for a job as climatologist?

          While German regions have dialects, they all speak their own version of Hochdeutsch when speaking to “foreigners”. It’s not the exact Prussian, high German, but it’s more like “Australian” vs “New Zealand” English. Amongst themselves, they’ll fall back to a local dialect. Some of the local dialects are more difficult to pick up than others. The local dialect’s intonations dominate their application of Hochdeutsch.

          As for the coverage of local dialects, they used to vary almost by “tribe”; with villages just 10 km apart having disinct ones, although mutually comprehensible. I caught the tail end of that in the early to mid 1960′s. Old folks still spoke their “Platt” amongst themselves whereas especially the younger people couldn’t, by and large, be bothered learning a second language. In many areas, the populations weren’t largely “locals” but refugees from other parts of greater Germany. Other regions, especially in the South and West managed to preserve their dialects and young people can be heard to jibber-jabber amongst themselves.

          The written word is very important in Germany. Back in my early school days, we used to practice writing neatly in school; many hours a week. Every construction was precise; almost like an engineering drawing. That included practicing with ink – the sort where blotting paper was obligatory to avoid smudging what’s been written. The historic reason behind the obsession for precise script goes back via the older German script (Sütterlin) which standardised handwriting script early in the 20th century. Prior to that, handwritten text was largely indecipherable to those from a different “school”; being a mish-mash of black-letter and script hybrid.

          It’s a PITA decyphering what’s written in e.g. parish registry books of the 17th century. Sometimes you can’t tell the difference if a farmer’s child was born into a large family of 8 children or to a farm with 8 cattle. Spelling also wasn’t “regular”. Grimm’s Deutsche Wörterbuch (German dictionary) starting in 1838 went a long way to defining the spelling, but even even into the 18th century, many of the clergy were only marginally literate.

          70

          • #
            Ace

            “You’re painting a picture much worse than reality. Are you applying for a job as climatologist?”
            No but I have a job in Germany, and will be applying for others.

            Thanks for that Bernd. especially about the writing. Now kind of related but more importantly distracting from my naivete about Grman, its interesting that modern written Viet Namese (Quoc Gnu) was invented by a couple of Portugese monks. Thats why their script uses our alphabet and a shedload of acceents (a total of 32 if I recall correctly, with as many as about eight in a given word).

            10

          • #
            Jon

            I don’t know Germans that much. Only as a tourist. But I think the local culture is based on religion and what they produce and where(environment climate and other cultures)?
            Was a bit surprised to find Rheingau Catholic.

            00

  • #
    Dave

    Famous Quotes for FW’s (or near enough)
    star comment
    Arnie: “Strap some conservative-thinking people to a tailpipe for an hour”
    James Hansen: “CEO’s of Oil companies be put on trial for crimes against humanity”
    George Monbiot: “Every death as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline CEO should be dragged out of his office and drowned.”
    Jill Singer:“I propose another stunt for climate sceptics – put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas – say, carbon monoxide.”
    Richard Glover:“It’s time for climate change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.
    Richard Parncutt:”I’m going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers.”

    Why are we putting up with this garbage, Tony Abbott says someone has Sex appeal and the MSM goes bananas?

    These FW’s threaten lives, tattoos, drowning, and the MSM publish their FW peer reviewed articles, their news reports, vote for them and then pay them.

    Time to change tactics on the home front for the worst I’m afraid. Didn’t think it would come to this.

    Sorry, but FW means Flagrant Wafflers.

    430

    • #
      MemoryVault

      Thanks for the vote for sanity, Dave.

      Truth is, this madness isn’t going to stop until the likes of Flannery, Steffen, Karoly, Chubb, Braganza, Lewandowsky, Cook et al realise they [ are punished] for their crimes against humanity.

      Until that happens, we skeptics are just farting into the wind.

      171

    • #
      Backslider

      Sorry, but FW means Flagrant Wafflers.

      …. and I always thought it meant “fuckwit”…..

      90

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        No, you are getting confused with the very small bird that nests in the ears of politicians.

        Its’ song has the effect of making the host think that the jeering of the crowd is actually the cheering of the crowd.

        The politicians thus acquire the misconception that they are leaders, and are therefore the first to march the economy right off the edge of the nearest cliff.

        You might notice that delegates at the UN wear things that look like earphones. Most people assume that they are used to hear translations of the proceedings. They are not. Nobody at the UN really cares what is being said.
        No, they are actually rather stylish ear defenders, to keep the birds out. They also have a secondary effect of making it harder to hear the Flagrant Wafflers.

        120

        • #
          Ace

          I thought they were listening to Radiohead!

          20

          • #
            Backslider

            I thought they were listening to Radiohead!

            Prolly more like ABBA….

            10

          • #
            Jon

            Below the lyrics from Lennon’s Imagine.

            My short version of it is:

            Imagine a World without ideas and nothing to kill or die for!
            But this song is full of ideas?
            So Lennon want a World without ideas so he will have monopoly for his alone?
            Marxism?

            Imagine there’s no heaven
            It’s easy if you try
            No hell below us
            Above us only sky
            Imagine all the people living for today

            Imagine there’s no countries
            It isn’t hard to do
            Nothing to kill or die for
            And no religion too
            Imagine all the people living life in peace

            You, you may say
            I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one
            I hope some day you’ll join us
            And the world will be as one

            Imagine no possessions
            I wonder if you can
            No need for greed or hunger
            A brotherhood of man
            Imagine all the people sharing all the world

            You, you may say
            I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one
            I hope some day you’ll join us
            And the world will live as one

            10

  • #
    Yonniestone

    I have disliked this man since the 80′s, and not just for his wooden “I remember about the rabbit’s George” attempt at acting, no he always came across as someone who used his cold Austrian persona mixed with a bit of innocence to charm the general public whilst craving not fame but power.
    This is the person I envisaged obediently and happily herding people towards the showers for the cause, but more importantly THEIR cause, the man is a walking self promotion machine from Venice Beach, Joe Weider, Hollywood, Maria Shriver, and Governor.
    It’s a classic case of the public accepting an a@*#$%e of a person just because they can kick or hit a ball better than most people and somehow get paid in the process, over the years my comprehension of what a real life hero is has changed quite markedly and they do not include psychotic bastards.

    70

  • #

    Let’s see–a rodeo clown gets banned for life for wearing an Obama mask during a rodeo. Arnie proposes to kill opponents with carbon MONOxide (showing how scientific all the warmists are) and it’s funny??? Can you say utterly narcissistic and stupid???

    Oh, and the EPA already tried a variant of this on uninformed volunteers. I don’t think one of the criteria was “are you a conservative?” but perhaps some of the victims participants were.

    110

  • #

    Notice how the side of the debate supported by those like Arnie, and the list of some recent commenters here at Joanne’s site listed by Dave at Comment 3 above, just how much they hate and detest us.

    I’d like to make an observation here.

    All that side of the debate has is the booga booga booga of their religious scare campaign. Have they actually done anything other than the chicken little sky is falling meme?

    So, let’s look at it in the form of comparison.

    1 (a) We hear from their side of the debate the emotive hand wringing about the fate of our children and our grandchildren, and what will we tell them what we did as the Earth supposedly burns to a crisp.

    1 (b) Our side of the debate is bringing electrical power to (literally) close to 2 Billion people in China, India, and the remainder of the still Developing World, huge amounts of cheap electrical power, so they finally do have access to what we have lived all our lives with, to give them, hospitals, electrical power in their homes so they need not cook with dung any more, and everything associated with access to constant and reliable electrical power.

    2 (a) Their side of the debate gives us Wind Power, and the 2 versions of solar power.

    2 (b) Our side has developed a 1300MW generator, the equivalent of around 430 huge wind towers giving the same Capacity, but still can only deliver one third of the power. A 1300MW generator the the equivalent of 5.7 million solar panels, or at 10 panels per large scale PV unit, 570,000 of those tables which is around 5 large scale commercial solar PV plants covering 26,000 Hectares, having the same 1300MW capacity, and still only delivering one fifth of the power of that one generator.

    3 (a) They complain that we need to do away with those CO2 emitting coal fired power plants for the sake of Point 1 and replaced by Point 2.

    3 (b) Our side has actually found a way to lower those emissions, and lower them dramatically, Black coal one third and more less than existing old tech plants, and for brown coal, actually halving emissions, and all of these driving those single unit 1300MW generators that solve Point 1 and Point 2.

    So, it seems to me that while all their side of the debate has is their booga booga booga scare campaign, our side of the debate has actively gone out there and is finding ways to solve THEIR so called problem for them.

    Our side is doing something.

    Their side only has blah blah blah!

    Tony.

    380

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Okay, plenty of low hanging fruit here.

    I have gassed many climate deniers…. but they were all bad!

    Alright children, we’re going to play a game. It’s called Are My Parents Climate Deniers?

    You’re a funny guy Salby, I like you. That’s why I’m going to gas you last.

    I cannot self-terminate my economy, you will have to lower me into the Green State.

    You’re not putting me in the warmer.

    But y’know Arnie might let the skeptics have the last word…

    A freeeeeze is coming!

    130

  • #
    Anton

    Hasta la vista, Arnie!

    20

  • #

    Warmists, the gift that keeps on giving.

    20

  • #

    Lets challenge Arnie to live on vegetables grown in a CO2 free greenhouse for a month.

    After the first week on that diet he gets to see but not eat from an identical greenhouse that has had a car tail pipe feed into it for an hour a day.

    70

    • #

      Just to make it clear that we are not the same type of people. Arnie would be given unlimited clean water the whole time should he volunteer to accept the challenge. The challenge would end if he yells out the Stop phrase three times. “CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT!”

      20

  • #
    Eddie Sharpe

    … his international travels for the R20 organization he heads of sub-national governments from around the world …

    Uh Oh ! Arne has found (or founded ) his globe trotting sinecure, as a champion of ‘regional’ government action on the back of what else but concern for the climate, like so many ex Vice Presidents and ex Deputy Prime Ministers before him.

    Here he is preaching to North African Leaders and mixing it with revolving appointees of the EU Commissariat and UN leadership through his Regions20.org

    What a swell guy.

    80

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    More tough talk from an individual too weak to admit to pawing unwitting women and parenthood resulting from extramarital relationships.

    Arnold’s “girlie men” talk is really directed at himself, his attempts to ingratiate himself with greenies have been nothing more than attempts to cover his profound shortcomings.

    50

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Dare I say an offtopic comment at such an early stage as comment #22, oh well here goes… it’s electoral.

    I wish to claim credit for successfully predicting 10 days ago the Fiberals’ response to Labor’s daylight robbery scheme known as The Bank Levy, also known as Cypress Lite™.

    Was watching an interview of Mr Rabbit tonight by Leigh Sales on the commie channel and he was quizzed on what the Libs would do with the three taxes announced recently by the National Socialist Workers Party Labor. After trying to bait him into implying the Libs might increase GST (at 10:00 mark) and he wasn’t biting, she then asks about the Tobacco and Excise tax increases.
    Rabbit humms and haahs and stretches it out but basically yes money is tight and they will *oh so reluctantly* (insert croc tears) keep the tax increase and happily take more money from drivers and smokers and are probably just happy Labor announced it instead of the Fibs.
    LS: “So you might have to hit people with that same tax?”
    TA: “We very possibly might have to.”
    LS: “Does that also apply to possibly keeping Labor’s Bank Levy?”
    TA: “Again, same thing.”

    Sales then immediately moves on to the FBT question without even pausing to challenge Abbott on whether having banks extract money out of people’s private accounts “for insurance” to one day inevitably bail out the banks from the bank’s own greed is in any way a good idea! I just want you lot to see here that the Leftist ABC and the Liberals are on the same side when it comes to using Big Government to steal from people. The only difference is who gets your money after it has been stolen, the State appendages or the crony capitalists. Legalising theft is now trendy and giving the loot to private companies is even trendier – and the megacorps use the government to approve the transfer.
    It’s not about left versus right, that’s sooo 19th century. It’s about the wealthy exempt crooks versus the rest of us. Whichever party wins will sell out to the barons just as fast, rubber-stamping whatever regulations are desired so they can’t even be prosecuted for doing wrong.

