JoNova

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


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

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



A tipping point: Skepticism goes mainstream…

Worldwide momentum is shifting. With David Rose’s article in the Daily Mail, Matt Ridley in the Wall Street Journal (“We got it wrong on warming“),  and the excellent article by Ross McKitrick  in the Financial Post the skeptical message is going mainstream.

The war is by no means over, but the race in media coverage has stepped up a notch. Now, for the first time there is an element of competition, serious newspapers don’t want to be left behind. Editors have realized the skeptics have a case.

In Australia the grand failure of the carbon tax in the recent election is still ripping through the news, the institutions, and the mood. It was a categorical defeat. From comments and emails I know this event was watched around the world.

Roy Spencer, veteran with two decades of experience wonders if this is a turning point too:

“…recent events are quite exceptional.”

We are now at the point in the age of global warming hysteria where the IPCC global warming theory has crashed into the hard reality of observations.”

Ross McKitrick, Canada:

“To those of us who have been following the climate debate for decades, the next few years will be electrifying. There is a high probability we will witness the crackup of one of the most influential scientific paradigms of the 20th century, and the implications for policy and global politics could be staggering.

“…something big is about to happen. Models predict one thing and the data show another. The various attempts in recent years to patch over the difference are disintegrating.

“… since we are on the verge of seeing the emergence of data that could rock the foundations of mainstream climatology, this is obviously no time for entering into costly and permanent climate policy commitments based on failed model forecasts.

“…what is commonly called the “mainstream” view of climate science is contained in the spread of results from computer models. What is commonly dismissed as the “skeptical” or “denier” view coincides with the real-world observations. Now you know how to interpret those terms when you hear them.

David Rose, UK,  talked about the IPCC halving the rate of warming, which was picked up all over the world. He gets criticized for some of the details (with some justification), and clarifies his article to change a “half” to a quarter.

“World’s top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought – and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong”

The failed predictions of the IPCC First Assessment Report

For anyone who wants to argue the finer points of the 1990 IPCC predictions: Here’s exactly what the IPCC predicted and why we know they were wrong , here is my response to SkepticalScience’s tricks to defend the IPCC. Here are the questions real journalists could ask  our “climate experts” about the 1990 report. Here are the major flaws in the Frame and Stone defense.

The quote from the first page of the Executive Summary of the Summary for Policy Makers, FAR 1990:1

“Based on current model results, we predict:

Under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C – 0.5°C)[IPCC FAR summary]

There is no weasel-room here: even if emissions are stabilized at 1990 levels temperatures should rise by 0.2C per decade for the first few decades.

See the whole scanned IPCC page in context  here


Photo adapted from Ron Neibrugge’s beautifully crisp original at Wild Nature Images

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.7/10 (127 votes cast)
A tipping point: Skepticism goes mainstream... , 9.7 out of 10 based on 127 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/ln438q3

177 comments to A tipping point: Skepticism goes mainstream…

  • #
    Matty

    The 2007 report was released into a very different environment than this one will be. Back then, it was all hand wringing and journalistic melodrama. This time around the IPCC authors will not be feted like nobel prize winners – they will be on the back foot from day one. This time it will be about how bad is the IPCC at predicting climate. In the dark days of being an active sceptic, when things were really hard I would comfort myself with the thought that today, like yesterday, the number of sceptic scientists got bigger, and the list in general got bigger. The baseball bats are out.


    Report this

    933

  • #
    Winston

    It’s about time this zombie corpse received the stake in the heart it so richly deserves. Can’t wait for a return to a modicum of scientific rationalism.

    Would it be too much to ask to think we might have learned something from the premature ejaculation of CAGW hysteria?


    Report this

    433

    • #
      MudCrab

      Zombies are destroyed by destroying the brain or removing the head.

      That is Vampires that are staked. You know, those blood sucking parasites that feed off the rest of of society while all the time proclaiming their superiority over us all. Currently very popular with impressionable teenagers and people who hate to actually get outside and face the sunshine of the real world. See, not remotely like Global Warmists at all…

      Sorta… :P


      Report this

      483

      • #
        Peter Miller

        Can’t say I am in favour of treating alarmists like zombies by cutting off their heads. That’s the sort of thing alarmists say about sceptics.

        Public ridicule, plus apologies for all the damage alarmists have done to the world economy in promoting a non-problem into being a fictitious dire threat, that will be sufficient for me

        For me, it would be sufficient if every alarmist leader should spend a few days repenting in the stocks in a major city square during a wet winter period. A medieval punishment for medieval science practices seems most appropriate.


        Report this

        593

  • #
    AndyG55

    My thoughts are that Easterbrook etc were essentially correct, we are heading into a downturn in temperatures. How deep.. not to deep.. I HOPE !!

    Warming is FAR better than cooling.

    Maybe, just maybe, the drop in temperatures was stalled for some naturally occurring reason (Climate patterns are pretty darn fuzzy and flexible)

    We are still basically at a cool period compared to MWP and RWP, the real question is, is there any warming left or are we in for the next dip.


    Report this

    254

    • #
      Winston

      I think the clue to that question might lie in the Little Ice Age.

      From the early Holocene 11,000 yrs BP, there were marked rapid shifts in temperature from warmer than today to cooler but these shifts, what little we know of them, seem to have occurred at quasi-regular intervals. Cooler periods were marked by cooling of the poles, tropical aridity and major atmospheric circulation changes notable during the periods 9,000 to 8,000, 6,000 to 5,000, and 4,200 to 3,800 B.P. (Mayewski, et al.- Quaternary Research 62 (2004) 243-255). Now the Minoan period 3300 yrs BP, RWP 2150 years BP and Medieval WP 1100years BP each had cooler periods between them which led to civilisation decline and crop failures, but each seems to have been exceeded by LIA in depth and longevity.

      If that is so, and I admit that is largely supposition and speculation, then like a spinning top whose oscillations become progressively wider and more drawn out as its kinetic energy declines, eventually like that top we will collapse into a glacial period. In the analogy the top has insufficient energy to conserve momentum, and falls over, while in the climate oscillations, the stability of the system dwindles with time and collapses into its secondary stable state. I hope I’m wrong mind you because the consequences would in fact be quite horrific.


      Report this

      293

    • #
      Mattb

      “We are still basically at a cool period compared to MWP and RWP”

      now now, you’ve already got some numbers coming out in your favour… there’s no need to just make crazy stuff up Andy.


      Report this

      337

      • #
        AndyG55

        Truth hurts, Drone boy !!


        Report this

        192

      • #
        AndyG55

        Truth is that the slight temperature peaks during the Holocene have been gradually getting lower. This current undulation is very obviously smaller than the previous two.

        That is the way it is.
        Sorry if you can’t understand.
        (but then, understanding is NOT your strong point, is it !)


        Report this

        272

      • #

        now now, you’ve already got some numbers coming out in your favour

        Is this a tipping point for Mattb? An acknowledgement that the climate science is far from 100% accurate. Now where is Michael the Realist? He might be in quarantine here, but not here.


        Report this

        150

        • #
          Mattb

          new results in science do not suggest that old results were “innacurate”. Who ever said climate science is 100% accurate? What branch of science is 100% accurate? We learn more all the time, and it knowledge builds. It is progressive and forward looking not inwardly naval gazing worried “what if we are ever demonstrated to be wrong?”.

          “The science is settled” is open to interpretation. To me “the science is settled” means that the current status of science clearly points to a particular conclusion. it does not mean there is nothing more to discover, or that the science will always point to the same conclusion.


