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

The opportunity the Coalition/Tories/Republicans missed to solve climate dilemma, save money, save environment

How do we fund science?

So far, conservative politicians don’t get it…

Most conservative governments have bowed to the name-calling bullies for far too long. They are either fooled by the names (do they think “denier” is a scientific term?), or they are so afraid of being called “deniers” themselves that they adopt the bullies meme, too scared to ask the most basic and substantial questions of it. They have stayed out of science, while big-government players have milked the good brand-name shamelessly. Science needs to be set straight.

Above all else, those who care about the environment and the people should grab the moral high ground and the sensible-middle-road at the same time, and get serious about getting the science correct– which means the most rigorous investigation, the best practice, and a real ongoing public debate (no, there hasn’t been one yet). The environment and citizens deserve nothing less. And paying for better studies costs a fraction of global trading schemes, along with tens of thousands of bird-killing turbines and solar industrial plants.

Before we spend anything on mitigating a problem based on models, we need to know what empirical evidence supports the assumptions in the models.  (Make no mistake, while CO2 causes warming it is the models that predict how much warming). I’ve been asking for since Jan 2010 and no one can name that mystery paper with strong observations.  We need to understand how accurate those predictions are. It is only then that we can figure out which are the most important environmental concerns.  As it happens the models are doing a really poor job of prediction (see also here).

Those who are our elected representatives should be representing their electorate. Who has audited the recommendations of the foreign committee known as the IPCC? Who is protecting Australians (or Americans, Europeans or  New Zealanders) from being exploited? Can anyone name a government investigation that seriously discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the last IPCC report? Apparently checks are left to volunteers online. It’s a crazy way to run a country.

We need a free market in science

The monopolistic version of research is not serving us well. Unless both sides of a controversial theory get funding to put their best case forward, all-too-human factors can easily dominate the scientific process. John Howard, former PM of Australia, and other conservative leaders around the world could have set up independent research groups 15 years ago, but missed the chance to ensure there was real competition in science.

What sensible politicians could do (and should have done): Establish the Bureau of Climate Prediction or The Climate Research Institute

The western world needs some independent science organizations of experts outside official climate science — drawn from fields such as maths, statistics, engineering and geology. They should audit and check the IPCC pronouncements on behalf of Australians, Canadians, etc. They could also advise the government science funding bodies on which areas of research would be most useful for scientists to pursue. Obviously a research institute could do original research.

I suggested as much to a couple of high ranking elected Australian Liberals*  a few years ago, and the response was essentially: “But who could we ask?” They wanted names, the obvious inference being that anyone they picked would be accused of being a skeptic, or attacked for some other reason. Which is true.

But the point (which I probably didn’t make well at the time) is that believers of the Global Warming religion would attack anyone and everyone who doesn’t believe. There’s no need to play that game, instead we point out the double standards. Labor employed Tim Flannery, after all. It is preposterous, beyond all reason, to think that virtually any highly educated math, engineering, meteorology or geology expert would not have as much credibility as a man who predicted we needed desalination plants urgently, and tried to convince us in 2007 that dams that would never again fill. (And a few other special Flannery quotes).

Critics would cry that only “climate scientists” can understand climate science. Sensible people could reply that all areas of science work on the same principles, laws and standards of evidence — and if climate science is different then it is not science.

The most important aim of an independent group would be to make predictions about the climate that did not prove to be false. Their reputation and future funding ought to depend on that. If that means the group produced conservative predictions with accurate uncertainty ranges, how could that be a bad thing? It would mean Australians would understand the risks — if it’s not possible to predict the climate yet, shouldn’t Australian’s be aware of that and base funding any emission reduction efforts accordingly?

If we aren’t 95% certain we can predict clouds and humidity a hundred years from now, why pretend we are 95% certain a disaster is on the way? In case you didn’t know, most of that catastrophe predicted by the models depends on clouds and humidity.

No one who has real concerns about the environment could object to having independent institutes set up, to compete to see which one can produce the most accurate predictions. Anyone who complains that an independent body was a front for a government policy could be asked if they also complained about the unscientific pronouncements of the current climate commissioners.

David Archibald points out that even setting up an inquiry into the matter would be enough. Certainly it would be cheaper and faster and involve less bureaucracy. But I’m being ambitious. I think we can do more than just point out the flaws in mainstream climate science, I think we could aim to do real science and see whether a true skeptical approach can outdo the current hobbled, misguided and bureaucrat-driven approach that starts with an assumption rather than a question. Competition is the key.

Can we engender science-as-a-quest for truth, rather than a policy driven profession?

Personally I would prefer it if more science research was privately funded — by philanthropic donors as well. The original format of science was carried out by self-funded investigators or people supported by private donors. There must be ways to make that possible again.