    And right here you have the “leader” of the “Liberal” party given a perfect chance to stand up for the name “liberal”, to stand up for private property rights, to allow banks to fail so that prudent risk management becomes a competitive advantage in banking, and put a stop to this plan for institutionalised theft, and the Liberal guy says nothing. Total acquiescence. Just as predicted.

    Okay Abbott aficionados and Liberal lovers, get those downvotes pumping, but tomorrow when the above interview still exists, is not just a bad dream, and serves as an observational record of the Liberals’ actual green light for bank theft, will you be able to handle it?

    Remind me again what genuine alternatives we have in this upcoming election.

    110

    • #
      Manfred

      When ‘they’ took Cyprus so successfully at 47.5%, and blood didn’t run in the streets, the guillotine didn’t sing, and they didn’t leave the Euro, all around the World, ‘they’ saw an opportunity. More of the same really and no real difference from taxing the breath of life.

      Aren’t the sheeple so commendably patient or is a case of the frog in the increasingly hot water?

      60

    • #
      MemoryVault

      .
      One of the last pieces of legislation quietly railroaded through by the Gillard government, “allows” private superannuation funds to be invested in “government sanctioned infrastructure” projects – you know – like solar and wind farms. You can bet the rabbit won’t be changing that, either.

      .
      I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat it now – if you are under 60 and you actually believe you’ll ever see any of your super money, you are in for some serious disappointment.

      50

  • #
    Eddie Sharpe

    That’s Professor Schwarznegger to you & me.

    80

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Speaking of the farce that self-appointed climate heroes have become, isn’t it sad when popular cartoonists with a reputation for being edgy get it wrong on global warming. This is the environment we have to operate in.

    30

    • #
      Brian G Valentine

      Warn people before sending people to look at junk from him, will ya? I wouldn’t have looked if I had known beforehand.

      20

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      Yeah, jokes about infanticide ain’t funny but moral superiority can be an incredibly dumbing experience.

      50

  • #
    Ace

    But if you want a stereotype of a moron, wouldnt Arnie be it?

    11

    • #
      Ace

      …and you can bet good bucks h has a reeeeeaaaaalllly tiny SNIP-TOO OBVIOUS.

      10

    • #
      Manfred

      A man who began from the lowly beginnings as a German émigré, speaking guttural English and literally pumping his way into Hollywood films with iron, who wound up marrying a Kennedy and becoming the Governor of California is hardly a “moron” and merits if not some grudging respect, some attention for the threat he is become – which he is clearly getting. Indeed, you may not like him, or you may in fact loathe him and what he presently stands for, in particular for his current foolish utterances and self-interest, but “moron” he most certainly is not.

      40

      • #
        Ace

        Manfred…I didnt say h is a moron, I said he is the perfect STEREOTYPE of a moron.

        20

        • #
          Manfred

          Ace, not sure many would trouble to make this distinction, let alone use the term stereotype in such close proximity to the resonant subject matter at hand, unless of course that was your intention?

          Arnie is a survivor through and through. He’s a street fighter. Political colour is opportunism. In the Huffington Post he is reported in a way that sure covers ALL his bases, in a manner that made me laugh out loud:

          But he also pointed out that we need oil, as we live in a civilization long organized around oil and are very far away from being able to do without it.

          “We need oil companies to be part of the solution,” he argued, which includes environmentally appropriate development of domestic oil resources while we accelerate the transition to new energy sources.

          Sounds to me as though he’s in full flight reinventing himself developing a new political platform, kind of business (self-interest) as usual, merely with an alteration in the smoke and mirrors.

          00

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        It was reported over 5 years ago that Arnie had made vastly more money from his business investments than he had from all his movies combined. On the other hand, even an idiot can make money with insider trading and being governor can get you on the inside of a lot of deals. Ultimately he’s not a moron because a moron would have blown it all on toys instead of investing.

        10

  • #
    Barry Woods

    Perhaps Arnold should strap himself to the tailpipe of his $250,000 mecrcedes Unimog Monster truck he bought last year. ! :-)

    http://co2insanity.com/2012/08/31/a-big-car-for-a-big-star-arnold-schwarzenegger-suffers-a-delayed-mid-life-crisis-as-he-buys-a-250k-monster-truck/

    30

  • #
    MadJak

    Hey Arnie,

    Hardly an original idea – your historical countrymen had already thought of that one.

    The nazis who used VW car exhausts initially as an experiment for murdering those with opposing views to their own in mogilev found it was too inefficient.

    The settled on Zyklon B as an alternative as the car exhaust fumes simply weren’t lethal enough for killing off people who had more valid arguments than their own.

    31

    • #
      credirt

      …. ill informed.

      Treblinka used exhaust fumes from a Soviet Tank, and was second only to AuswitzII in extermination numbers.
      AuswitzII, Majdanek – Zyklon B
      Sobibor, Belzec, Treblinka, Chelmno – carbon monoxide

      20

  • #
    warren raymond

    Arnie is way past his use by date.

    10

  • #
    Snotrocket

    Arnie (Terminator): “I’ll be berk”.

    30

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Politicians are essentially jockeys. They are little people who spend most of their time trying to find appropriate horses to whip in the hope they may ride them to a prize of some sort. Arnie is a bit large for a jockey, but that hasnt stopped him trying.

      10

    • #
      Ace

      Snotrocket, thyat was a “j” surely.

      00

  • #
    AndyG55

    I had a thought last night about the climate models. (Was a nice bottle of wine, btw :-)

    If you give a chimpanzee enough darts, he might eventually hit a wall… but….

    …not necessarily the one that the dart board is on.

    30

    • #
      Backslider

      That’s evolution for you…..

      10

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Indeed, they will quickly evolve into throwing darts at you, because they enjoy the reaction.

        20

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      AndyG55, Backslider, Rereke, here is the video evidence which substantiates your train of thought.
      Note evolution taking place before your very eyes!
      Note the reaction that the chimpanzee appeared to learn immediately.
      Note that the lone voice of reason was ignored!

      Can’t believe I had an appropriate reason to post that link here on JN of all places, but you know what they say…. When the student is ready the teacher shall appear. :-)

      60

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    I made this the other day. Kind of illustrates the unfathomable hypocrisy of people like Arnie (and Obama) telling others to live green. Feel free to distribute, it gave me a laugh at least :)

    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxUZq-oWGcY2TFZtdjVrMno3SG8/edit?usp=sharing

    30

  • #
    WheresWallace

    When will people stop listening to politicians for climate change advice. I’d rather listen to climate scientists, 97% of which say AGW is happening.

    215

    • #
      • #
        WheresWallace

        Yes. The experts do eeem to knw what they are talking about. Not sure what your blogger link has to do with things.

        05

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I’d rather listen to climate scientists, 97% of which say AGW is happening.

      Of course you would. That phenomena is known as confirmation bias, and is a well documented phenomenon, in the peer reviewed psychology literature.

      My question is: “When will you stop using these circular arguments?”

      Asserting that 97% of climate scientists say that AGW is happening, is practically the same as saying 100% of Vegetarians avoid eating meat. They are both self-defining terms. And are therefore both logical fallacies.

      The real question is, “Why are 3% of climate scientists so stupid that they cannot answer a loaded question correctly?”

      131

      • #
        WheresWallace

        That phenomena is known as confirmation bias

        Riiight. The same “confirmation bias” that the theory of gravity and evolution were founded.

        16

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          No, that is the fallacy of deflection from the point.

          Nobody is trying to alter the world’s economy because of gravity or evolution.

          You avoided answering the rest of my comment, which pointed out that the whole of the CAGW scare relies on a circular argument. Presumably you did that, because you realised that you could not win.

          21

    • #
      Manfred

      This has been done to death already. Not sure how anyone can trumpet this as a ringing endorsement of anything except pure, unadulterated confirmation bias. The abstract is below and the link to the article provided.

      Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

      John Cook et al 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024
      doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

      Abstract
      We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

      30

    • #
      Manfred

      WW, I want to know WHY?

      00

    • #
      AndyG55

      How many red striped shirts do you own. .with matching beanie.

      or are yours all Green?

      10

  • #
    Manfred

    SG66, to be honest, it’s these folk that worry me more. They’re beyond the reach of the ballot box.

    00

    • #
      Manfred

      The Zimbabwean President has presided over the economic and social collapse of one of Africa’s most prosperous nations

      Read more: http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1726919,00.html#ixzz2c5BLEjFq

      10

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      What would you have us do, Manfred?

      00

      • #
        Manfred

        RW, I suggest that your question has already been answered at #31 Safetyguy66

        Feel free to distribute, it gave me a laugh at least

        00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Ah, I thought you might have had something more sinister in mind, regarding President Mugabe. It is good that you didn’t.

          00

          • #
            Manfred

            RW, you sound relieved. Is he an acquaintance of yours, someone who shares a similar interest in cricket perhaps?

            00

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Not at all, he is not a nice person, not by any stretch of the imagination.

              It is just that several dictators have been forcibly removed from office over the past year or so, because they refused to play fair.

              It is starting to set a precedent, which is not a good thing, because such action always has unforeseen consequences, especially for the widows and orphaned children of people engaged in the removal effort.

              00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Strap some conservative-thinking people to a tailpipe for an hour and then they will agree it’s a pollutant!

    Logic is a wonderful thing.

    Hmm, most of the tailpipe exhaust is nitrogen gas. So lets remove all the deadly CO2 from tail pipe exhaust. Oh, the patient still died? It must be the nitrogen then. We therefore should ban nitrogen.

    On the other hand we could just tax it. Think about it. We breath out about 2,600 litres of evil toxic nitrogen every day, that is 3 kg. If we taxed it the same as the ALP taxes CO2 that would be about 8c per day from everyone in Australia. Wow that would pay for the whole ABC!

    31

  • #
    Scott

    A better solution would be to have him swim in the toxic waste created by producing solar panels.

    Many dont realise how bad the toxic waste is in the developed countries.

    “Solyndra, the now-defunct solar company that received $535 million in guaranteed federal loans, reported producing about 12.5 million pounds of hazardous waste, much of it carcinogenic cadmium-contaminated water, which was sent to waste facilities from 2007 through mid-2011.”

    “The records also show several other Silicon Valley solar facilities created millions of pounds of toxic waste without selling a single solar panel, while they were developing their technology or fine-tuning their production.”

    I think between swims in the toxic sludge he should be made to live next to a wind farm. lets see how he enjoys that.


    We also know China is a basket case when it comes to toxic waste from making solar panels.

    10

  • #
    crakar

    OT,

    But Voyager 1 has left the building

    Voyager 1 appears to have at long last left our solar system and entered interstellar space, says a University of Maryland-led team of researchers.

    Carrying Earthly greetings on a gold plated phonograph record and still-operational scientific instruments — including the Low Energy Charged Particle detector designed, built and overseen, in part, by UMD’s Space Physics Group — NASA’s Voyager 1 has traveled farther from Earth than any other human-made object. And now, these researchers say, it has begun the first exploration of our galaxy beyond the Sun’s influence.
    “It’s a somewhat controversial view, but we think Voyager has finally left the Solar System, and is truly beginning its travels through the Milky Way,” says UMD research scientist Marc Swisdak, lead author of a new paper published online this week in The Astrophysical Journal Letters. Swisdak and fellow plasma physicists James F. Drake, also of the University of Maryland, and Merav Opher of Boston University have constructed a model of the outer edge of the Solar System that fits recent observations, both expected and unexpected.

    Their model indicates Voyager 1 actually entered interstellar space a little more than a year ago, a finding directly counter to recent papers by NASA and other scientists suggesting the spacecraft was still in a fuzzily-defined transition zone between the Sun’s sphere of influence and the rest of the galaxy.

    But why the controversy?

    At issue is what the boundary-crossing should look like to Earth-bound observers 11 billion miles (18 billion kilometers) away. The Sun’s envelope, known as the heliosphere, is relatively well-understood as the region of space dominated by the magnetic field and charged particles emanating from our star. The heliopause transition zone is both of unknown structure and location. According to conventional wisdom, we’ll know we’ve passed through this mysterious boundary when we stop seeing solar particles and start seeing galactic particles, and we also detect a change in the prevailing direction of the local magnetic field.

    NASA scientists recently reported that last summer, after eight years of travel through the outermost layer of the heliosphere, Voyager 1 recorded “multiple crossings of a boundary unlike anything previously observed.” Successive dips in, and subsequent recovery of, solar particle counts caught researchers’ attention. The dips in solar particle counts corresponded with abrupt increases in galactic electrons and protons. Within a month, solar particle counts disappeared, and only galactic particle counts remained. Yet Voyager 1 observed no change in the direction of the magnetic field.