          Report this

          18

          • #
            Winston

            The question you should ask instead Matt, is which branch of science is accurate les than 50% of the time (being generous), yet still expects the entire economic system to be turned on its ear on the basis of its prognostications?

            And an even better question, is why should any sane society base its actual viability, and the lives of its citizens, on the prognostications of such an inaccurate, unfalsifiable and poorly defined field of scientific endeavour?

            As to the “science is settled” being open to interpretation, just what planet do you live on Matt?!?- that is as definitive a statement as anyone in any field can ever make- it implies CERTAINTY, open and shut, incontrovertible, beyond a shadow of a doubt, guilty as charged. Weasel words cannot get you off the hook, Matt.


            Report this

            60

          • #

            new results in science do not suggest that old results were “innacurate”.

            It is not a sufficient condition. But given that the new results are more in line with those who deeply skeptical the CAGW hypothesis that those who strongly support it, you are clutching at straws here. Further, the “consensus” view is one that there are the expert scientists on one side, and a bunch of oil-industry, politically extreme, conspiracy theory loving nutters on the other. One side was 100% right and the other 100% wrong.


            Report this

            10

      • #
        AndyG55

        “you’ve already got some numbers coming out in your favour”

        The real numbers always have been. :-)


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Bob Massey

      Some real science, if it were done correctly, might have helped but I think is way too late for that AndyG55. Could we even trust real science now. Very very doubtful.


      Report this

      110

    • #
      gary turner

      I am under the impression that each succeeding warm period is less warm. That is not a Good Thing®.


      Report this

      100

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      The major determinant of when the next big permanent Glacial arrives is, as Winston suggests, the orbital mechanics of the Earth.

      The undeniable long term cycles of a nominal 100,000 years are not going to go away and any variation such as those seen in the last 11,000 years are just a minor preamble to the big one.

      It is due sometime in the next ten thousand years, but as the cycles are shortening from earlier 130,000 yr to under 100,000 yr more recently, the exact start point is hard to predict.

      Remember, during the last big one, the oceans were down 130 metres and the ice in New York Central Park was a MILE deep.

      Buy land in the tropics and hand it down to your grandchildren.

      KK


      Report this

      80

      • #

        I can only wonder what mechanics would be in play to get the oceans to recede 130m and pile ice and snow over most of the landmasses on the planet.

        It would be a truly awesome event to witness, from afar, if the timescale allowed it but I do hope I’m not here for it.


        Report this

        30

        • #
          Winston

          I wouldn’t be too concerned, Bob.

          The whole world’s SUV industry would have to completely collapse for that to even happen, so not to worry.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          It’s interesting Bob, that the Southern Hemisphere did not accumulate anywhere near the ice seen in the North.

          Kosciusko obviously had ice sheets and the large boulders and smoothed terrain bear witness to this, but most of the continent was ice free.

          Possibly the next biggy will reverse the impact and the North may be let off lighter this time, who knows?

          They just pulled another Mammoth out of the ice recently with intact blood and all. Over thirty thousand years in the ice.

          Nature is not in a hurry.

          KK


          Report this

          00

  • #

    This day has been a long time coming. It will be an interesting and largely pleasurable few years coming up. For a time, it looked like it might either bog down and be with us forever, or tiptoe out of the room in a gentle fade-out as all involved try to pretend it never happened, but I think now it’s going to crash and burn like it should and be quite a spectacular sight.


    Report this

    311

  • #
    Brett_McS

    All that massive computer power is now going into optimizing each new CO2 sensitivity claim against the objective function “sounds reasonable, but still alarming enough to keep the funding flowing”.


    Report this

    180

  • #
    Peter Miller

    I am a little bit concerned about this statement of Ross’; if past actions by the alarmist establishment are anything to go by, it just means the intensification of data manipulation will increase until the data matches the models. In a settled consensus world, this type of thing is applauded.

    Unfortunately for alarmists, there are a growing band of sceptics routinely exposing their bad science for exactly what is – I assume there were a lot of diehards for the Phlogiston Theory, we must expect the same for the CAGW cult.

    “…something big is about to happen. Models predict one thing and the data show another. The various attempts in recent years to patch over the difference are disintegrating.”


    Report this

    283

  • #
    Mattb

    I don’t really understand why for examle the IPCC would need crisis talks even if the collective science was suggesting a different thing today than it suggested in 2007. If the IPCC were about to report that it was worse than they thought, well that would be just as “bad” as they also got that wrong.

    Hands up who thinks that the science today is more likely to be correct than it was in 2007. My hand is up.

    I’ll happily await the actual IPCC report rather than rely on the usual skeptical suspects prattling on beforehand.


    Report this

    332

    • #
      Winston

      Hands up who thinks that the science today is more likely to be correct than it was in 2007. My hand is up.

      That depends Matt whether the IPCC are lying to us (and possibly to themselves) this time around (by omission, deception or fraud) more than they did last time. My hand is down, Matt. Go figure.


      Report this

      392

    • #
      AndyG55

      “I’ll happily await the actual IPCC report”

      Ahh … you mean the one written by politicians. no agenda there… of course. ;-)

      Darn, you really are a gullible little fool, aren’t you !!!


      Report this

      282

      • #

        “Darn, you really are a gullible little fool, aren’t you !!!”

        His livelihood and job depend upon it.

        Has he ever held a real job and actually earned his keep rather than having it taken at the point of a government gun? My bet is the answer is no.


        Report this

        111

      • #
        Simon

        The clue is in the name… IPCC = InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change. It is not scientific. It is political and policy prescriptive, which means it is inherently biased. It isn’t even set up to be objective, as its mandate was to look at the HUMAN FINGERPRINT in global warming, NOT the whole of climate science, so in that respect also it is inherently biased.

        Folks should read Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise’s 2 books “Delinquent Teenager” and “Into the Dustbin”. They really expose the IPCC for the sham it is.


        Report this

        151

    • #

      The IPCC were just as conflicted, compromised and political back in 2007 as they are now, probably even more so. It must be tough Mattb, a bit like finding out your favorite footy team are serial steroid users. It will not matter a jot what they say now because too many people will be looking at them with more than a hint of incredulity. We’re all dizzy trying to keep track of all the moving goalposts, eg “Hands up who thinks that the science today is more likely to be correct than it was in 2007. My hand is up.” I bet you would have sworn black and blue by the statements made by the IPCC back in 2007. For higher being of your choice sakes grow an independent mind of your own.


      Report this

      191

    • #
      Arty

      Hands up everyone who thinks we know more about scientific fraud today than we did in 2007.


      Report this

      410

    • #
      Mark Hladik

      My hand is down. If anything, the IPCC “science” is worse today. They refuse to accept that their “science” is just junk science, if even that.


      Report this

      110

    • #

      AR5 is likely to be more accurate than AR5, because it will not have the most alarmist claims that had no foundation, such as the Himalayan Glaciers, or the 50% drop in crop yields in some African countries. But it will be less scientific in that the claims of future catastrophe will be in more coded language. Without such claims the justification for the UNIPCC (and all the climate hysteria) is unfounded. At worst it becomes a trivial problem.


      Report this

      50

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      My hand is definitely up, Matt. Well, part of it.


      Report this

      70

    • #
      Manfred

      Mattb, if your implication is that the politicised progressive science of the precautionary collective

      is more likely to be correct than it was in 2007

      I will agree with you on the perilous assumption that by ‘correct’ you imply the maintenance of a teetering consistency with the CAGW meme.