I can hear fellow fans-of-small-government groaning at the idea of another tax-funded institute — they’d argue that more government spending will not solve anything. And it’s true, sooner or later any government funded organization will be captured by those who are good at networking, filling in grant forms, and producing results that make the gatekeepers purr. I realize this is a short term solution. But if conservative governments took $10billion out of funds aiming to change the global temperature by 0.0C and spent 1% of that on building better climate models and assessing the evidence, the playing field would level dramatically. Overall, I’m suggesting less government spending.

Either the new institute would actually find the evidence that supported the models, or, more likely (based on the evidence we already have) it would start producing sensible press releases very soon, and be a source of “authority” figures that the media seem to need. The new institutes should also provide science and logic training for science journalists, most of whom appear to have never been taught what science really is.

An inquiry or a Royal commission (which Carter, Evans, Kininmonth and Franks called for) are less expensive than an institute and run without the cumbersome bureaucracy. There is no ongoing machine to be captured by government apparatchiks. An independent investigation would certainly help, but in the long run, I want to see real science supported. I don’t know what the solution is to the inevitable decay that occurs in all government funded groups, other than to periodically set up new competitors to shake the current ones up. I believe we need to make it easier for private donors to fund science, and for science institutes or “panels” never to  be set up to investigate a “crisis” because then the group’s future existence depends on them finding a crisis. There is a powerful motivation to exaggerate and keep the crisis alive.

The IPCC’s  future existence depends on them finding a crisis. Science groups should only ever be set up with the goal of providing more accurate predictions or a deeper understanding.

Where is the basic understanding of science from the shadow Environment minister?

Any science or environment minister ought to at least understand the scientific method. Few seem to have any idea. Australian ex-Climate-Minister Penny Wong sure didn’t: in 2009 she waved around a sheaf of model predictions and referred to them as “this evidence”.

Opposition Australian environment minister Greg Hunt is every bit as bad; he imagines scientific committees are above question (“infallible”, perhaps?) and that Obama, Xi Jinping and Manmohan Singh are waiting to hear what Greg Hunt thinks:

AN Abbott government would use Australia’s term as chair of the G20 to help broker agreement between the world’s four major carbon polluters to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt said a “G4 agreement”, involving China, the US, India and the EU, was a “personal project” he would pursue at next year’s G20 meeting in Brisbane.

Nor do we need to put effort into pursuing the impossible -

A global agreement on CO2 emissions that includes the US, China and India is the big challenge in global climate change politics. The UN has set a timeline for a global agreement to be negotiated by its annual meeting in Paris in 2015 and take effect in 2020.

Why not look at environmental concerns we can do something about?

 

*Liberal mean conservatives in Australia, or at least the central, middle party, not the left leaning one.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (37 votes cast)
The opportunity the Coalition/Tories/Republicans missed to solve climate dilemma, save money, save environment, 9.5 out of 10 based on 37 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/kxsf25z

77 comments to The opportunity the Coalition/Tories/Republicans missed to solve climate dilemma, save money, save environment

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    The term, “carbon pollution” gives the game away. Hunt is a Believer. As far as I know, the only proven effects of increased CO2 in the biosphere are the, “greening up”, of debatable semi-arid land as seen on satellite data records and improved flora growth, together with a claimed but largely disproven effect on global temperature and a projected lowering of ocean alkalinity which is within the parameters of the natural variation already found.

    The thought of all that money waiting to be skimmed off the taxpayer is too much for any administration to turn it’s back on. Meanwhile, jobs and industries will continue to be exported to more enlightened regimes resulting in the impoverishment of those countries unlucky enough to be governed by those in thrall to lunatic environmental Luddites and millennialist Malthusians.

    220

    • #
      GAZ

      Indeed Greg Hunt is a believer. A few months ago I exchanged a few emails with him. He is courteous, but a believer no doubt. Between him, Turnbull, and Abbott’s commitment to cut CO2 emissions, we don’t have much hope even with the new government.

      You are right Kevin – all the hangers on just can’t wait to get their hands on our money.

      I wish Tony Abbott had a backbone and call the “climate change challenge” the crap that it is.

      90

      • #
        Redress

        I think the coalition are playing a very close game here in the climate change debate.
        Much like in the AWU-WRU scandal, where they do not want the unions off side before the polling date…..and have said they will hold an official inquiry after the election. This has been ignored by the MSM, because the MSM are falling over backwards to protect Julia Gillard.

        Tony Abbott was John Hewsons media adviser for the “unloosable election”, so I am not surprised that they are holding a so called do nothing line on climate change.