    To explain this unexpected observation, many scientists theorize that Voyager 1 has entered a “heliosheath depletion region,” but that the probe is still within the confines of the heliosphere. Swisdak and colleagues, who are not part of the Voyager 1 mission science teams, say there is another explanation.

    In previous work, Swisdak and Drake have focused on magnetic reconnection, or the breaking and reconfiguring of close and oppositely-directed magnetic field lines. It’s the phenomenon suspected to lurk at the heart of solar flares, coronal mass ejections and many of the sun’s other dramatic, high-energy events. The UMD researchers argue that magnetic reconnection is also key to understanding NASA’s surprising data.

    Though often depicted as a bubble encasing the heliosphere and its contents, the heliopause is not a surface neatly separating “outside” and “inside.” In fact, Swisdak, Drake and Opher assert that the heliopause is both porous to certain particles and layered with complex magnetic structure. Here, magnetic reconnection produces a complex set of nested magnetic “islands,” self-contained loops which spontaneously arise in a magnetic field due to a fundamental instability. Interstellar plasma can penetrate into the heliosphere along reconnected field lines, and galactic cosmic rays and solar particles mix vigorously.

    Most interestingly, drops in solar particle counts and surges in galactic particle counts can occur across “slopes” in the magnetic field, which emanate from reconnection sites, while the magnetic field direction itself remains unchanged. This model explains observed phenomena from last summer, and Swisdak and his colleagues suggest that Voyager 1 actually crossed the heliopause on July 27, 2012.

    40

  • #
    michael hammer

    I thought advocating assault or murder against other people was a criminal offence. If someone carried out his suggestion and then claimed “Arnie told me to do it” and brought up that comment as evidence, I wonder what the legal outcome would be.

    40

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Sadly it would probably depend on the AGW leanings of the judge. It seems all bets are off when attacking skeptics, we are a pox on society and nothing would be out of bounds in dealing with us Id imagine.

      If this was 16th century Europe we would be lined up watching Jo get burned at the stake and waiting to go next.

      20

    • #

      Schwarznegger only pretended to be a conservative when he ran for Governor. In fact he had no political principles and immediately caved to the Democrats and worked to out do them. As a consequence he is one of theirs so he can do and say just about anything that would get a conservative Republican turned into hamburger and get away with it.

      I suggest that he simply said what he and most of the demented left would very much like to do. That is if they thought they could get away with it. Why do you think they are working so hard to abolish the last remaining shreds of our Constitution? They seem to think if there is no one left alive to oppose them that they will at long last be right about something.

      40

      • #
        ExWarmist

        LG says…

        They seem to think if there is no one left alive to oppose them that they will at long last be right about something.

        That would be another unattainable delusion for them.

        20

  • #
    crakar

    What if i was strapped to the tail pipe of an electric car?

    50

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Thats a shocking joke

      50

    • #

      Why do electric cars have tailpipes?

      20

      • #
        MemoryVault

        .
        Because bagpipes would look ridiculous.

        90

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Boom Tish!

          10

          • #
            Mark D.

            Rereke, were you affected by the shake up in Christchurch? I heard magnitude 6?

            20

            • #
              Manfred

              The Wellington mayor…well, she stated that the quake was originally rated at 6.6 but later was downgraded to say 6.3 or something similar, I don’t recall the exact value.

              The entertaining moment was that she stated this was a substantially reduced value although it didn’t look like it because the scale was, well, far too complicated to explain…..

              And we wonder why the pollies struggle with CO2…

              Whatever the value, hearts and minds to the distressed folk in the thick of it!

              20

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Yes, we were, and still are being shook a bit.

              We have had a swarm of shakes, over the last week, the largest being 6.4. Elevators stop working, and they stop all of the commuter trains, and the telephone system gets overloaded.

              But we are a bit like Californians, we all get the shakes occasionally, and some times they are earthquake related.

              These are nothing like Christchurch. Christchurch is built on a plain, which is essentially accumulated river gravel. When their ‘quake struck, that gravel became liquifacted (assumed liquid-like characteristics), and no longer had the strength to support the large buildings which then collapsed, taking the occupants with down with them. Christchurch was. per capita, as bad as the San Francisco earthquake. So far, the ones we are having are business as usual.

              But thanks for asking.

              Manfred. The piece of information you are missing, is that the Wellington Mayor is a card carrying member of the Greens. They don’t do logarithmic functions very well.

              20

      • #
        Eddie Sharpe

        Why do electric cars have tailpipes?

        So that macho types don’t feel uncomfortable among their new Green friends.

        60

  • #

    Dont say Car-lee-fawn-ya.

    Don’t be a girlie governor.

    And don’t be back.

    20

  • #
    pat

    no-one is listening to him:

    Ecuador abandons forest protection plan to explore oil reserves
    QUITO/SAO PAULO, Aug 15 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Ecuador will open the biodiversity-rich Yasuni national park to oil exploration due to a lack of international support for its 2007 proposal to freeze exploration and protect the forest in exchange for financial compensation, government sources said on Thursday…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2518833

    Canada unwilling to tackle 1.2 bln tonnes of CO2 from Keystone: green groups
    SAN FRANCISCO, Aug 14 (Reuters Point Carbon) – The Canadian government is unwilling to cut greenhouse gas emissions in exchange for approval of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, a condition U.S. President Barack Obama has said must be met if the project is to win his endorsement, Canadian environmentalists said Wednesday…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2516782?&ref=searchlist

    10

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      That is because nobody at the IPCC knows where Ecuador is! They only worry about the US, Europe, and Asia.

      Oh, and Australia, as an afterthought.

      30

  • #
    pat

    fortunately, a single subscriber has published this Reuters Point Carbon piece:

    16 Aug: Gulf Today: UN faces uphill task in attracting buyers to CDM
    LONDON: Some of the world’s biggest firms are willing to pay a huge premium to offset emissions using carbon credits from projects that have additional benefits rather than solely cutting emissions, a buying pattern that may undermine UN plans to shore up demand for regulated credits.
    Some corporate buyers are paying up to 7 pounds ($10) to offset a tonne of carbon dioxide, up to 20 times more than the 35 pence it would cost them to use credits issued by the United Nations under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).
    It’s a demand trend watched closely by regulators of the CDM, who are keen to attract corporate buyers to fill a demand void created through either governments abandoning the scheme, or setting themselves emission reduction targets so weak they don’t need the offsets it produces…
    However, successive failures to sign a new global climate pact have created an oversupply of credits that has hammered credit prices from 20 euros in 2008 to under a euro, threatening to bankrupt investors who now say the market is at risk of collapse unless more can be done to shore up demand. But with many credits being criticized for the lack of environmental sustainability, as they have earned windfall profits for the world’s dirtiest companies, and the fact hardly any projects are located in the poorest parts of the world, the UN has an uphill task in attracting corporate buyers.
    “We are paying a premium for projects which have a much more colourful story to tell than just the carbon reductions,” said Ben Norbury, carbon and climate change adviser at Britain’s Co-Operative Group, which owns supermarkets and banks…
    These schemes can be registered under the CDM, but very few investors seek credits as they receive a much higher price if they are not associated with the UN programme…
    With the announcement of the US’s climate change plan and a 2015 UN deadline for the signing of a new global climate pact, many observers expect an increasing number of companies to buy credits to appease ***environmentally conscious investors.
    http://gulftoday.ae/portal/59501bf2-b16a-4772-83ca-875e7be67411.aspx

    10

  • #
    pat

    not a hint of humour from Lucie!

    16 Aug: ABC: Lucie Bell: Climate change could send ants marching east
    To most people they’re kitchen raiders, picnic heisters and toe biters, but to Israel Del Toro ants are something special.
    The CSIRO Fullbright Scholar has been based in the Top End for the last 12 months, studying the possible effects of climate change on ant communities…
    The Fullbright Scholar will return to the United States to complete his PHD at the University of Massachusetts, before travelling to Europe to continue studying ant communities.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-15/top-end-ants/4861562

    20

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Presumably we in Queensland ought to be quaking in our boots at the thought of hordes of toe-biters crossing the border. I have sent an email to JEB to advise him of this candidate for the Warm List.

      But this researcher must be crazy. The ant migration is allegedly caused by increased rainfall. An increase in rainfall can only be caused by warming. Clearly this guy didn’t get the memo.

      Call our donations hotline now and for just $2 per day you can help save a researcher from Troppo Fever.

      20

  • #
    pat

    AFP churns this stuff out by the hour, it seems, again without a hint of humour:

    16 Aug: Age: AFP: Apples lose crunch from climate change, study finds
    Global warming is causing apples to lose some of their crunch but is also making them sweeter, a study said Thursday.
    Analysing data gathered from 1970 to 2010 at two orchards in Japan, a research team said there was clear evidence that climate change was having an effect on apple taste and texture.
    “All such changes may have resulted from earlier blooming and higher temperatures” during the growth season, they wrote in the journal Nature Scientific Reports…
    “We think that a sweeter apple is a positive thing and a loss of firmness is a negative thing,” study co-author Toshihiko Sugiura of the National Institute of Fruit Tree Science in Fujimoto told AFP.
    “We think most people like sweet and firm apple fruits, although everyone has his own taste. A soft apple is called ‘Boke’ in Japanese which means a dull or senile fruit.”…
    ***The research claims to be the first to measure changes in the taste and texture of food as a result of climate change.
    http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/apples-lose-crunch-from-climate-change-study-finds-20130816-2s08e.html

    ***oh no, now we’ll get a study for each & every bit of food in the universe!

    20

    • #
      AndyG55

      ummm.. so were the apples stored from 1970? or did someone remember the taste.?

      30

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        They make the claim “On the basis of 30–40 years of records” and show the data to support it, so presumably these attributes were being measured in the 1970s.

        Who would have thought the Toyota method of Total Quality Management would have been applied to the apple industry?

        30

        • #
          Dave

          I think they should look west.

          No wonder the apples taste like poo, they’re full of crap from China.

          “The most recent air pollution crisis came in February, when a whitish gray blanket of smog fell over Fukuoka.”

          “The fumes already pose a serious public health crisis for China. In April, a study published in leading medical journal The Lancet linked air pollution to 1.2 million deaths in the country in 2010. The number comprises more than a third of the world’s total air pollution-related deaths”.

          And we’re getting threatened by Climate Change nutters with drowning, gassing, tattooing etc, while these clowns stand back and ignore 1.2 million pollution related deaths in China.

          Idiots.