      If, on the other hand you use the term ‘science’ as an apolitical and ruthless taskmaster with an objective methodology demonstrably removed from chance, bias and confounding, I think you are setting yourself up for an ever growing and bitter, life-changing disappointment.


      Report this

      80

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      It takes more than the mere passage of time.


      Report this

      40

    • #
  • #
    Yonniestone

    I agree the tide is turning in favor of the skeptics in this AGW war and total victory will be a triumph of sensibility and humanity over yet another idealist cult wanting power and control above all else, I do however feel a sense of shame.
    Whilst the battles for the skeptics have been fought by brilliant and surprising individuals from all areas the real world victims of this war have as always been the vulnerable and innocent worldwide.
    Essentially it comes down to a difference between copping a bit of public slander vs dying of starvation due to your crops being stolen to grow bio fuel, my shame comes from living well through this attack on humanity while others have not and not even given the opportunity to take up arms to defend the defenseless.
    I do realize the real war will continue after the battle of AGW is won and I should be careful what I wish for but I would like to remember those who have suffered at the pointy end of this latest pointless attack.


    Report this

    311

    • #
      Winston

      Isn’t it ironic Yonnie, that at least you and I, and probably many other commenters here, feel a sense of shame at the ill effects wrought by the West upon the poor in the developing world, due to CAGW doctrine, biofuels and carbon offsets as a means of legitimizing land requisitioning, even though we have fought it and railed against it for some years.

      Yet those who spruik this meme, ignore the damage they’re doing, the theft and destruction they are legitimizing, feel not the slightest twinge of guilt or accept even a momentary pause to reflect on the possibility, however remote, that what they are advocating might actually kill people. So long as they have a jumper or we send blood money to the UN without a care how it might be spent, then they’ll be alright.


      Report this

      190

      • #
        Speedy

        Winston/Vonniestone

        Tim Costello comes to mind in the list of those who should be ashamed. Imagine someone taking the money that has been donated for an orphan’s dinner and spending it on a scam which will make tommorrow’s dinner even less affordable!

        As you said, inconsciable.

        Cheers,

        Speedy


        Report this

        220

      • #
        Manfred

        Frankly, there’s something very Babylonian about thinking one can understand the climate sufficiently to engage in informative modeling leading to paradoxically expensive policies of primitivisation. I fervently hope that this pointless weather based crap-shoot leads to a clearer understanding of the battle of ideologies that is the true sub-text, enabled by the arrogance of the governing elite with the collusion of ever present MSM opportunism.

        Continue to reveal the drama for what it is.

        It’s about the dirty Unterwäsche.


        Report this

        80

    • #
      CyrilH

      CAGW is only one sector of the battle that we face with the green extremists. CAGW is easily matched by “Conservation Biology”. This field of pseudo science is based around the same type of dodgy computer modelling that climate science is and is just as dangerous to our future prosperity. This is where the dodgy concepts of ecosystems, biodiversity, balance of nature, and the big one “sustainability” come from. This is what UN Agenda 21 is based on. It’s main aim is to destroy national sovereignty and remove individual property rights. These are the main factors which have given us our wonderful western civilization. We ignore this threat at our peril. See this link from Jenifer Marohasy on how this scam works.


      Report this

      240

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Just one quick point, I’m not a bleeding heart who thinks everyone who does it tough needs help, people have to take a certain responsibility for their lives BUT I do not support the knocking down or intentional suppression of anyone for personal gain.
      Competition in business or sport is fine but kicking people when down is an evil trait that on it’s own quite possibly has held back human development on all levels, my personal early education was hampered from bullying and I didn’t tolerate it then or now from anyone.


      Report this

      70

  • #

    [...] A tipping point: Skepticism goes mainstream… « JoNova. Rate this:Like this:Like Loading… [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The Telegraph did a story on the European Climate Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, saying that regardless of whether or not scientists are wrong on global warming, the European Union is pursuing the correct energy policies!

    It seems that she wouldn’t say this idiocy unless she was starting to feel that… maybe they are wrong. You get the feeling that, indeed, doubts are brewing.

    Hedegaard thinks that their costly policies will promote efficiency. That’s insane. Let’s take the cap & trade bill that passed the US House in 2009, it would have mandated 83% CO2 cuts by 2050. 83%, with large cuts coming immediately. It wouldn’t have “fostered efficiency,” but instead it would have taken a wrecking ball to the economy, creating virtually apocalyptic havoc.

    And a massive part of the puzzling green policy is inordinate lavish spending on heavily subsidized, economically nonsensical wind & solar power. This is not about efficiency. To say that even if climate change is bs that we should pursue these policies is pure lunacy.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10313261/EU-policy-on-climate-change-is-right-even-if-science-was-wrong-says-commissioner.html


    Report this

    290

  • #
    Sunray

    Tipping Point? I prefer Critical Mass, it just seems a little more solid and optimistic.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    turnedoutnice

    This ‘fraud’** started in earnest in 1981_Hansen_etal.pdf.

    Para 2: the claim that CO2 blocks IR to Space in the 7-14 micron range was and is false apart from two small ~10 micron bands.

    Para 4: the implication that removing ghgs from the atmosphere would position the -18 deg C composite emitter temperature in radiative equilibrium with Space at the Earth’s surface, as is taught to children as part of the scam, neglects to consider that real SW heating would be 43% higher so the true ghe is ~11 K (mean surface temperature 4-5 deg C).

    Later on the modelling assumes the Arrhenius concept that the Earth emits a real energy flux equal to the emission from a black body in equilibrium with the zero point energy of Space: no professional scientist accepts this can be true because it does not comply with the principle of conservation of energy expressed for the interconversion of energy to/from matter to the EM continuum in Maxwell’s Equations. Also, the climate sensitivity of CO2 was determined from the warming at the end of the last ice age assuming CO2 evolution amplified the Milankovitch 0.7% change in tsi.

    **This paper apparently made the people famous and got grants and political support. Later on the IR physics was changed to the correct 15 micron band. However in 1997 it was shown that CO2 evolution follows T rise so they had to invent ways to justify the same CS from post industrial warming but to do that they had to invent the fake Mann ‘Hockey Stick’. Thus the long slippery slope started. In 2004, Twomey’s partially correct aerosol optical physics was substituted for by the entirely fake ‘high surface area of small droplets gives more reflection’, needed to justify AR4 as aerosol cooling offsetting most CO2-AGW. By end 2011, this was completely offsetting AGW.

    We now have the fake ‘abyssal heat’ concept to justify AR5. Entirely justifiably, the World and its dogs are waking up and realising that what seemed a good idea in 1981 but mistaken, developed such a political momentum that it evolved into massive scientific corruption. The analogy with Lysenkioism is almost complete. The fraudsters should be prosecuted and lose their jobs and pensions.


    Report this

    293

  • #
    Ian Hill

    An indirect sign of the tipping point is what I call “panic stations” by either those who run the Channel 9 daily poll (ninemsn) or a well organised and large team of anti-Liberal party supporters. In the past few weeks whenever the poll has been for a political topic the results reflect the current voter reality for a few hours (typically about 60% in favour of the Liberals) by which time around 50,000 votes had been cast, and then the panic sets in and suddenly the pendulum is manipulated to show the opposite result.

    Today’s question is “Are you happy to see Tony Abbott become PM”? Initial results were about the same as the election, ie 55% “YES”. About half an hour ago the results were YES 49,127, NO 173,342, ie down from 55% to 22%. Now that just doesn’t happen with normal polling procedures.