        I have just heard Tony Abbott indicate that if the senate blocks his legislation to rescind the carbon tax he will hold a double dissolution. The MSM have picked this up and are running with it.

        If Tony Abbott gains control of the senate, you will see big changes in the coalitions response to climate change, but at present, they have an election to win…..so support them and let them win it….they lobby for the changes we all want to see.

        00

  • #
  • #
    Greg House

    Make no mistake, while CO2 causes warming it is the models that predict how much warming

    CO2 does not cause warming, “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC (warming by back radiation) is physically impossible.

    I recommend looking closely at the IPCC reports where they explain “greenhouse effect”, e.g. this part of their 2nd assessment report: http://imgur.com/gDRQL15. You can see how the cooked their energy balance. In the picture the “greenhouse gases” radiate only in one direction: to the surface. If the same radiation to space had been added, there would have been more energy coming out than in. This is how they made impossible look possible.

    212

    • #
      MemoryVault

      Hi Greg,

      A poster called “Bevan” did an excellent piece on this in the last thread (apart from the first three paras on “ozone hole depletion”), in case you missed it.

      80

      • #
        Greg House

        Thanks, MemoryVault, but the whole thing about back radiation warming is much easier than that.

        Adding “back radiation” inside the system will always lead to 2 impossible outcomes: a part of the system getting more energy than the whole system and more energy coming out than in.

        That is why the IPCC needed to make an “adjustment” by faking making a mistake in their balance.

        92

        • #
          AndyG55

          Thing is that even IF there is extra warming from back radiation, the atmosphere will balance it energy transfer related to the atmospheric pressure gradient.

          Where does all the heat from a bushfire go, where does the heat from a volcano go?

          Why the heck would anyone think that a tiny amount of (non-existent) extra back-radiation could possibly cause global atmospheric heating !

          90

          • #
            Greg House

            AndyG55: “Thing is that even IF there is extra warming from back radiation, the atmosphere will balance it energy transfer related to the atmospheric pressure gradient. Where does all the heat from a bushfire go, where does the heat from a volcano go?”

            They can counter it with “where does the heat from the Sun go?” and “more heat = higher temperature”.

            Just count the energy, this is the easiest way.

            40

            • #
              AndyG55

              That counter makes no sense.. Don’t they say the Sun does fluctuate to give us more heat?

              THE AGW myth is that heat is somehow trapped in the atmosphere by rabid super-heated CO2 molecules…. and its just nonsense.

              60

              • #
                Greg House

                @AndyG55 #3.1.1.1.1: “That counter makes no sense… THE AGW myth is that heat is somehow trapped in the atmosphere by rabid super-heated CO2 molecules…. and its just nonsense.”

                Not just “trapped”, but caused by back radiation from “greenhouse gases”, look at this picture: http://imgur.com/gDRQL15.

                Counting energy makes sense, because it is easy, everyone can do that, and it demonstrates that “back radiation heating” is equivalent to impossible things.

                —–

                REPLY: Please. No more on this completely OT discussion. This is a policy thread. – Jo

                30

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          Gotta say, Greg, I didn’t believe you when you said “the IPCC needed to make an “adjustment” by making a mistake in their balance“, but a google image search for Earth Energy Budget diagrams gives some interesting results.

          NASA ERBE Energy Budget Components. Shows numbers which add up, but NO backradiation component!
          http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/erbe/components2.gif | dated Tue 12 Jul 1994.

          NASA Earth Observatory Energy Budget. Shows backradiation, but surface emission is 117% of insolation!
          http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/images/global_energy_budget_components.png | dated Mon 02 May 2011.

          Who are we going to believe, NASA or NASA? :)
          Will the real NASA please stand up?

          With absurdities like this accepted as normal the IPCC doesn’t need any fraud, it’s rotten from Ground-Control up.

          40

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        At comment #25 to be precise.

        10

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      Yes physically impossible AND proved as such.
      2nd law cannot be broken. It is part of the structure of the Universe.
      http://slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/185-no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still
      and the good one, Prof Nasif Nahle:
      http://principia-scientific.org/publications/New_Concise_Experiment_on_Backradiation.pdf

      43

      • #
        Kevin Lohse

        “second law cannot be broken”. That’s what they said about Newton. Never is a long time in scientific discovery, however the second law of thermodynamics will need better brains better trained to be falsified than the current crop of warmist activists can muster.

        71

      • #
        Greg House

        @ theRealUniverse #3.2:

        Warmists have already re-written the 2nd law and committed some fake experiments.

        No reference to the 2nd law and experiments is necessary to disprove the “greenhouse effect”, it is sufficient just to count the energy (Joules). As I said, adding “back radiation” inside the system will always lead to 2 impossible outcomes: a part of the system getting more energy than the whole system and more energy coming out than in. This is the easiest way, for lay persons in the first place.