          30

  • #
    pat

    makes me want to cry:

    15 Aug: SMH blog: Snow worries: will global warming kill the ski industry?
    by Miss Snow It All, Rachael Oakes-Ash
    Now I am no expert on global warming, I get my weather forecast by looking out the window, but there is no doubt with increasingly erratic winters that the global ski industry is in environmental trouble.
    Pro Snowboarder Jeremy Jones’ Protect Our Winters organization uniting ski resorts of North America reports that spring now arrives two weeks earlier than it did 50 years ago in Lake Tahoe and that by the year 2039, the ski resorts of the North East in the USA will experience ski seasons of less than a hundred days…
    In Australia the Climatic Change Report August 2013 assessment of the potential impact of climate change on the ski industry in New Zealand and Australia predicted that Australian resorts will experience between 57 and 78 per cent of the current maximum snow depth and that will reduce to 21 to 29 percent come 2090…
    That’s a rather hefty dent on a $67 billion industry in North America and a billion-dollar industry in Australia…
    The Victorian Alpine Resorts 2020 Strategy, along with the Australian Keep Winters Cool Initiative have both recognised climate change as a major threat to the future of skiing in our country and have ear marked lower altitude resorts Lake Mountain and Mount Baw Baw as the most vulnerable…
    http://www.smh.com.au/travel/blogs/miss-snow-it-all/snow-worries-will-global-warming-kill-the-ski-industry-20130815-2rxzd.html

    01

  • #
    pat

    apologies for so many comments, but i’m on a comedic roll:

    nice for a spot of fishing too:

    16 Aug: FraserCoastChronicle: Mitch Crawley: Fraser Island ideal spot for climate change study
    THE head of the Fraser Island Defenders Organisation believes the world heritage-listed site could become a national laboratory for studying climate change.
    Speaking to the Chronicle after the Biennial Fraser Island Conference in Brisbane last Thursday, FIDO president John Sinclair said scientists were fascinated with the changes taking place.
    “The impact of climate change was either explicit or implicit in a number of presentations at the conference, particularly in the keynote address by … Doctor Barry Jones and Professor Roger Kitching,” Mr Sinclair said.
    Prof Kitching was one of the authors of the next report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change…
    “All of the scientists stressed the need to gather more baseline data now that could be used to measure the rate of change and led to a few more people volunteering to assist in projects to assist the scientists gather more data,” he said.
    Mr Sinclair said the climate change theme would continue at the 2015 Fraser Island Sun, Sea and Sand Conference where climate scientist Prof Tim Flannery would be a speaker.
    http://www.frasercoastchronicle.com.au/news/world-heritage-listed-fraser-island-ideal-spot-for/1985535/

    20

  • #
    pat

    not confirmed, but given fracking is part of the Dept of Climate Change in the UK, it provides another good laugh:

    15 Aug: UK Telegraph: Jamie Kirkup: Church of England in ‘fracking land-grab’
    The Church of England has begun legal action to claim ancient mineral rights beneath thousands of homes and farms, prompting fears the church could seek to cash in on fracking
    Residents across England have started receiving letters from the Land Registry, informing them that the Church is seeking to register the mineral rights to the earth beneath their property…
    Responding to residents’ worries, the Church insisted that it has “no particular plans to mine under any property” but failed to rule out allowing fracking on its property…
    The Church, which has owned some its land for centuries, holds such rights in many parts of England, including some where geologists say there is scope to extract energy by fracking.
    Under a new law, landowners have until October to assert their rights over mineral rights. The commissioners have told the Land Registry that they wish to do so.
    As a result, the registry is now sending official legal letters to residents informing them of the Church’s “unilateral” claim to benefit from any mines and minerals under their land…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10245697/Church-of-England-in-fracking-land-grab.html

    10

  • #
    Rod

    You might as well call a carbon tax an oxygen tax. It amounts to the same thing. BTW did Schwarzenegger play in a movie where an oxygen tax was imposed?

    00

  • #

    Steve Goddard puts it well in a tweet to @BarackObama – Persecution of non-believers has been popular for centuries. Belief and denial are the words of zealots, not scientists.
    https://twitter.com/SteveSGoddard/status/367262842753269760

    And spot on quotes from the late Michael Crichton on the other highly scientific call by warmists; that of there being a ‘consensus’ and ‘settled science’ around climate

    “I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
    ― Michael Crichton

    “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
    ― Michael Crichton

    Great example Arnie is setting to the young and impressionable and the other 47% – the 47% of entitlement sheeple plus the kids probably adds up to that 97% figure again!

    Am more than happy to be in the minority 3% of non-groupthinkers who bother to read Government supplied climate data and wonder where the AGW problem lies…other than in the lies!

    20

  • #

    Hey look, I know it’s off topic, but it gave me a good chuckle.

    There I was standing in the queue to pay my latest electricity bill.

    (Note in the following the italicised weasel words)

    There, on the front page in bold red writing was the statement that the Competition Authority estimates that the Federal carbon price (their words) adds about $259 to a typical 6.3MWH household power bill.

    So, that being said, then that umm, average comes in at 17KWH per day.

    Now, what I have noticed in some of the more recent proposals for new renewable power plants is some newly added fine print, and you have to expand the screen size to beyond 100% to even be able to read this fine print.

    Note how they always use the bogus ….. this plant will supply X number of homes with clean electricity.

    The fine print now being added is again, still meaningless to the average person, not understanding what it actually means, so in effect, they have added some further meaningless explanation in the way of that fine print, so that if questioned, then they have stated what they think you will think it actually means.

    Now the fine print says that with reference to the X number of homes, the Government has calculated that the average home consumes 22KWH of electricity.

    So, note how when it affects your pocket, they reduce it to as low as they possibly can, and when it is perceived as a good thing, (renewable power) they bump up that average to inflate their figures.

    So then, if the average was what is quoted in the renewable power proposal, that’s an extra $76 per year. taking the CO2 cost imposition up to $335, or 4.17 cents per KWH, effectively doubling the wholesale cost of coal fired power.

    It’s becoming so laughable.

    Incidentally, I’m right on the average that I always use for all my calculations, 20KWH per day.

    Tony.

    61

  • #
    MemoryVault

    Okay Jo,

    We’ve run out of Governator and tailpipe jokes.
    Time for a new post.

    10

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      I must be on the Budget membership plan. Apparently if you’re on the VIP plan you get a service level agreement? ;)

      10

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      People not understanding the concept of pollution is not a joke.

      According to wikipedia
      “Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change.[1]”

      So if new fossil fuel CO2 is introduced into the environment by burning fossil fuels and this is causing the temps to increase, the arctic to melt, the seas to rise, the oceans to acidify and warm and extreme weathr to increase, then it is a pollutant. Pure and simple.

      110

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        By the way, Michael, How are you going with enumerating your falsification criteria for CAGW? It’s been nearly a week and I’ve not seen you declare your standard yet.
        Surely for a self-styled “realist” this would be easy. Is there any part of that task you need help with?
        Not too challenging for you, I hope.

        71

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          I thought you were not replying to me anymore? You should read the whole latest WMO report. You obviously did not understand the concept of decadel comparisons. The 30 year trend still applies but you would find that you can go back most of last century and see that the previous decade was cooler than the decade you are looking at. Even the 2001 to 2010 decade with a predominantly cooling la nina influence is still hotter than the previous decade that was predominantly warming el nino affected. Yes natural factors have been accepted for a long time, examined and found to be unable to explain the warming. You have nowhere to go with that argument since it is so called skeptics that ignore natural factors. I would only question AGW if the 2011 to 2020 decade is colder than the 2001 to 2010 decade. Feel free to go back to ignoring me.

          “When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere temperature responds more strongly to El Niño/southern oscillation and to volcanic forcing than surface temperature data. The adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010.”
          http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/fulltext/

          06

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            But I don’t have to ignore you any more because you have declared a falsification criteria, just as I asked.

            it is so called skeptics that ignore natural factors. I would only question AGW if the 2011 to 2020 decade is colder than the 2001 to 2010 decade.

            This begins the journey towards genuine realism and genuine scepticism. It’s not a very good criteria because if natural variation is strong enough to cause this decade to be cooler than the last then you could just chuck a Trenberth and say CAGW is still real but its hiding in the oceans or something.
            Quite ironically you have ignored natural factors which could in principle make this decade warmer than the previous one, just as nature has done for most of the last 8 decades. It won’t of course, because it’s the hypothesis of astrophysicists that we are indeed in for 30 years of cooling, but you don’t know that and don’t believe that yet, so for you natural factors could conceivably include warming. But if you have already considered natural factors then this shouldn’t worry you.

            Plus you’ve decided to go with a 10 year average instead of the WMO criteria of 30 years, which means we only need 10 years of random cooling to disprove CAGW, not 15 or 30. Even good old doc Santer said 17 years of below-expected temperature would be needed to disprove the IPCC 2007 models.

            But at least it’s a start. Well done.

            And No I’m not going to ignore you, that would be letting you off lightly.

            As for referencing Foster and Rahmstorf 2011, that’s going to be a whole other discussion, but it should suffice for the moment to say that their whole methodology is flawed in the same way the IPCC method is flawed. They subtract a small subset of all natural factors and assume that whatever remains is anthropogenic. The list of factors they failed to subtract is lengthy, and their treatment of ENSO as a short term effect is suspicious when compared to the temperature record. Their conclusion that linear warming is unbroken is contradicted by climate models that explain every decade of the 20th century without using CO2 at all. But that’s a topic for another day.

            40

            • #
              Michael the Realist

              Thanks for your reply Andrew. Just to be clear, I do not ignore the 30 year trend as defined by the WMO, all I have said is that it would take this decade to be colder than the last decade for me to question AGW. On comparing using decadel timescales you will have ups and down but any long term trend will still shine through. This can be seen with the typical cherry pick of 1998, being an anomalous el nino year, being a magnet for the fake skeptic community to argue at, but on decadel timescales that cherry ick is put into perspective as the 2001 to 2010 decade is still gotter than the previous decade that includes that cherry pick. So obviously it is not a 10 year trend when using decadel comparisons. You may not have meant that but I thought I would spell it out to avoid confusion later.

              03

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                Apologies for spelling mistakes, I am away from home at the moment and using a very tricky pad computer.

                02

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                Quite right, you’re asking the equivalent of a 20 year trend, it’s the same as the difference between the first decade average and 2nd decade average.

                But you can’t wimp out of this by saying you’ll only “question AGW” when the 2nd decade is cooler than the 1st. You’re supposed to be questioning AGW now, that’s the point of being a skeptic, or a realist in your words.
                When the falsification criteria is met you will actually disbelieve CAGW. You don’t just start questioning it, it will stop being true at that point. The inquiry ends at that point, you’ll have the final answer.

                That’s why it’s important to define a CAGW falsification criteria with good discriminatory power between competing hypotheses. Ideally it should not be met if CAGW is as bad as claimed, and it should be met if the vast majority (say over 70%) of post-1950 warming was due to natural causes.

                20

          • #
            Bruce of Newcastle

            Foster & Rahmstorf 2011 huh? I said I can demolish that paper with one graph, so here it is.

            HadCRUT 3v detrended

            See, if you look at FR2011 Fig 5, which is the key graph, you will see it starts in 1980 and ends in 2010. Were you to add a linear trendline you would see a rise of 0.4 C in that period.

            The detrended HadCRUT graph (which I’ve replicated myself) shows that about 0.28 C of this is the run up of the 60 year cycle to the peak.

            Seventy percent of the rise is due to the ocean cycle. And that is not to mention the solar component which covers most of the rest.

            In otherwords Tamino and Rahmstorf have rediscovered the AMO. Brilliant!

            This is why sites like SkS don’t much talk about FR2011 any more. It is so bad it hurts their credibility whenever they try to use it in an argument.

            20

        • #
          Heywood

          Whilst he is there he can let us know how many degrees the ETS and RETs will offset by 2100. Even Phillip Shehan had a wild arse guess.

          20

      • #
        AndyG55

        Oh look.. the Norwegian blue !

        31

      • #
        Heywood

        ” People not understanding the concept of pollution is not a joke.”

        Aren’t we being serious enough for poor AAD?

        Heaven forbid that a long standing member of this blog uses some humour without the guy who has been posting here 5 minutes having a sook.

        Funny, I didn’t see anyone on here dispute your point, but like your brother BA4, you don’t need an excuse to push your activist agenda.

        What about the topic AAD? Do you condemn or support what Schwarzenegger said?

        40

      • #
        MemoryVault

        So if new fossil fuel CO2 is introduced into the environment by burning fossil fuels and this is causing the temps to increase,

        Reality Check – Temperatures have not increased for a decade and a half.

        the arctic to melt,

        Reality Check – Arctic ice is back to near average levels for this time of year, and Antarctic ice is at record levels.

        the seas to rise,

        Reality Check – IF, and it’s a disputed “if”, the sea levels were ever rising, they have slowed or even stopped now.

        the oceans to acidify

        Reality Check – One CANNOT “acidify” a heavily buffered alkaline solution (but you probably don’t even know what that means)

        and warm and extreme weathr to increase,

        Reality Check – The “warm” weather stopped fifteen or more years ago. “Extreme” weather events have decreased.

        then it is a pollutant. Pure and simple.

        So, on the basis of your post, since none of these things are actually happening, CO2 is NOT a pollutant, and we can all stop worrying.
        Pure and simple.

        81

        • #
          MemoryVault

          Michael,

          Having got that off my chest, can I ask you, [snip] why you felt the need to post your entirely incorrect, irrelevant, and off-topic comment in the middle of an otherwise very convivial exchange between Andrew McRae and myself on the joys or otherwise of chic-flics featuring Meg Ryan?

          You couldn’t simply post at the bottom of the thread and start a new topic?
          Felt that wouldn’t attract enough attention to yourself and your pathetic, discredited cause?

          I have come to accept, Michael, that you are far too dimwitted to understand even elementary physics and chemistry, but surely even you have some crude knowledge of basic internet and social media etiquette?