    This sort of thing happened several times before the election – not that it did any good for the perpetrators. If ninemsm cared about their credibility they would put a stop to it.


    Report this

    280

    • #
      Ian Hill

      I just checked again:

      YES: 53,682
      NO: 220,645

      The YES vote increased by 4,555
      The NO vote increased by 47,303

      It could be an automatic program doing it I suppose, but it would have to fool the ninemsn software into believing each vote was from a different IP address.


      Report this

      130

      • #
        Ian Hill

        The poll is still going this morning.

        YES: 67228
        NO: 754628

        The YES percentage is now down to 8%.

        The increase in YES is consistent with number of votes typically cast in their polls. But there are about 700,000 artificially generated NO votes.

        I don’t see the point of this vote rigging. No-one is going to be fooled. Further, I can’t understand Channel 9 leaving it there.


        Report this

        20

        • #
          kuhnkat

          Makes you wonder where all those folk were on election day!!

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


          Report this

          30

        • #
          Greebo

          So, how often does one of these polls return a sample in excess of three quaters of a million?


          Report this

          20

          • #
            Ian Hill

            Just before the election the poll had about 1.7 million votes, manipulated to show a 50/50 result. There would be other days over 0.75 million. I’m going on memory here. I haven’t kept a daily record of it.

            I’ve sent an email to Channel 9 suggesting that they have a hacker to deal with.


            Report this

            20

        • #
          Mickey Reno

          Heh, these numbers sound like they could be the basis for a Lewandowsky paper.

          One of the problems with the Western World in the era of mass media is the idea that polls of any kind should be given creedence. Listening to polls is like admitting to one’s self that in ignorance, we’ll align with some position or politician or political question based on a desire to be in (or out of) the majority coalition.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Backslider

            the idea that polls of any kind should be given creedence

            I’m a poll…. Gimme Creedence any day….

            “You’re gonna find the world is smould’rin’.
            And if you get lost come on home to Green River.”…..


            Report this

            30

  • #
    Dave

    “Editors have realized the skeptics have a case.”

    Yes.

    Along with the quality of skeptic arguments, the data and the internet, the pace has definitely picked up against the CAGW alarmists.

    But also there is now a reduction of media exposure of the usual (Australian based) alarmists like Tim Flannery, John Cook, Anna Rose, Stephan Lewandowsky, Richard Parncutt (ex-Aussie), Dana Nuccitelli (USA – but John Cook’s mate) etc. There’s more but not enough room.

    This group above have done more to set their own cause backwards without much help from others. They are all raving lunatics, and come out with the worst of the worst alarmist comments, that are now almost being ignored and laughed at.

    1. Flannery – the odd writers festival appearance. (ABC)
    2. Cook – Skeptical Science – averaging around 5 to 10 comments per post (Internet)
    3. Anna Rose – disappeared totally since Simon lost his senate spot.
    4. Stephen Lewandowsky – hiding in UEA.
    5. Dana Nuccitelli – Guardian and Skeptical science – no mainstream anymore – paid by ExxonMobil
    6. Richard Parncutt – just playing music now in Europe.

    But all of the above make everyones blood boil by stating the majority of people are ignorant and should listen to 97% of the scientists findings on CAGW.

    But now the data is showing all these climate models are out by a country mile, only the ABC, Fairfax and The Guardian are publishing them (and then only occasionally).

    This CAGW death may come sooner rather than later.


    Report this

    312

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    Who will be responsible for the billions of dollars wasted on poor research parameters and biased papers that have been published?
    How about the vast amount of bad to terrible technology we have had to subsidize?

    No doubt these models will be “tweaked” to whatever will save face but the real research will still be ignored for the vast “consensus” and their algorithm.

    Rather than getting caught up in this loop of being ignored, I moved on to other areas that kept me busy an occupied. Now the “blame game” will be played around rather than true research being utilized and published. That algorithm is all that current scientists are holding onto rather than finding answers and research of value. This will keep the funding flow open to the idiots in who rely on a bad mathematical equation and model.


    Report this

    110

  • #

    I can assert one thing,particularly with Beethoven’s D minor violin concerto smashing me into atoms:climate-change believers are naive! This is after attending a book launch by a doctor of peace studies at a local drinking establishment.All lapped up by -how would I say .. Umm effeminate, limp-wristed,soft-cocc nerdoidal non-drinking…….arr,this is getting no-where..


    Report this

    81

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      Glen,
      This type of person does seem to populate the “Earth is doomed by CO2″ set. Sometimes after a few sentences to/from such people, you realise that missionary zeal is a possible explanation.
      Try reading some of The Conversation blog. There is a horde of responders there, who seem to try to commandeer many blog topics with their type of funny logic. Ohhh, but are they touchy and protective of what God gave them to preach to the unwashed!!
      As a good many responses come from University origins, I do wonder, with some trepidation, how to arrest the teaching of dubious information to our youngsters.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    ROM

    Straight from our own personal Crazy Ideas Department from which many an innovative idea has been germinated and occasionally matured into something useful.
    And most of the doozy’s quietly disposed to places best left untold.

    Time to set up a Global Warming Museum before the corrupted data, the means used to corrupt the data and the totally discredited climate models along with the machines the models were run on, are erased and destroyed to try and hide the mass of corrupted and created evidence supposedly supporting the now seen to be rapidly failing, CAGW cult
    And the recording of all the prognostications from the immense range of the internet’s climate blogs which will be a gold mine of psychological and social research into the many decades and possibly a century or so ahead.

    We have the WW2 as an example where the Japanese in particular destroyed as many records as they could of their wartime activities and wartime politicking to try and protect the war criminals and prevent the finding of evidence of the numerous and wanton mass killings and torture carried out by the Japanese as a government and armed forces policy in invaded countries,
    The German’s were too respectful of data to do a whole sale wanton destruction of the data and records like the Japanese, even when it showed just how utterly evil was so much of what the SS and Wermacht did in Eastern Europe and the USSR.

    So there will be the secretive and wholesale destruction of records and e-mails and documents and internal notes in the climate science departments of many an august scientific establishment if there is even a hint that society might start seeking severe retribution for the immense levels of suffering brought on to an unsuspecting and science trusting populace at the behest of the so called climate scientists as they moved into climate catastrophe advocacy and the influencing of high level politics and policy in a bid to enhance, polish and elevate their own personal status and influence and implement their own personal beliefs and dogmatism.

    There should also be a new innovation, a living history section in some of these museums where the next generation of small fry and not so small fry could be traipsed in to learn the history of the Catastrophic global warming cult by listening to the aging, unreconstructed, still stuck in the pre-Copenhagen, pre- Climate Gate glory days of the global warming cult from the wrinkled, aging promoters and climate modelers in their rocking chairs who would no doubt still be promoting and advocating the still so far unseen and boringly ad nauseam predicted, forthcoming climate catastrophe of some sort, any sort will do as long as it promises to be suitably carathitic and highly destructive and soul satisfying to those wrinkled cultists in their renewable energy powered rocking chairs,

    Put Flannery. Steffen, Hansen, Shellenhuber, Jones, Karoly, Cook, Nuccatelli and etc and etc and etc plus those requisite climate modelers by whom the whole climate debacle was originally formulated, behind glass in those museums to narrate their tired old catastrophic climate cultist doctrine and they would draw all sorts of oohs and aahs from the small fry.
    The glass would make it easier to wipe the spit off from the adult viewers.
    Bullet proof glass might be advisable as well.

    Ah! We dream!


    Report this

    131

  • #
    EK

    I just want my money back.