          Or are you a social pariah even within your own peer group?

          At least that would explain your regular appearances here – you have nowhere else to go.

          .
          Pathetic.

          40

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators
          Seriously memoryvault, you should not rely on your memory before posting but check some facts.

          Reality Check – The predominantly la nina affected 2001 to 2010 decade was hotter than the 1991 to 2000 decade.

          Reality Check – The Arctic is well below the 81 to 2010 average.

          Reality Check – Sea levels are rising at roughly twice the rate of the previous century average.

          Reality Check – The ocean becoming less alkaline by 30% is the same as it becoming more acidic. Semantics does not a point make.

          Reality Check – Extreme weather is increasing. Trends in extreme precipitation are up 7% per degree of warming, day heat records broken up on cold by 3 to 1 and 5 to 1 at night. Recent research shows an increase in storm intensity. and much more…Watch international weather a bit more closely to see how much a lot of the world is suffering.

          So on the basis of actual observations CO2 is a pollutant (next time check your sources).

          08

          • #

            None of these tells us anything about the cause of global warming.

            See my earlier reply about CO2 emissions not meshing with the timing or the steepness of the trends in global warming.

            50

            • #
              Michael the Realist

              The consequences of CO2 emissions are overlayed on other natural influences, like ENSO, solar, volcanosetc, on the climate as well as other anthropogenic influences on the climate, like aerosols, land use and urbanisation etc.

              So expecting perfect correlation is being purposefully subjective. What is apparent is that the long term trend is up and that the 2001 to 2010 decade with its predominantly cooling la nina influence is still the hottest on every continent, over land, over ocean and on both hemispheres as well as globally and hotter than the previous decade of 1991 to 2000 with its predominantly warming el nino influence and the anomalous hot el nino affected year of 1998. Why is that? Could it be that the CO2 influence is overwhelming natural factors?

              03

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                Not to mention the record breaking Arctic melt years of 2007 and 2012 that was well in excess of predictions and natural variation and the nearly 100% surface melt at Greenland.

                03

              • #
                Bruce of Newcastle

                Could it be that the CO2 influence is overwhelming natural factors?

                No. Natural factors explain it neatly.

                The Sun was at a high point in activity for at least a millenium. Solar cycle 22 was the shortest in the last 230 years, which corresponds with a hot following cycle, which was the period you mention.

                The PDO peaked in about 2000 and the AMO in about 2008 or so.

                Adding on on top of the other, why is it so surprising that 2001-2010 was hot?

                The most interesting thing is the temperature is now falling even though CO2 has been rising precipitously since 2001. Can you explain why?

                30

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                Bruce of Newcastle, paging Bruce of Newcastle to the front lines,
                Michael the Reformed Warmist has made the mistake above of citing Foster & Rahmstorf 2011. I believe deconstructing that particular cacophony is one of your special interests. Can you find a link to a previous comment of yours which does the job, or can you make a fresh one please?
                If it is a well-worn path then I see no sense in my being inefficient about it.

                30

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                But you are still assuming that CO2 is the primary cause.

                That has only ever been asserted, but never demonstrated. Just because it has become a popular misconception, does not make it a real conception. Correlation does not prove causation.

                In fact, for the last decade or so, we have had very little correlation. How would you explain that?

                20

              • #
                Bruce of Newcastle

                Thanks Andrew, appreciate the heads up. I do relish knocking over FR2011, it is a special bit of fun for a Saturday morning.

                FR2011 is a wonderful mix of a Norwegian Blue and the Black Knight. Its a dead parrot which keeps being used and keeps coming back no matter how much you cut bits off it.

                30

              • #

                “Could” be anything. Question is “Is it probable?” and how can you prove that?

                20

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                The last decade has been explained above, it is already the hottest on the record in every way possible, that it is not as hot as the models is merely natural variation which should even out over time, or the models will improve as computing power and the science knowledge increases. Fact is that despite cooling factors the temps are still in the hottest ever territory and if an el nino hits I think we will be in big trouble.

                02

              • #
                Bruce of Newcastle

                Michael – You forgot to mention that if a VEI 6+ volcano blows its top we should immediately go buy some woolly cardigans.

                We haven’t had a big dusty one for a long time.

                20

              • #
                Bruce of Newcastle

                By the way, Michael, you are doing very well. Few people on the consensus side will link to and attempt to argue the data.

                We’ve not gotten to the point of taking apart IPCC consensus papers yet (except FR2011, which is easy). Can if you want.

                You are still behind in the debate though as you’ve not been able to falsify the sceptics’ basis of ocean cycles and solar modulation of cloud cover. You have to do that since it is the consensus side which is arguing to spend vast amounts of money and apply legal controls the people. Sceptics only say we should do nothing, since there is no problem. Which is therefore the null hypothesis.

                But you have been doing well. Better than many professional climate scientists who tend to chicken out of debates.

                30

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                Thanks for the compliment, although I do not consider myself behind since ocean cycles should still average out to zero but are showing an upward trend and that solar modulation of cloud cover has no sound basis for any major influence on the climate. These points have not been proved.

                What is proved is that as a greenhouse gas, CO2 causes warming (proved conclusively), and that we have increased it by 40% (also not in question). All the consequences predicted for AGW have occurred and most worse than predicted. This is just looking at the science and observations alone. On that basis our uncontrolled geo engineering experiment must be stopped to try to stabilise and eventually reduce CO2 in the atmosphere to levels more normal for the last million years, the time that man has flourished and grown. To continue to take our climate back to less friendly and habitable times for man is illiogical and immoral to future generations.

                02

              • #
                Bruce of Newcastle

                since ocean cycles should still average out to zero

                Oh, I agree with you.

                The problem is the IPCC said that in the period 1906-2005 temperature rose 0.74 C due to evil CO2 (or words to that effect).

                But the cycle has a trough to peak of 0.28 C, and was at bottom in 1906, and top of the following cycle in 2005. So 0.28 C of the 0.74 C is not real, it is an artefact of the choice of dates.

                If the IPCC was consistent they would use the period 1880-2005.

                The trouble is if you remove that 0.28 C as not being due to CO2 then the derived climate sensitivity drops by 38%. Which is what Canty et al 2013 found.

                Yes, the cycle should average to zero. But you have to use integer multiples of the full wavelength, which the IPCC did not do. Instead they used the worst possible period – 1906 is a trough in the entire HadCRUT dataset. How odd that they should choose that date?

                10

              • #
                Heywood

                “How odd that they should choose that date?”

                Cherry picking to suit their confirmation bias pehaps? Nah, only one side of the debate is capable of that.

                20

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Michael the Reforming Warmist,

            Presumably you do not bother to link to data sources because you don’t want us to be able to verify your claims easily?

            Reality Check: The current Arctic ice extent is within 1 standard deviation of the 1979-2000 average and has been so for 30 days, so northern summer ice extent is therefore currently NORMAL. Sea ice extent has also recovered from below 2012 levels to above 2009 levels in one year.

            Reality Check: El Ninos increase air temperatures but the temperatures do NOT fall the same amount when the El Nino ends, which suggests El Ninos have a lingering multi-year effect on air temperature which even Kevin Trenberth admitted and described as “residuals”. La Ninas are not real events, they are simply a name for the normal absence of an El Nino event and so no special cooling effect is associated with these periods. More likely is that an El Nino causes air temperature to be reset back to the underlying longer term trend that had been accumulating in the ocean the whole time, converting what should be a gradual change into a step function. The El Nino is a distraction from the cause of warming or cooling and serves only to bias short-term analyses which should not be used anyway.

            Reality Check: There is a dearth of data in ocean pH; the longest term highest quality pH series available is only at a single location, yet it shows virtually no change in pH over the last 15 years.
            One of the widest ranging pH studies using a small number of new instruments ran for only 2 years starting in 2009 and found:

            Our data show such huge variability in seawater pH both within and across marine ecosystems making global predictions of the impacts of ocean acidification a big challenge. Some ecosystems such as coral reefs experience a daily range in pH that exceeds the predicted increase in pH over the next century. While these data suggest that marine organisms may be more adapted to fluctuations in pH than previously thought much more research is needed to determine how individual species will respond over time.

            An attempt to use computer models to estimate pH from 10% of the ARGO floats found:

            We attain R2 values greater than 0.98 and RMS errors of 0.018 (pH) … Comparison to independent data collected nearby in 2010 indicates pH and Ωarag estimates are robust. Although the method will not allow detection of anthropogenic trends in pH

            In summary, the reality of “OA” is that even with in-situ modern instrumentation the anthropogenic influence on pH is still too small to measure, and we already know enough about the natural variance to know our influence is also too small to matter.
            This supports MV’s statement that a heavily buffered alkaline solution cannot be acidified and cannot have its pH reduced by such tiny increments of dissolved CO2. While lab tests on the effects of lowered pH on marine organisms are certainly informative, they assume the modelled pH drop will occur whereas recent real world measurements are showing no sign of a consistent alkalinity reduction at a time of record CO2 emissions.

            Reality Check: Hurricane incidence for the USA has not increased as a result of more CO2.
            Reality Check: There were less ‘major’ USA hurricanes recorded in the decade ending 2000 than in the 1940s, 1950s, or 1960s.
            Reality Check: Northern winter snow cover has not changed in the slightest in response to CO2.

            As Jo says, correlation is not causation and an increase in storm intensity, even if it had occurred, could have occurred due to natural unavoidable causes, such as warming from a natural cycle.

            20

            • #
              Michael the Realist

              Actually I have provided my sources many times over before, but have let up a bit due to complaints.

              The Arctic hit its lowest extent on the record last year, with the previous record being in 2007. Using one incomplete year to declare it is over is barely worth responding to.

              I could go and find all the individual sources but I have to go out soon, so I will post the following compilations of observations for the time being.

              http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators
              http://scentofpine.org/indicators/

              Storms
              “Hurricanes are Mother Nature’s largest and most destructive storms. Fed by warm ocean waters and moist atmospheric conditions, about 90 such storms — also known as tropical cyclones — form worldwide each year. With the population of coastal areas growing daily and sea level on the rise, how these monster storms may change as the climate continues to warm is an increasingly urgent question facing climate scientists, insurance companies, and public officials.”
              http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-projects-more-frequent-and-stronger-hurricanes-worldwide-16204

              Umm, reality check, the USA is not the globe. The others weren’t really anything I had said.

              04

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                Hilarious! It’s the attack of the “high-resolution, regional simulations of tropical cyclones”! Your link to computer model projections is not a substitute for observational evidence, surely you have learned that by now. I’d be laughing if it weren’t so sadly predictable.

                Umm, reality check, the USA is not the globe.

                I’m sure the USA would be pleased to have its own private isolated climate, but it doesn’t, and it’s half a continent in size.

                The others weren’t really anything I had said.

                You claimed extreme weather was happening but I proved you can’t claim there’s less or more snow, which eliminates one form of extreme weather. Additionally Bruce has shown you the worldwide stats since then on cyclones. No wriggling out of it, there isn’t any more extreme weather now than in the 1960s, that was a warmist myth.

                We are constantly told the signs of global warming are all around us, that it is already here. We’ve been pumping out CO2 en masse for 75 years so indeed it should. There’s no need for simulations, we are inside the real experiment and when we look around what do we see? Extreme weather events are no more severe, are less frequent, and cost less in damage than the 1960s and 1970s. They cost less because of better building codes which are only affordable because of economic development which relies on cheap energy. If you tax energy by taxing CO2 you are not only ineffectually solving a non-problem, you’re actually retarding our adaptation to future natural climate change.

                Do you see that if you had included extreme weather in your falsification criteria then that pillar would now be knocked away.

                30

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        “causing the temps to increase, the arctic to melt, the seas to rise, the oceans to acidify and warm and extreme weather to increase,”
        Since the trend in all these parameters is in the opposite direction, when had you anticipated that your scenario might begin?

        40

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          Oh Rod, I think you are reading the graphs upside down. Try turning the page right way up. All the indicators are in the directions consistent with warming by AGW.

          http://scentofpine.org/indicators/
          http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

          “The world experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes during the 2001-2010 decade, which was the warmest since the start of modern measurements in 1850 and continued an extended period of pronounced global warming.