    Windmills dismantled.

    A clear-out of editorial staff at BBC, and replacement with people who have actual scientific background.

    “Department of Energy and Climate Change” disbanded, with politicians getting the sack, and ridiculed for the rest of their miserable lives as trying to be in charge of the Weather.

    I want roll-back of tax-subsidy scam, with compensation.

    I DEMAND a Nobel Prize for Anthony Watts.


    Report this

    261

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      Here is the Dept of Climate change telling me that there will be no money beach in a specific instance.
      ………………………..
      To further clarify our previous responses, funding to the Australasian palaeoclimate research project has been provided in full, and no funds will be reimbursed, as the Department does not consider that the grant has failed to execute the funding agreement. The 1000 year Australasian temperature reconstruction which resulted from this research was included in a broader study produced by the Past Global Changes (PAGES) program. This research resulted in a paper ‘Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia’ which was published in Nature Geoscience in April 2013.

      The PAGES paper presents an extensive global comparison of temperature histories from seven continental regions of the world and used three independent methods to test the reconstructions produced by each working group (including our Australasian reconstruction). All the results for Australasian region are presented a supplementary section.
      There are now four 1000 year Australasian temperature reconstructions that identify the marked late 20th century warming. The PAGES study finds that ‘in Asia and Australasia, reconstructed temperature was higher during 1971–2000 than any other 30-year period’, thus confirming Australasian palaeoclimate research project findings.
      The paper you refer to in you previous email ‘Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium’ has been reviewed by the Journal of Climate and will be resubmitted for publishing soon.
      We have no further information to provide regarding this matter.
      ………………….
      Despite the last line, I wrote back inquiring if a rebate would be in order if the forthcoming paper was shown to be so full of errors that it is useless.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    ursus augustus

    I am just waiting until the editors figure out the the CAGW scammers are just that and like all scammers are just great targets for all that modern journalism can throw at them. All the money wasted of junk scientism, all the vitriol poured on well educated, sensible people, on decent politicians, all the grandstanding by eco warriors at the expense of others, all the junk scietims shows that pushed other shows out of contention etc etc. All those delicious headlines to come about fake research, fake models, all the CO2 generated by all the international travel and on and on. And then the good news stories about the brave bloggers like Jo and Anthony Watts vs the piddling loons like Nuccatelli, Cook, Readfearn, Schmidt and Lewandowsky…. NYUK NYUK NYUK. Cartoonists heaven.


    Report this

    120

  • #

    Jo, link to scanned IPCC page doesn’t work (extra http at end) link should be http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/source/ipcc/far/ipcc-far-spm-p-xxii.gif


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    Imperial College crowds knows all the tricks, but they must realise this kind of rubbish will only enrage a sceptical public even more:

    18 Sept: UK Telegraph: Rosa Silverman: Climate change inaction is like Aids denial, says scientist
    Politicians who fail to take urgent measures to tackle climate change are like the South African leaders who denied HIV causes Aids, a scientist has claimed
    Professor Nilay Shah, of Imperial College London, predicted that those who argue against a rapid cut in emissions would be judged similarly to those who had disputed the medical evidence on Aids in the past.
    Prof Shah was speaking as he launched a report advocating global spending of $2 trillion a year by 2050, or 1 per cent of GDP, to limit global warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10317823/Climate-change-inaction-is-like-Aids-denial-says-scientist.html


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Tim

    The war is by no means over…

    “Regardless of whether or not scientists are wrong on global warming, the European Union is pursuing the correct energy policies even if they lead to higher prices.” (Europe’s climate commissioner, Connie Hedegaard.)

    So,forced starvation due to ‘biofuels- before- food’ and death by exposure, due to ‘renewables – before affordable energy’? Sounds like an ab-fab policy initiative to me!

    Who am I in abundant Australia to disagree with an EU plan to insure them folk from a dastardly cut-off of Russian energy supplies in case of crisis?

    I’m turning off my lights and heater in sympathy.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    cleanwater

    To hell with CO2 sensitivity. Where is a credible experiment that proves the hypotheses of greenhouse gas effect exists?
    There is an experiment that proves that the Greenhouse gas effect does not exist. This experiment which has been technologically reviewed by Ph.D physicists . Ph.D. Chemical engineers and others Ph. D’s in other fields The experiment is found on the web-site http:// http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com click on the blog tab then on page 3 of 12. . It is titled “The Experiment that failed which can save the world trillions-Proving the greenhouse gas effect does not exist”

    The Greenhouse Effect Explored
    Written by Carl Brehmer | 26 May 2012
    Is “Water Vapor Feedback” Positive or Negative?
    Exploiting the medium of Youtube Carl Brehmer is drawing wider attention to a fascinating experiment he performed to
    test the climatic impacts of water in our atmosphere.
    Carl explains, “An essential element of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is the positive “water vapor feedback” hypothesis. That is, if something causes an increase in the temperature this will cause an increase in the evaporation of water into water vapor.


    Report this

    43

    • #
      Simon

      This is the ‘zero sensitivity hypothesis’ and should be given the same courtesy as any other hypithesis, I.e. tested empirically. Currently it is rejected out of hand by even the luke-warmists (most sceptics) under the assumption that CO2 ‘must’ cause some warmibg.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Robert

        Agreed, it should be tested. But what I see more often than not is skeptics using the “most skeptics” or “everyone agrees” appeal to some sort of consensus rather than any actual science. The “CO2 ‘must’ cause some warming” assumption has turned into a sacred cow for some and questioning it results in the same type of behavior from many skeptics as we have seen over the years from the alarmists when we questioned their sacred cow of CAGW/CACC.

        “Everyone agrees”, “we all know”, “there is a consensus” etc. etc. is not science, it isn’t even solid reasoning as far as arguments go.

        Here’s a hypothesis, regardless of whatever merit or validity the “zero sensitivity hypothesis” may or may not have, how many people in the sciences simply don’t look into it or speak of it because doing so results in the same sort of ridicule from their contemporaries as we have seen from the alarmists?

        The unfortunate aspect of this is the original source as we have come to know it for this hypothesis is PSI which due to issues of credibility that have arisen means a more “reliable” source would be needed, and if no one is looking at it for fear of ridicule from their contemporaries then a better source may never appear.

        Look through the other comments responding to cleanwater regarding this for how the “average skeptic” responds to questioning the “CO2 must cause some warming.” In that regard we skeptics appear to be no better than the alarmists who attack us regularly for questioning them, the IPCC, and the other “scientists” promoting the CAGW/CACC meme.

        Food for thought.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Simon

    Could it be time the Nobel committee started the process to strip the peace prize from Al Gore and the IPCC, as all evidence is that they have brought the institution into disrepute.


    Report this

    110

  • #

    [...] defeat. From comments and emails I know this event was watched around the world. – Click here to read the full article [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cleanwater

    Simon: The point of the experiment referenced is that there is no warming of an IR absorbing gas (IRag) mistakenly known as “greenhouse gases”.
    The accepted fact that certain gases absorb IR radiation is not the question, even O2 and N2 have been shown to absorb certain frequencies of IR. The question is does the absorption of IR cause the gas to heat. This is different than increasing the internal energy of the molecule that absorbs the IR ( remember that all atoms and Molecule are also radiating IR according to the Kirchhoff laws)?
    Based on the experiment IRag’s do not heat when they absorb IR. This is an easy experiment to perform as long as it is not confused with the hockes-pocks experiment know as the “jar test used by Bill Nye at Climate 101″
    The Climate 101 experiment has been shown to be a fraud by Anthony Watts at Watt up with that.