          Precipitation and floods: The 2001-2010 decade was the second wettest since 1901. Globally, 2010 was the wettest year since the start of instrumental records.
          Most parts of the globe had above-normal precipitation during the decade. The eastern USA, northern and eastern Canada, and many parts of Europe and central Asia were particularly wet.
          According to the WMO survey, floods were the most frequently experienced extreme events over the course of the decade. Eastern Europe was particularly affected in 2001 and 2005, India in 2005, Africa in 2008, Asia (notably Pakistan, where 2 000 people died and 20 million were affected) in 2010, and Australia, also in 2010.”
          http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html

          04

          • #
            Bruce of Newcastle

            (notably Pakistan, where 2 000 people died and 20 million were affected) in 2010

            The Pakistan floods were caused by jet stream blocking, Michael. Caused by the Sun. Jet stream blocking increases with low solar activity, and solar activity at the time of the Moscow heatwave and Pakistan floods was at record low. This graphic from New Scientist shows the jet stream position at that time.

            Haven’t you ever thought, Michael, that CO2 might not be this magic chemical which causes everything in the world to happen? Prof Lockwood is not a climate sceptic at all, if you’ve read his other papers, he is an IPCC contributor.

            30

            • #
              Rod Stuart

              Haven’t you ever thought, Michael?

              This is the question worth asking.

              30

            • #
              Michael the Realist

              Many jetstream changes have been linked to AGW. This in turn affects the climate. It is a large interacting system and anything that throws it out of balnce will have many unintended side effects. That is the whole premise behind the changes in extreme weather we are seeing.

              American Meteoroligical Society
              Explaining Extreme Events of 2011 from a Climate Perspective
              http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00021.1

              The New Climate Dice: Public Perception of Climate Change
              http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_17/

              ——————-
              “An increasing number of studies are making the connections between human activities, climate change and a rise in extreme weather events. While it is difficult to point to climate change as causing a single weather event without in-depth research, patterns are emerging.”
              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/climate-change-effects-global-warming_n_1662046.html#slide=1277061

              ———
              Warming Arctic causing NH extreme cold
              “While the Arctic region has been warming strongly in recent decades, anomalously large snowfall in recent winters has affected large parts of North America, Europe, and east Asia. Here we demonstrate that the decrease in autumn Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation that have some resemblance to the negative phase of the winter Arctic oscillation. However, the atmospheric circulation change linked to the reduction of sea ice shows much broader meridional meanders in midlatitudes and clearly different interannual variability than the classical Arctic oscillation. This circulation change results in more frequent episodes of blocking patterns that lead to increased cold surges over large parts of northern continents. Moreover, the increase in atmospheric water vapor content in the Arctic region during late autumn and winter driven locally by the reduction of sea ice provides enhanced moisture sources, supporting increased heavy snowfall in Europe during early winter and the northeastern and midwestern United States during winter. We conclude that the recent decline of Arctic sea ice has played a critical role in recent cold and snowy winters. ”
              http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/17/1114910109.abstract

              “Extreme weather is often the result of climate change, according to scientists in Germany, who say they have found how greenhouse gases are helping to trap the jet stream and the weather patterns it brings.”
              http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/2013/02/climate-change-causes-wild-weather/

              03

              • #
                Bruce of Newcastle

                What extreme weather are we seeing?

                Accumulated cyclone energy is at a near record low.

                Insurance costs have not changed much on a normalised level.

                Tornadoes are at a record low.

                No cat 3 or above hurricane has hit the US for eight years, which is unprecedented.

                Floods have not increased, except to the normal (remember Dr Flannery’s predictions we’d not see dams full ever again in this country?)

                I have seen a few papers linking jet stream changes to pCO2, but they don’t convince since you’d expect a smooth rise in blocking occurrences, which isn’t the case. And to hypothesise some tipping point is a big jump when there is zero mechanistic basis for one (other than solar activity as per Lockwood’s findings – which of course is a natural event not anthropogenic).

                50

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                Right Bruce, you are in extreme avoidance mode now. Insurance companies are warning about the increased costs of climate change and premiums are going to go through the roof. You are purposefully selecting data to prove your confirmation bias. Also the cherry on top was your comment about Flannery, he never said any such thing. Please point to the transcript where he said that.

                Observational studies have proved changing patterns of heat and of extreme precipitation events. Studies of droughts over the decade have found them statistically unlikely to have hapened without the influence of AGW and much more. I could drown this page with individual record breaking flood events etc. Open your eyes.

                “The world experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes during the 2001-2010 decade, which was the warmest since the start of modern measurements in 1850 and continued an extended period of pronounced global warming.

                Precipitation and floods: The 2001-2010 decade was the second wettest since 1901. Globally, 2010 was the wettest year since the start of instrumental records.
                Most parts of the globe had above-normal precipitation during the decade. The eastern USA, northern and eastern Canada, and many parts of Europe and central Asia were particularly wet.
                According to the WMO survey, floods were the most frequently experienced extreme events over the course of the decade. Eastern Europe was particularly affected in 2001 and 2005, India in 2005, Africa in 2008, Asia (notably Pakistan, where 2 000 people died and 20 million were affected) in 2010, and Australia, also in 2010.”
                http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html

                03

              • #
                Heywood

                “Also the cherry on top was your comment about Flannery, he never said any such thing. Please point to the transcript where he said that.”

                I’ll save Bruce the time.

                SALLY SARA: What will it mean for Australian farmers if the predictions of climate change are correct and little is done to stop it? What will that mean for a farmer?

                PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: We’re already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we’re getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that’s translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That’s because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we’re going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.

                http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm

                Go on. Spin it away.

                31

              • #
                Bruce of Newcastle

                Insurance companies are warning about the increased costs of climate change and premiums are going to go through the roof

                Michael – I believe I said that actual insurance costs have not changed in nominal terms, ie after adjustment for GDP, inflation etc.

                If insurance companies want to squawk about how terrible, terrible everything is and put up premiums, then well, that sounds awfully like the insurance industry since time immemorial.

                In the link I gave on insurance losses, there are thirteen graphs which Dr Pielke used in his testimony to US Senate. Some are from the insurance industry themselves. The graphs show not much change in insurance losses. They show very little change in extreme weather. Complaining more about extreme weather does not make it occur more. Dr Pielke is not the sort who would publicly go before the US Senate and provide fake information. That would be a career terminating move.

                And as I said, the 2010 Pakistan floods were due to jet stream blocking as was the Moscow heatwave, and the cold UK winter when the councils ran out of road salt because they believed UK Met Office predictions.

                And jet stream blocking is more common when the Sun is at low activity, which ist was in 2010. Record low activity, not seen for over 200 years.

                20

              • #
                MemoryVault

                Heywood, Bruce,

                While I admire your Herculean efforts to push back the boundaries of ignorance, you’re debating with a guy who honestly believes an alkaline is just a weak acid.

                .
                Dare I suggest you both may just be wasting your time?

                30

              • #
                Bruce of Newcastle

                MV – Read this. And I’ve liked chasing these ever since the book first came out.

                20

              • #
                Heywood

                “Dare I suggest you both may just be wasting your time?”

                Nah MV.

                We are playing wank-word bingo.

                Every time we hear one of the following statements from the book of Michael the AAD, we drink a shot.

                “All the consequences predicted for AGW have occurred”

                “CO2 is a pollutant”

                “the 2001 to 2010 decade is the hottest on the instrumental record”

                “cherry pick to suit your confirmation bias”

                “not an actual scientific or reliable source for science information”

                “SkS has won awards”

                “opinion blog sites are not reliable sources of data”

                “Models are merely projections under certain scenarios”

                “most predictions for AGW are worse than expected”

                “Try and make an argument referring to the actual science and not a blog site

                Needless to say, with all the repetition in each article, we are pissed by lunchtime.

                We are considering changing the rules, to whenever he makes the same old tired statements, we turn on another light or turn the heater up a notch. We will have the carbon footprint of a small country within a week.

                20

              • #
                MemoryVault

                .
                Well . . . .

                I guess as long as the two of you are having fun.

                .
                BTW Bruce, The Pointman and I go back a longways, and while I am great admirer of his writing style and many of his articles, in the one you linked to, he is dead wrong.

                The only way to fight someone far bigger and stronger than yourself is to dive in close, grab something substantial, (belt, jacket front, whatever) with your left hand, hold yourself up tight and personal to them, and use your right hand to inflict as much damage as possible – palm of the hand upwards to the jaw, thumb in corner of mouth and rip, thumb gouged into eyeball, that sort of thing.

                Anything else will get you pulped. Eventually.

                With any sort of luck enough damage and pain is induced to kill your opponent’s appetite for further engagement. If not, chances are you will distract him long enough to able to beat a hasty retreat, and live to fight another day.

                30

              • #
                Bruce of Newcastle

                MV – I’m planning to use my +5 vorpal voting pencil myself.

                10

          • #
            Backslider

            The 2001-2010 decade was the second wettest since 1901

            Right. SO 1901 was the wettest year recorded. Case closed.

            20

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        According to wikipedia
        “Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change.[1]”

        Ooo, Wikipedia, that great peer reviewed resource. Written by morons, and reviewed by morons, and therefore peer reviewed.

        But as it happens, the quote you give is actually plagiarised from Merriam-Webster dictionary, which takes Encyclopaedia Americana as its definitive source. so I will accept its veracity.

        But the actual quote rests on the word, “contaminant”. One definition of this word is, “The presence of a minor or unwanted constituent, that is not normally present”.

        Since CO2 is normally present within the mixture of gases we call the atmosphere, it cannot be considered a contaminant, and is not a pollutant.

        20

    • #
      MemoryVault

      .
      It was more an appeal out of desperation than a service demand, Andrew.

      I’ve had no actual contract work for a couple of weeks now, I’ve caught up on all my extra-curricular reading and other personal activities, I’ve watched all the latest movies I want to see, I’ve visited and played with the grandkids, I’ve spent all day watching old episodes of “Yes Minister” (again), it’s Friday night, there’s nothing on the idiot box, and I’m bored shitless.

      If Jo doesn’t post something soon, I’ll be forced to spend the evening watching “Sleepless in Seattle” – again – with Thumper.

      .
      So I’m pleading.

      40

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        I’m so, so sorry. You poor man.
        Tell her she should watch another Meg Ryan movie, then bring out Proof of Life. :)

        SBS has some documentaries on now and at 8:30 that may be interesting, but YMVMMV.

        10

  • #
    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      He was pushing it though wasn’t he and she did manage to keep composure, to the end.
      Very entertaining though.
      He’s getting a bit of a reputation that Ben Fordham. See himself as the next Sir Robin Day does he ? (Seen here putting the British Defence Minister in his place after the Falklands war)

      Listen again
      Or
      Downloaded here

      70

      • #
        Raven

        I know it was a little hard , however they did help set the scene with the ALP .
        I guess it’s the old if ya can’t stand the heat get outa kitchen type scenario .

        20

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      Sarah Young & Handsome , if not so reliable, on taking more liberties.
      Listen
      or
      Download

      51

  • #
    Eddie Sharpe

    Does Arne have a strap on tailpipe, to impress his new green friends ?

    100

  • #
    Raven

    Question . Would all Murdoch servers be independent :eg the aus , tele , news etc .

    00

    • #
      MemoryVault

      .
      Immensely difficult to answer, Raven.

      Whatever else he may be, Murdoch is, or has been, “smart money”. And the “smart money” answer to the question would be that Murdoch would have set up a separate IT services company – including servers – to contract to his other many and varied business interests. So the answer would be “yes”, they would all be on the same servers.

      However, given how badly he misjudged, misread, and ultimately missed the transition of classified advertising (real estate, cars, ‘for sale’ classifieds etc) onto the internet, the answer could just as easily be “no”, it has all been done in a very erratic and ad hoc manner, and he has material on servers from here to kingdom come.

      Then there is the political element. China – just as a for instance – frowns upon businesses, especially businesses in the information-supply business, who store information on servers outside of China, and over which they have very little legal control.

      .
      Why? Planning on a little hacking?
      There ARE easier ways to read articles in The Australian, without paying for a subscription.

      10

      • #
        Raven

        Hi MV , not hacking , I canceled my sub after they got rid of Glen Milne , However i still skim their content or go in via google its just I have not been able to access Murdoch sites all evening , looks like a DNS attack from what I’ve seen just curious that’s all,
        Seems strange all three are timing out .

        10

        • #
          Raven

          Yep I thought he probably wouldn’t have his eggs all in one basket .
          Everywhere else is working fine that’s all ,

          00

        • #
          Heywood

          ” looks like a DNS attack”

          Wouldn’t surprise me given that they have apparently upset the ALP supporters. Like most of the loony left, when they don’t like the message, they try and censor it.

          20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        MV, Raven,

        If they were smart there would be a server farm, a number of them operating in concert so that a heavy load can be handled and there’s redundancy in case one goes down. I’ve no way of knowing what the actual arrangement is any more than you do. But that would be what I would do in Murdoch’s place. So if they’re all down it’s certainly something non trivial.

        10

  • #
    Dave

    Legal action against threats against society members?

    “Threats to seriously injure, or kill another person is considered as an assault, but the threat has to create a fear that it would be carried out. Threats that are unlikely or impossible would not normally be considered as an assault. Threatening to kill or injure someone is a crime that is not taken lightly by the states. In Victoria for example, threats to kill as spelled out in section 20 of the Crimes Act carries with it a maximum of 10 years imprisonment if it is real, rather than fanciful.”

    So the rules are a bit muddy for this little truck driver. These fools above threaten me (indirectly) publicly and to highlight that, they class everyone in this group as deniers. But never to my face, which is the problem, they do it in the news, IT etc.

    So maybe an answer is to email or write directly to each of these people to confirm that their statement of tattooing, drowning etc includes myself.

    Dear Arnold Schwarzenegger,

    You recently stated this:
    “Strap some conservative-thinking people to a tailpipe for an hour and then they will agree it’s a pollutant!”

    I wish for you to confirm that you include me personally in this group, that thinks CO2 is not a pollutant in the major driver of AGW?

    If I do not receive an answer to this, I conclude your answer is YES!

    Regards

    Dave XXXXX
    XX XXXXXX XX
    Queensland Q XXXX
    Australia

    Depending on the response, then action can be taken. It doesn’t matter whether it’s Tim Flannery telling me my house is going to under water, my farm will never receive rain again etc, but it will insist that they own up to public statements.

    After Arnie I’m going to email Jill Singer who is Green and ex ABC staffer.

    I am very sick of being abused (indirectly) by these people.

    Maybe it’s a waste of time, but I’m fairly peeved off at the moment.

    40

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      Well you see Dave, Arne kept it to “deniers” and Conservative thinking types in general.
      Had he made the mistake that the relatively politically naive musicology professor Parncutt did and attributed to treatment to named individuals, then there would be something to act on, as Monckton made him eat his words over, along with an excruciating dose of humble pie.

      70

    • #
      Bite Back

      To make Arnie happy I’ll admit that what comes out the tailpipe of my car is a pollutant. I don’t want to inhale anywhere near it. That’s why there’s been so much effort devoted to reducing the pollution from internal combustion engines. And they’re now so clean by comparison with the late 1960s when efforts first began that the technological achievement is nothing short of amazing.

      However, the CO2 in the exhaust of my car is not a pollutant. It never has been and never will be. And Arnie really should settle down and get a life.

      00

  • #
    PeterB in Indianapolis

    A bit off-topic, but as of August 15th, 2013, Antarctic sea ice has already exceeded the maximum of close to 50% of the other years since the satellite record started, and we still have ~ a month to go before official maximum.

    No one in the media will mention this fact.

    30

    • #
      PeterB in Indianapolis

      Oh, and by the way, according to NSIDC, the current anomaly is +1.302, which means that Antarctic sea ice is 1.302 MILLION square kilometers ABOVE NORMAL. Pretty amazing.

      20

      • #
        MemoryVault

        .
        Yes, and even the Arctic ice is above average for this time of the year, compared to recent years.
        Just don’t expect to see, read, or hear anything about it in the MSM.

        Most of the Northern Hemisphere is predicted to be about to go into its fifth, sixth, or seventh (depending on where one lives) year of consecutively colder, record or near record cold winters, with the fifth, sixth, or seventh year of record or near record snow falls.

        The MSM “news” today – Quote:

        “A new paper released today claims that ski resorts in the northern hemisphere will face increasing financial hardship as climate change progressively shortens skiing seasons, to the point where remaining open will become unprofitable”.

        The divide between observed reality and reported “news” has now become absolute.
        One may as well read childrens’ fairy stories as read newspapers, to remain “informed”.

        50

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          Thats not true. It is well below the 79 – 2000 average. If you are talking about it being higher than the record ice melt last year, then that is a dishonest comparison. It is continuing the low sea ice extents of recent years.

          Please provide proof of seven consecutively colder northern hemisphere years. Your langauge is very imprecise and leads me to believe you are just making up your statements and leaving them purposefully vague so as to be meaningless.

          http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

          04

          • #
            PeterB in Indianapolis

            Michael,

            Please define the term “realist”.

            20

            • #
              Michael the Realist

              Well, not a dictionary definition, but in the way I am referring to myself.

              * Investigating the science itself in regards to climate change, carbon cycle, global warming, the greenhouse effect and earths geologic history. To the extent of doing online courses on Physics and science of the natural world in general.
              * Investigating all the claims of so called skeptics to see if they were based on real science and had any validity.
              * Investigating actual science sites for the science behind the theory of AGW, actual trends and observations.
              * Keeping up to date with how the science is progressing and improving by reading statements put out by actual science organisations like the Australian Academy of Science, NASA, NOAA, WMO etc.
              * Travelling and talking to locals and witnessing the changing patterns in weather, declining glacial ice etc.
              * Keeping up to date with what is happening in weather around the world on a daily basis.

              What do you think it means?

              03

              • #

                It is interesting that you consider observing weather to be part of studying climate change. Weather and climate are supposed to be two separate things–well, until “extreme weather” got incorporated with climate change. Dramatic pictures of mudslides, fires and melting glaciers are an easy sell and people rarely actually check how much the weather does change. Personally, I would find the climate sitting still and not changing disturbing. That would be extraordinary. I wonder if it did slow down and things started to stay the same and someone noticed would there be a sudden outcry that climate has stalled? Would there be cries that we must shake up the climate, lest something awful happen.

                Actually, I would suspect that many poster here have done exactly the same things you have (well, except for that observing the weather part, since we were chastised so vehemently for making the mistake of confusing climate and weather). Many commentors have science degrees from universities. It’s not that we did not do what you did–we just did not reach the same conclusions. When we looked at the claims of climate scientists, we checked them for real science and validity. We found them lacking in many aspects. We read actual science–some probably even worked in the field. We read the peer-reviewed articles and the non peer-reviewed ones, too. And still, we came to a different conclusion. We are realists, too. It seems realists can come to diametrically opposing views using the same methodology, doesn’t it?

                20

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                I suppose as a realist I try to keep an open mind and look at everything. Extreme weather by its very nature is, well extreme. This means that it does not happen that often and would take a very long time to see statistically significant trends. Although there are studies that find increasing heat records beating cold ones 3 to 1 during the day and 5 to 1 at night, that extreme precipitation is increasing at the rate of 7% per degree (by observation) and their are studies that point to the deterioration of the Arctic jetstream due to Arctic warming causing extreme weather in the NH as well as recent studies pointing to increasing storm intensity.

                Also there are increasing attempts to use statistics to see the contribution of AGW to actual extreme events like the heat waves in Europe during 2003 and the russian heatwave of 2010, where it is nearly statistically impossible for them to occur (they are so outside the bounds of natural variation) without the influence of AGW.

                So all the signs are there, but apart from that you look at the amount of floods that are happening globally and how they al seem to be record breakers, or 1 in 100 yr events happening several times per decade, or that country reaching its hottest year on record or then another etc etc. Also while travelling I have spoken to locals and virtually everywhere people say climate is changing. Anecdotally this also builds up on someone with their eyes open and looking at all the evidence, scientific, observationally and anecdotally.

                I am sorry to disagree with you, and it is probably judgemental of me, but I would not consider a realist a group of people whos general argument is that their is a big global conspiracy, the models are not perfect and who cherry pick an anomoulous start year to ignore the long term trend and decadel changes to say it is not warming anymore while ignoring all the other evidence and natural variations. The only conclusion is that you are looking for evidence to fit a preconceived conclusion.

                Not fair I know, considering your post was so reasonable.

                02

              • #
                Mark D.

                …..but I would not consider a realist a group of people whos general argument is that their is a big global conspiracy,……..

                Judgmental? How about unfounded? Where is this conspiracy mentioned Michael?

                10

              • #

                Yes, Sir Realist, where is the notion that the main argument against AGW is it is a big global conspiracy? Yes, there are claims to that effect by some persons who think AGW is part of a world conspiracy. There’s also the president of the Flat Earth Society who supports AGW. That conspiracy stuff is generally what advocates of AGW jump to when they are out of ideas.

                Could you explain to me why you really, honestly do not understand that the statement “The only conclusion is that you are looking for evidence to fit a preconceived conclusion.” is completely meaningless when introduced into this debate. In psychology, it applies to EVERYONE, not just the people who you disagree with. Which means AGW being believed by people who want to save the planet and support socialism is EXACTLY as likely as the person who questions it does so because they are selfish people who just want to pillage the planet. It does not matter in the least which position is taken. The behaviour belongs to both sides, when it actually occurs.

                Not all people believe in AGW for the same reasons and not all oppose it for the same reasons. Look at the reasons and stop with the straw man fallacies and conspiracy theories. You actually were holding in there pretty well. Go back to the science and continue.

                10

        • #
          PeterB in Indianapolis

          I worked in Steamboat Springs Colorado in 2007. The story you quoted is recycled from way back then. In 2007 most of the people I worked with were convinced that ski seasons would continually get shorter, and lack of snow would crush the local economy. All you have to do is Google yearly snowfall totals for Steamboat Springs to see how well that prediction has worked out so far.

          40

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      The increase in Antarctic extent is still within natural variations, whereas the loss in Arctic sea ice extent is about half the 78-2000 average. They are not comparable and then you need to take into account that mass balance in Antarctica is falling, especially in West Antarctica. This is above expectations because Antarctica is so cold and is surrounded by water it was not expected to be seriously affected yet. So another example of predictions being worse than expected.

      “Arctic sea ice extent this past September reached the lowest point recorded since satellites first started measuring sea ice in 1978. Arctic sea ice blew past 2007′s record low, ending at 3.37 million square kilometers, roughly half the size of the summer minimum ice cap during the period from 1978 to 2000.

      At the same time, sea ice around Antarctica has been approaching a record high. The Antarctic situation has led some to dismiss the dramatic events in the Arctic as a simple fluke, pointing to the growth of sea ice around Antarctica as a counterpoint. What’s missing from that comparison is that the modest growth of sea ice around Antarctica in no way compares to the dramatic 2012 declines seen in the Arctic nor, even more importantly, over the past decade.” http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2012/10/slightly-increased-2012-antarctic-sea-ice-levels-no-match-for-arctic-declines/

      08

      • #

        So in your first sentence you are admitting that the models failed and there is a problem with the science? If the models did not expect Antarctica to be so much affected yet, then they are flawed. That is what you said.

        70

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          Not at all. What I have said repeatedly is that models are merely projections based on certain sceenarios. They are useful to help us see long term trends and help to prepare for an uncertain future, but nobody ever expects them to be a perfect realisation of reality.

          What I think actual observations are worryingly telling us is that we have underestimated how sensitive the climate is to changes in the earths global temperature. This may mean the consequences will be worse than expected and that the 2 deg limit the world was aiming for may be to high. Considering that the difference between an ice age and an interglacial is only 6 deg globally this was always on the cards for those that understand earths climactic history.

          03

          • #

            The models are the theory–or at least the absolute major part of it. Read any study out there–a constant reference to models. If the models fail, the theory based on them fails. Now, so you remain happy, this does not preclude the possibility that we are all going to die due to the CO2 we dumped into the atmosphere. It could still turn out that way, but right now the theory that predicted this has failed both on the Arctic Ice and the atmosphere warming, so that theory is seriously flawed. I am curious what “proof” of anthropomorphic climate change there is if you don’t use models. So far as I can tell, without the models, we can only say it’s been warming and now it’s not warming so much. The models are integral to the theory, as far as I can tell.