    Report this

    53

  • #
    klem

    Just read McKitrick’s remarks.

    Someday in the future, he’ll be awarded the Order of Canada. Can’t wait for the day.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Carbon500

    There has always been the assumption that CO2 levels will go ever upwards.
    Let’s not forget however that on a global scale it’s a trace gas, measured at a concentration of molecules per million of other gases – and that’s excluding water vapour.
    There have been some years since the Mauna Loa measurements began when the CO2 increase stalled or slowed appreciably, for unknown reasons but probably involving complex feedbacks. Those are not my words, but those of a meteorologist, William James Burroughs writing in his book ‘Climate Change’.
    Then there’s the work by Ernst George Beck examining pre – Mauna Loa data, showing that today’s levels of CO2 are not unprecedented.
    I’m waiting for the rise in CO2 to reach a ceiling. Impossible? Maybe, but won’t it be fascinating if it does?


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I hate to be a skeptic about global warming skepticism but as I said in a prior thread, that snake ain’t dead yet. I’ve believed from close to the time I got serious about looking into all this stuff, that the UN is the real monster, not the IPCC.

    And I still do.

    I’ll take little improvements along the way but we have so much left to undo that it scares me. It’s begun to look like we’ll all be overwhelmed long before we can change what needs to be changed. In my own country I’m fast becoming a serf under a constitution that makes me an owner of the place. That position feels very insecure.


    Report this

    110

    • #
      • #
        Roy Hogue

        You want a reason for your insecurity? Try this

        Just one more of many. The only consolation is that these fools will likely take themselves down with the rest of us.

        If you have an answer to the question of how to get through the ultimate collapse unscathed, I’m all ears though.


        Report this

        30

    • #
      MadJak

      I Agree with you Roy,

      Having said that, at least in australia now, both sides of the debate are now getting airplay. This will free up the debate so we can all actually progress on this issue in an adult fashion. Up until now, with sceptics being muffled, it has stalled the debate and crippled it. Now both sides can argue based on the merit of what is being said without one side being actively silenced.

      Of course, with me being sceptical I am completely confident that sceptics will win out. It will be interesting to see the alarmists tripping themselves up and being busted by a media scrum who aren’t all blindly following the AGW faith.


      Report this

      70

    • #

      Next it will be UN demands wealth transfer to poor countries to compensate them for the neo-colonial excesses of the global warming craze :-)

      The music changes, but the words to the song stay the same.


      Report this

      80

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    That dam at the top might also say “Western Civilization” on it.


    Report this

    51

  • #
    Bruce

    What is astonishing is that any sane, semi-literate person would believe that climate circulation models were capable of predicting the average global temperature to within +/- 0.1 degree Centigrade for a chaotic complex system.

    “It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than to put out on the troubled seas of thought.” . . . . J.K.Galbraith


    Report this

    70

    • #

      If someone came to you claiming to have a stock market model which could predict future prices, or a horse racing system which could predict future winners, and offered as proof the model’s ability to “hind cast” historical results, you’d laugh them out of the room.

      Because we’ve all seen far too many bogus claims of infallible prediction systems.

      Yet too many people go all gullible and wide eyed when it comes to climate models.

      Because ability to hindcast does not constitute proof of forecasting skill – all it demonstrates is that your model *might* have forecasting skill.


      Report this

      100

  • #
    cleanwater

    Just some more technical information that few people know or research. CO2 is used as a coolant in the welding industry. It is used both for its properties to prevent oxidation while welding but also that is a better coolant because it has a higher thermocondutivity than O2 and N2. One conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the higher the CO2 in the atmosphere the faster it will cool.
    This has been proven by several experiments one conducted by Dr. Nasif Nahle and the other by Carl Brehmer.
    There is an experiment that proves that the Greenhouse gas effect does not exist. This experiment which has been technologically reviewed by Ph.D physicists . Ph.D. Chemical engineers and others Ph. D’s in other fields The experiment is found on the web-site http:// http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com click on the blog tab then on page 3 of 12. . It is titled “The Experiment that failed which can save the world trillions-Proving the greenhouse gas effect does not exist”

    The Greenhouse Effect Explored
    Written by Carl Brehmer | 26 May 2012
    Is “Water Vapor Feedback” Positive or Negative?
    Exploiting the medium of Youtube Carl Brehmer is drawing wider attention to a fascinating experiment he performed to test the climatic impacts of water in our atmosphere.
    Carl explains, “An essential element of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is the positive “water vapor feedback” hypothesis. That is, if something causes an increase in the temperature this will cause an increase in the evaporation of water into water vapor.” ( This experiment proves that GHGE by the AGW is wrong)

    Another important website is www. The Great Climate Clash.com -G3 The Greenhouse gas effect does not exist.


    Report this

    33

    • #
      Ian H

      Skydragonslaying Pseudoscientific Absolute Bullshit.

      Science is what will kill the silliness of the warmists. Science is over the long term self correcting. Bad paradigms do get killed … eventually. History will also render its judgement of the nonsense you are peddling. It will be filed in the appropriate place … and then flushed.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    pat

    with CAGW temps & genocidal policies somewhat stalled -

    18 Sept: UK Telegraph: No, Sir David Attenborough, the end of the world is not nigh
    Malthus is shaking his hoary locks. The old seer does it every so often, and no amount of being proved wrong will keep him in his coffin. His latest manifestation takes the unlikely form of Sir David Attenborough, one of television’s otherwise warmest personalities. Sir David thinks that the population of the planet has reached capacity, and that we had better tell the world to stop making babies. For good measure, in his interview with The Daily Telegraph yesterday, he added that getting the UN to send sacks of flour to famine regions was “barmy” and that famine in Ethiopia is about “too many people for too little piece of land”…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/10318052/No-Sir-David-Attenborough-the-end-of-the-world-is-not-nigh.html

    16 Sept: Christian Science Monitor: In Ethiopia, more land grabs, more indigenous people pushed out
    For example, in Ethiopia’s lush Gambella region, in the western area bordering Sudan, locals have been forcibly relocated to make way for the leasing of farms to foreign firms. This year, the World Bank and British aid agencies were swept into controversy over charges they helped fund the relocation including salary payments to local officials involved in the clearing of land.
    The Mursi have lived in Omo for centuries. Partly for this reason they get frequent visits by tourists and anthropologists alike…
    http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2013/0916/In-Ethiopia-more-land-grabs-more-indigenous-people-pushed-out


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Considerate Thinker

    I kind of like the idea, that we should be preserving the extreme images and words of the doomsayers as living image style holograms as they spew their nonsense in support of CAGW, consensus, the failed predictions falling from their lips as they did at the time. This would be a fine example for the teachers of tomorrow to bring children and show them why they tried to enlist and indoctrinate previous generations of children to accept without questioning such extreme and yes unsupported by scientific fact views.

    This is the best way of ensuring that such tactics will not succeed in the future and may also caution teachers from becoming peddlers of propaganda! In parallel with this exhibit should be another promoting the exciting world of science, invention, testing and experimenting with ideas and the creations of proven benefit to mankind and the environment. This way we all learn by those past mistakes.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Dave

    It’s getting closer,

    Little Timmy Flannery and Davie Karoly are really getting upset, now their greedy snouts aren’t allowed access to the Green money train.

    Brisbane Times reports here:
    Dr Flannery said.

    ”Given the highly contested and political nature of this stuff, you need a body that’s trustworthy,”

    Hahahahhahha. :)

    And Professor David Karoly said:

    ”what will the future think of the people who voted for this action?”

    Maybe Professor, we think you little beauty. Yeh.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    pat

    “scientists say” – & what a lineup it is!

    19 Sept: Age: Peter Hannam: Scientists say climate cuts leave public in the dark
    Staff at the Climate Commission, a federal body set up to publicise climate-change science, have all but ceased work as they await instructions from new Environment Minister Greg Hunt…
    ”It’s really important that the Australian public have access to authoritative, independent, accurate information on climate change, and that’s exactly what the Climate Commission did,”
    said Will Steffen, a professor at the ANU and a Climate Commissioner.
    ”Unfortunately, the science has been sucked into this vortex of a highly politicised approach to climate change. We’ve got a rapidly destabilising climate. It does pose risks for us.”…
    Tim Flannery, head of the Climate Commission, said it had held dozens of public meetings around the country and no other body existed to serve that role.
    ”Given the highly contested and political nature of this stuff, you need a body that’s trustworthy,” Dr Flannery said.
    Professor David Karoly, a member of the Climate Change Authority who also serves on the science advisory panel of the Climate Commission, said the new government’s actions were well flagged. He said the question, though, was ”what will the future think of the people who voted for this action?”…
    Mr Hunt declined to respond to questions from Fairfax Media.
    http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/scientists-say-climate-cuts-leave-public-in-the-dark-20130918-2tzs9.html


    Report this

    10

  • #
    John R Walker

    The BBC even manages to give northern hemisphere cooling a quiet mention!

    Rare solar cycle has cold implications for UK climate

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Rare-solar-cycle-has-cold-implications-for-UK-climate

    Although this is still pretty much one weatherman against the machine…


    Report this

    50

  • #
    pat

    Australian electricity market still bets on carbon price: study
    BEIJING, Sept 18 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Australia’s electricity market is still pricing in a cost of A$4 ($3.74) per tonne of CO2 in 2015, a report published Wednesday showed, revealing doubts that the country’s new government will be able to repeal the carbon pricing scheme…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2582372?&ref=searchlist

    Obama’s energy, EPA chiefs say climate plan won’t kill coal
    WASHINGTON, Sept 18 (Reuters) – New rules limiting emissions from U.S. power plants that are expected to be proposed on Friday will “provide certainty” to the coal industry, environment and energy chiefs told lawmakers anxious about the fuel’s future…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.2582684?&ref=searchlist

    19 Sept: Bloomberg: Mark Drajem: Obama Energy Officials Defend Climate Plan to Republicans
    “Common sense demands that we take action,” Moniz said. “As a policy issue, prudence suggests that we should take out an insurance policy, just like any family does on their home or automobile.”…
    Republican lawmakers complained today that regulations associated with Obama’s climate plan will lead coal-fired power plants to shutter, miners to be put out of work and energy costs to rise, endangering the American economy…
    EPA’s rules coming this week will “have devastating effects on our communities and most importantly, the consumers who pay their electricity bills every month.”
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-18/obama-energy-officials-defend-climate-plan-to-republicans.html


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    18 Sept: ABC FactCheck: Julia Gillard’s ‘carbon tax’ regrets debatable
    JG: “I feared the media would end up playing constant silly word games with me, trying to get me to say the word ‘tax’…
    (FACTCHECK THEN CONTINUES WITH THE “SILLY WORD GAMES)
    Professor Michael Dirkis from the University of Sydney says legally the ETS is not a tax.
    “It was not enacted under the taxing powers in the constitution,” he said.
    But Professor Dirkis, who is an expert in taxation law, also says there is no practical difference between a carbon tax and a fixed carbon price.
    “Its impact is the same – to drive up the cost of energy to bring about a reduction in energy use,” he said.
    According to Professor David Stern, an energy and environmental economist at the Australian National University, “a fixed emissions price is effectively a tax when the government sells permits to firms.”
    Dr Ben McNeil from the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales agrees the fixed price stage of the ETS is effectively a tax.
    But he argues it’s not like a tax when it moves to a floating price – determined by the market, not the government.
    However the Gillard government’s climate change advisor, economist Professor Ross Garnaut, told ABC Fact Check: “It is not a tax. Nor will it be a tax when we have to a floating price linked to Europe.”
    The difficulty in arguing against the “carbon tax” label is that there is not one single definition of the word “tax”.
    “At the broadest end, a tax is seen as an additional price paid as a consequence of government restrictions,” Professor Rick Krever from Monash University, a former advisor to both the International Monetary Fund and the Australian Taxation Office, said.
    Under this broad definition, Professor Krever argues not only is a carbon price a tax, but a seatbelt is also a tax in that it is a compulsory cost that must be paid as a result of a government regulation…
    The Institute of Chartered Accountants Australia says the government could have chosen to call the carbon price anything it wanted.
    But Yasser El-Ansary, the institute’s general manager of leadership and quality, says it was reasonable for the carbon price to be labelled a tax.
    “In the end, the actual fixed charge imposed on companies would still amount to a ‘tax’ in substance, and so it was quite reasonable ultimately for the carbon price charge to be labelled a tax by the then opposition,” he said…
    The verdict
    Ms Gillard had strong grounds to argue the carbon price was not legally a tax, but she would have faced credible counter-arguments to the contrary.
    It remains debatable that she made the wrong choice.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-18/julia-gillard-carbon-price-tax/4961132

    doubt if ABC will ever let this go.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    say what?

    18 Sept: Australian: Sue Neales: Tax gone but hunt for carbon cash not forgotten: minister
    THE incoming federal government has moved fast to reassure farmers the generation of on-farm carbon credits through storing carbon in trees or reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions remains a valuable and potentially lucrative source of income despite the imminent axing of the carbon tax.
    Incoming environment minister Greg Hunt said the Abbott government was intent on giving the rural sector more rather than less certainty about its ability to earn income from carbon farming.
    Mr Hunt said not only would the government encourage carbon farming and simplify “green” and red tape, but it also had allocated $1.55 billion in its first three years to its Emissions Reduction Fund, to buy stored carbon direct from farmers and for other low-cost emission abatement schemes…
    Banks have been reluctant to lend for carbon farming ventures or allow farmers to borrow against projected income, for fear the system would change under the Coalition government. But Mr Hunt this week told The Australian in an exclusive interview nothing could be further from the Coalition’s mind. “We don’t just like the Carbon Farming Initiative; we want to expand it,” Mr Hunt said. “It’s the basis of our own initiatives. It is central to the delivery of our (new) Emissions Reduction Fund, even though the carbon tax will go.”…
    Mr Hunt said any farmer who had planted trees or native vegetation belts on their properties or allowed native mulga and mallee scrub to regenerate to store carbon to be “sold” to companies to offset their own carbon pollution should not be worried about their potential source of income. While prices for carbon would adjust to world levels, the $1.55 billion available from the buyback scheme as well as the presence of many companies committed to voluntarily purchasing carbon offsets would ensure returns from carbon farming remained profitable.
    ***”There is a new option if you want to sell carbon stored on your farm now; you can sell it to the government — and an extra buyer in any market always means more competition and higher prices for any seller,” Mr Hunt said.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/tax-gone-but-hunt-for-carbon-cash-not-forgotten-minister-emissions/story-fn9qr68y-1226721300567


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Neville

    Fairfax is supporting the warmist fools now that Abbott is closing down the C Com etc and saving the taxpayer a bundle.
    But the Bolter has included some of the stupid propaganda and delusion from some of these twits to prove it is the correct move.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_age_cries_for_warming_alarmists_it_should_hold_to_account/#commentsmore

    His links also provide a good recent history of the nonsensical meanderings and illogical reasoning of these prominent numbskulls.
    Of course this will save OZ billions $ a year. Go Tony.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Al in Cranbrook, BC

    Hope I’m not being redundant here, don’t have time to scan previous posts, but did anyone see this? This guy really carves Suzuki a new unowhat!