            30

            • #
              Bite Back

              And as has been pointed out before, they have no empirical link between carbon dioxide and anything. I’ve read that complaint over and over. But never is there an answer to it.

              That’s the real 800 pound gorilla in the room and not a mention of it…

              10

          • #
            Bite Back

            Not at all. What I have said repeatedly is that models are merely projections based on certain sceenarios. They are useful to help us see long term trends and help to prepare for an uncertain future, but nobody ever expects them to be a perfect realisation of reality.

            You got that one right! If they cannot predict the future accurately then they are misleading and therefore useless, as is the drivel you’ve been dishing out.

            You can either “watch” what your imagination wants to see or you can watch what’s actually happening. I think you’ve made the wrong choice. :-(

            10

      • #
        PeterB in Indianapolis

        I LOVE typical warmist propaganda! It’s what I LIVE FOR!

        By the way, Southern Hemisphere sea ice is ABOVE 2 Standard Deviations ABOVE NORMAL, which means that the increase is Southern Hemisphere sea ice is NOT “Modest”.

        “Normal” for this time of year would be 14.5 Million Square Kilometers of ice coverage in the SH. Right now we are at 15.8 Million Square Kilometers. If you think that a 1.306 Million Square Kilometer area exceeding normal in Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice is “modest”, then you must also think that porn stars are modest while performing their jobs.

        As far as the Northern Hemisphere goes, yes, we are 1.03 Million Square Kilometers BELOW NORMAL, but we are WITHIN 2 standard deviations of normal, so this ice “loss” is far more “modest”. Also notice that GLOBALLY, sea ice is about 250,000 square kilometers ABOVE NORMAL currently.

        Current Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice is higher than 2012, (the lowest year), higher than 2007 (the 2nd lowest year), and is more in line with 2005 and 2006 which were the highest NH ice years this century, so it is patently OBVIOUS that we are recovering from the 2007 low. It is well known that the 2012 low was mainly caused by a huge early-August storm system which lasted nearly 2 weeks, broke up a bunch of the ice, and flushed a bunch of it out of the Arctic Sea into warmer waters, and we have had a remarkable recovery from that this year.

        Further, the current Arctic Temperatures north of 80N are below freezing, 2 weeks earlier than happens on average, so it is quite possible that we will reach Arctic Ice Minimum 2 weeks early this year, which also means that the rebound and regrowth of ice will START TWO WEEKS EARLIER, leading to a greater maximum late next NH Winter.

        Overall, the warmists are losing the “battle of the sea ice” quite badly, as nature simply isn’t cooperating with their precious hypotheses at all.

        Simply put, global sea ice is above normal, and that wrecks your argument completely.

        70

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          Oh Peter you are doing the extreme barely skeptic cherry picking thing again. This year is tracking well below in the Arctic for the 1981 to 2010 average and comparing it to the record melts of just a few years ago does not point to a recovery. Also crystal ball gazing the future by eyeball gazing does not constitute evidence. The Arctic has lost over 50% of its ice since the 50′s while Antarctica is barely above normal range. One of the main explanations for this is that the increased winds due to climate changes have been pushing the ice out further. The 2012 melt in the Arctic was well on its way to a record before the anomolous storm that was also probably due to the changing climate.

          Also mass balance measurements show ice globally declining in the Arctic, Antarctice and glaciers.

          So only your cherry picking cast any doubt on actual observations.

          05

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            Graph of Arctic and Antarctica Ice Volume balance
            http://www.ess.uci.edu/researchgrp/velicogna/files/slide2.jpg

            “The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to be negative, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of 0.83 metres water equivalent (m w.e.) during the hydrological year 2010. The new data continues the global trend in strong ice loss over the past few decades and brings the cumulative average thickness loss of the reference glaciers since 1980 at about 15 m w.e. (see Figures 1 and 2)”
            http://www.geo.uzh.ch/microsite/wgms/mbb/sum10.html

            —————-
            “Glacial ice in the Peruvian Andes that took at least 1,600 years to form has melted in just 25 years, scientists reported Thursday, the latest indication that the recent spike in global temperatures has thrown the natural world out of balance. “
            http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/world/americas/1600-years-of-ice-in-perus-andes-melted-in-25-years-scientists-say.html?hpw&_r=0

            ——————
            “We find that there is good agreement between different satellite methods—especially in Greenland and West Antarctica—and that combining satellite data sets leads to greater certainty. Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year−1, respectively. Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year−1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.”
            http://m.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183
            http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2012/nov/29/ice-loss-greenland-1960-interactive

            05

            • #
              Bruce of Newcastle

              Michael – 142 Gt/y of Greenland ice melt would melt that icecap in a mere 20,000 years. Simple arithmetic.

              That is well past the next likely start of a new ice age.

              Moreover >80 degrees N is already well below freezing, and there is about 1 Mkm^2 more Arctic ice than this time last year.

              I see no death spiral, just wishful thinking from Chicken Little.

              20

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                Oh we are playing the ‘nothing to see here’ game are we? Things always tend to happen at an increasing rate as things change. The Arctic is melting much faster than predicted and Greenland is being affected sooner than predicted.

                “Traditionally, latent energy has been considered a relatively unimportant factor, but most glaciers are now receiving far more meltwater than they used to and are increasing in temperature faster than previously imagined,” Colgan said. “The chunk of butter known as the Greenland Ice Sheet may be softening a lot faster than we previously thought possible.”
                http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2013/2013-35.shtml

                “Arctic sea ice cover likely melted to its minimum extent for the year on September 16, according to scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). Sea ice extent fell to 3.41 million square kilometers (1.32 million square miles), now the lowest summer minimum extent in the satellite record.

                “We are now in uncharted territory,” said NSIDC Director Mark Serreze. “While we’ve long known that as the planet warms up, changes would be seen first and be most pronounced in the Arctic, few of us were prepared for how rapidly the changes would actually occur.” ”
                http://nsidc.org/news/press/2012_seaiceminimum.html

                02

              • #
                Bruce of Newcastle

                Michael the Arctic is apparently undergoing negative melting since there is 1 Mkm^2 more sea ice than this time last year.

                The Antarctic sea ice is at a record high and global sea ice is above average.

                You need to explain the behaviour of both poles to convince that there is a problem. How can global warming cause more sea ice in Antarctica?

                I was just pointing out the GRACE results in context of the sheer size of the Greenland icecap. Melt rates could increase 100 fold (which they won’t) and we’d still not have a problem. And the melt rates in Antarctica, which is larger again? Tiny.

                10

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                Bruce please read what i write with understanding. To say that the Arctic is recovering by pointing to the trend over less than one year over your comparison to the record melt last year is dishonest. Make any comparison to the 1981 to 2010 average as now set out by NSIDC. It is clear you are cherry picking to fit your confirmation bias. Also comparing a barely 7% change in Antarctica ice to the over 50% fall inArctic ice is also not very scientific. There have been several reasons put forward for the Antarctic response including greater winds due to AGW pushing the ice out.

                http://www.ess.uci.edu/researchgrp/velicogna/files/slide2.jpg

                ” The temperature record from Byrd Station, a scientific outpost in the center of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), demonstrates a marked increase of 4.3 degrees Fahrenheit (2.4 degrees Celsius) in average annual temperature since 1958—that is, three times faster than the average temperature rise around the globe.”
                http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-12/osu-ssr122012.php

                “The data make clear that the changes in Arctic and Antarctic sea ice cover are not remotely comparable. While Antarctic sea ice is high, it is barely outside of what would be considered normal based on the 1978-2000 period. Arctic sea ice, on the other hand, is barely half of what it was three decades ago.”
                http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2012/10/slightly-increased-2012-antarctic-sea-ice-levels-no-match-for-arctic-declines/

                02

              • #
                Bruce of Newcastle

                Michael – Global Sea Ice is ABOVE AVERAGE.

                What word in that sentence do you not understand?

                This is the data. How can global warming cause more sea ice?

                CO2 does not just stay in the northern hemisphere Michael.

                And yes I have the answer it is called the AMO flipping to cold phase and the Sun in a magnetic funk, deepest for centuries. And yes I can accept more melting of the Arctic, but have you ever looked at what is happening on the ground? And thought to yourself about the amazing rise in diesel use for transport in the last half century?

                10

              • #
                Heywood

                “Greenland is being affected sooner than predicted”

                What is causing Greenland to melt??

                A new paper may shed some light on the subject.

                “The Greenland ice sheet is melting from below, caused by a high heat flow from the mantle into the lithosphere. This influence is very variable spatially and has its origin in an exceptionally thin lithosphere. Consequently, there is an increased heat flow from the mantle and a complex interplay between this geothermal heating and the Greenland ice sheet”

                “What does this mean for climate modeling? The temperature at the base of the ice, and therefore the current dynamics of the Greenland ice sheet is the result of the interaction between the heat flow from the earth’s interior and the temperature changes associated with glacial cycles”

                “It remains to be explored why it is so exceptionally thin. It turns out, however, that the coupling of models of ice dynamics with thermo-mechanical models of the solid earth allows a more accurate view of the processes that are melting the Greenland ice.”

                Paper @ http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1898.html

                20

            • #

              Yes, the ice is melting. And?????

              20

            • #
              MemoryVault

              .
              It’s a damn shame for you, your models, and your prophecies, that the Arctic started to freeze back over again a week ago – nearly a month early.

              20

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                Ah, but you see MV this one freak cold year was sent to test the flock, and the faithful shall be rewarded with a place at Gaia’s side. Yea verily.
                As though there is now any chance about it. The PDO is on CHILL, the magnetosphere is on SHADE, and the only way out is down. Tell `em to eat Landscheidt.

                40

            • #
              Mark D.

              Michael, glaciers get bigger and smaller because of precipitation not temperature. You’ve provided no evidence that the areas where glaciers are receding are doing so because of warmth have you? You are guilty of putting forward a proxy for temperature but have failed to demonstrate that is is a valid proxy. Same for Arctic ice. We KNOW that the Arctic has gone through periods of reduced ice in the past and it is you who cherry picks the data suggesting that the current lower Arctic ice is unprecedented. It’s all BS, a case of stringing guesses, false proxies, flawed analysis and short data together in a pseudo scientific way. Very unimpressive in itself but to do so and then claim we need to stop being a modern civilization BECAUSE of pseudo science, well that should be a felony. Your grandchildren will suffer if you are successful.

              20

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        We would like you to go up to Resolute Bay for a few years just to experience the warmth. Have a nice trip.

        20

  • #
    Gary Pate

    Arnold’s father was a Nazi, apparently more of it rubbed off than we realized…

    11

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      Well better an inovator than being easily led.
      Arne isn’t some dumb shmuck following the herd, he’s playing to a crowd for all he can get out of it.

      40

  • #
    Albert

    Poor Arnie, too many years of ‘dress ups and playing pretends’ He’s lost touch with reality, though I wouldn’t say that to his face !

    30

  • #
    Greg Canning

    Typical does not know the difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.

    10

  • #
    Bite Back

    Ah yes, the governator spreads his great science acumen from sea to shining sea like mustard on a hamburger. Only unlike mustard, you’ll choke on what he dishes out.

    I’m afraid Arnie will play to any audience that will give him applause. He’s always looking for a grandstand to perform in front of, whether it was politics, weight lifting or the movies. He’s too shallow to take a bath in and as transparent as the window in my office. Like Al Gore, he doesn’t deserve the attention he gets — not a bit of it.

    If only those muscles were brains. :-(

    10

  • #
    Graham

    Thick German…Wants To Kill His Political Opponents Using Poison Gas?

    00

  • #
    Charlie

    The Nazis used exhaust fumes fed into closed lorries to murder people .These lorries were mobile gas chambers which were used mainly prior to 1942 before the Nazis constructed many of their extermination camps.

    How an Austrian was allowed to get away with this comment is absurd.

    00

    • #
      crakar24

      6000000/lets be generous and say 6 years =1000000

      1000000/365 = 2740

      2740/24 = 114

      114/60 = 1.9

      Now thats a lot of tail pipes

      00

      • #

        Craker… what is your first number?

        anyway work it the other way. 50 fit in a lorry and it takes 30minutes to “process” them that is 2400/day/lorry working full time.x365x6= 5256000

        00

  • #
    crakar24

    My first number has religious importance, it may not be a factual number but that is what is claimed kind of like a religious tick in the box if you like.

    00