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/09/false-notes-and-the-suzuki-method

    Enjoy!!!


    Report this

    70

  • #
    handjive

    Tipping points.
    Here, in this youtube video (@ 30secs) NASA scientist Jay Zwally explains and demonstrates how tipping points work in government funded Alarmist Global Warming, requiring more funding because they know it’s “worse than we first thought.”


    Report this

    30

  • #
    pat

    LOL:

    19 Sept: TheConversation: Andy Pitman: Is global warming in a hiatus?
    PHOTO CAPTION: With low solar activity, a double-dip La Nina and more particles in the air, it should be much colder than it is…
    What is surprising – and what is deeply concerning to me and almost entirely missed in the media commentary – is that we have not cooled dramatically over the last 15 years…
    One way that this makes sense is if climate scientists have underestimated how dominant CO2 and other greenhouse gases are in warming the climate. In other words, CO2 and other greenhouse gases are countering the cooling effects of natural variability by much more than we anticipated…
    A second possible explanation is that the warming by CO2 has led to a sufficiently different climate system that natural variability now functions differently. This seems extremely unlikely but is certainly anything but comforting…
    In short, the slowing of warming rates since 1998 is not a good news story. It is very likely a hint that climate scientists have underestimated the sensitivity of climate to increasing CO2 and the slowing of warming is lulling us into a very false sense of security.
    http://theconversation.com/is-global-warming-in-a-hiatus-18367


    Report this

    20

    • #
      farmer braun

      Disappointing , very disappointing. Not a single “unprecedented”. Nor an “overwhelming”. “Consensus ” nowhere to be seen.
      This – “extremely unlikely but is certainly anything but comforting…” was only half-hearted.
      What is the world coming to?


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Dave

    Part 1 of Millions:

    PROFESSOR Tim Flannery has been sacked by the Abbott Government from his $180,000 a year part time Chief Climate Commissioner position with the agency he runs to be dismantled immediately.

    Environment Minister Greg Hunt called Prof Flannery this morning to tell him a letter formally ending his employment was in the mail.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    The real “tipping point” was about 20 years ago, when the “public” media of Western nations went full blown Communist.

    I guess they felt obligated to carry the Communist banner when the Soviet Union fell apart.

    AGW became the only viable theme to build Communist nations out of governments that had not previously demonstrated great affection for Karl Marx. I have no idea what these people will turn to now


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Mattb

      lol. Brian that’s a good one!


      Report this

      04

    • #

      This has been worked toward for decades in the US. Socialism and Communism do not happen overnight, in the absence of invasion. Most people refuse to believe the changes are real and pretend the US could never become socialist or have a dictator. So they do nothing. All the while, the pendulum swings further and further to the socialist side as teachers, judges and leaders all come from the socialist promoters. It’s slow, and there may be no actual tipping point, though the media certainly has a role to play in all of this. More than anything, it’s just plain denial of reality.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    • #
      incoherent rambler

      One down, many more to go…


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Robber

      Hallelujah! One less warmista trying to tell us what to think.
      From Wikipedia: Timothy Fridtjof Flannery, (born 28 January 1956) is an Australian mammalogist, palaeontologist, environmentalist and global warming activist. He was the Chief Commissioner of the Australian Climate Commission, a Federal Government body providing information on climate change to the Australian public.
      May he return peacefully to the study of mammalogy, and STOP being paid by us as a global warming activist.
      As a global warming prophet he should hand back his paycheck and other fringe benefits and apologise for his alarmist predictions (courtesy of Andrew Bolt):
      In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney’s dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city “facing extreme difficulties with water”.
      In 2008, Flannery said: “The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009.”
      In 2007, Flannery predicted global warming would so dry our continent that desalination plants were needed to save three of our biggest cities from disaster. Will he kindly reimburse our governments for the Billions of $$$ wasted in mothballed desal plants because of this advice?


      Report this

      50

      • #

        Can you imagine the logistics of getting back money that politicians wasted? They don’t make supercomputers capable of doing this. Probably best to just be content with preventing as much waste as we possibly can and go on.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    My two bobs worth is that it is too early to start cheering. We cannot predict if next year or the year after will be a repeat of 1998.
    Ones main contribution should still be to find and publicise bad science.


    Report this

    60

    • #

      Agreed. While many of the less faithful will back down, those whose entire life has been spent crying “AGW” will not go quietly. More than likely, they will redouble their efforts. Hansen has a paper that says if we burn all the fossil fuel on the planet, the planet will be uninhabitable. He doesn’t sound disheartened at all. Of course, the planet may be rendered uninhabitable long before we run out of fossil fuel due to some unforeseen, not preventable event (say meteor hit or God has had it with us) and one supposes from his grave Hansen could still say “Told you so”.

      Now is the time to double down and keep educating people. Right now, they may receptive. In any case, we can’t start celebrating yet. (Maybe a quiet little “yeah!” for the loss of credibility in climate science now, but not too loud or long!)


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Simon

    Man has ALWAYS adapted to the environment, and in many cases, mastered it. That’s why we have developed. Tomorrow’s man can only build on today’s man’s achievements. Mitigation pushes development into the future, which means it will never happen.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Jimbo

    Germany has been joining in too over the last 9 months with several big media outlets asking question.
    http://notrickszone.com/2013/09/18/die-welt-journalist-on-the-ipcc-small-sensation-ipcc-backpedals-considerably/


    Report this

    10

  • #
  • #
    Oliver K. Manuel

    There is no doubt of deception about AGW.

    In my mind, there is also no doubt about deception in standard (consensus) models of the atomic nucleus and the cores of stars.

    Since the very survival of humans depends on access to reliable information about reality, the most puzzling question is why humans have promoted falsehoods as scientific facts?

    False pride? Greed? Fear?

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Oliver K. Manuel

    Did politicans and scientists overlooked the common message of almost all religions?

    “A Higher Power controls nature !”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] JoAnne Nova, 18 Septembre 2013, url de l’article original: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/skepticism-goes-mainstream-a-tipping-point/ [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Yes, you are right.

    I have had many conversations with myself after Climategate emails and documents were released in 2009, trying to figure out how and why any scientist would ignore Earth’s heat source in a discussion of Earth’s changing climate.

    Fred Hoyle’s autobiography documented that falsehoods about Earth’s heat source became the SSM (Standard Solar Model) in 1946, the same year George Orwell started writing his warning to the public, “1984″, about a new tyrannical government that would be obvious to public in 1984.

    When I visited the old USSR in 1980, I learned that George Orwell’s book, “1984″, was banned there.

    Oliver K. Manuel


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jacob Edmondson

    David Suzuki bemoaning in this mornings Age newspaper on what has become of IPCC reporting:

    “The way these reports are made with input from all sides, they tend to be unbelievably conservative because they don’t want to be accused of extremism and exaggeration,” he said. “I think that’s unfortunate.”

    just wow!

    http://www.theage.com.au/environment/tony-abbotts-climate-agenda-worrying-david-suzuki-says-20130923-2u9di.html#ixzz2fgmYwZHj


    Report this

    00

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

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