        41

        • #
          spence

          Greg, why is it impossible that more energy can leave the system than is entering. Clearly it cannot happen forever but shorter time spells? Why not?

          10

          • #
            Greg House

            spence #3.2.2.1: “Greg, why is it impossible that more energy can leave the system than is entering.”

            If the system has no energy source of it’s own, more energy leaving the system than has entered it would be equal to creating energy out of nothing, which is impossible.

            22

            • #
              spence

              Agreed but matter and energy are interchangeable, why should we expect a commensurate input output flux of energy in realtime.

              00

      • #
        John Brookes

        Look, this is truly pathetic. If you don’t understand something, and you can’t understand when people try and explain it to you, then you should just keep quiet. There is no virtue in being stupid and proud of it.

        35

  • #
    Debbie

    I would prefer better results in seasonal forecasting. Many businesses like agriculture, building, transport, mining, logistics etc would be really impressed if they improved.

    80

  • #
    handjive

    “Where is the basic understanding of science from the shadow Environment minister?”

    Like all doomsday global warmers, they fail to see the common fallacy in global warming arguments.

    “Rather than describe global warming climatology warts and all, the government obscures its unsavory features through repeated applications of a deceptive argument.

    Philosophers call this argument the * equivocation fallacy.”

    * Link via comments @hockeyschtick.blogspot: Why the forthcoming UN IPCC Report is already toast
    .
    To quote David Archibald from a speech he delivered at an anti-carbon tax rally in Sydney on July 1, 2012:
    “As for any politicians who have ever believed in global warming, or supported the carbon tax, or a carbon-constrained economy, there is no hope for them.
    They are either too stupid or incompetent to be taken seriously.”

    140

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    For any minister of the environment in the developed West, Scientific competence or even basic understanding is not in the job-spec. All that is required of the incumbent is that he/she BELIEVES. UK MP’s with a scientific background, such as Peter Lilley, are kept on the sidelines, as are those scientists in the Lords. I daresay Australia is similar.

    100

  • #
    Bevan

    I am most disappointed that you have chosen to ignore my posting #25 on this site over the weekend, see:
    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/our-daily-big-government-bread-unthreaded/

    Bevan September 1, 2013 at 11:04 pm · #25

    Regardless of that oversight, may I suggest that the most useful effort could go into re-organising the independent status of various institutions. I understand that CSIRO was an independent body run by a board of scientists until the Hawke Labor Government changed the structure and put non-scientist bureaucrats onto the board. This ensured that the CSIRO would be committed to following the Federal Government’s edicts regardless of the science, as we have seen with their reports on climate science being simply plagiarised versions of IPCC reports.
    Further, an effort could go into making the Universities independent of Federal Government financial manipulation so that we no longer experience the type of behaviour displayed by Macquarie University in sacking Prof. Salby for not following the Government’s decree on climate science.
    I realise that this has failed in the case of the ABC in that they totally ignore their Charter and actively promote a biased Green view of climate science. However surely this could be rectified by enabling citizens to take legal action when such an independent body ignores its Charter.
    Perhaps the Bureau of Meteorology could be made an independent body with a Charter that ensures they use established science instead of unknown mathematical methods to calculate global warming where-by, as every season passes, it is classified as the hottest on record.

    143

    • #

      Bevan, sorry, that’s exactly what I want above, discussion of the options of what we should be aiming for.

      I do want to make universities free of government influence, but the only way to do that is to run them on private funding. Here’s a radical thought. There is a big movement in the US towards homeschooling even up to the first two years of college, the idea is parents can save a bucket of cash, kids get a better education, and with the bonus that students get two less years of exposure to the drink and drugs environment. The net makes it possible.

      So…. so… Given that university degrees are now a dime a dozen, and even a Doctorate doesn’t mean much, a uni degree is not necessary. Employers are practical people, and if there is an independent examination to test the talent, employers will be happy to pick up those top graduates.

      BTW – see Ron Paul’s new homeschooling plan. Just starting today. Universities can be open school on the internet, at least for undergrad years?

      The answer is to move more people out of government run bodies and that will deprive those bodies of relevance and funding. What we want is competition.

      The problem at the ABC and CSIRO is now ingrained into the culture. I don’t know if either organisation can be saved, even though there are still good people at both, the management is what it is. This is 20 to 30 years of degradation, it won’t go away in much less. That’s why I think the answer is to start again.

      If there is real competition, the problem will sort itself out. Either the ABC or CSIRO will lift their game, or the funding will gradually shift…

      I have not had time to read fully your Comment #25.

      120

      • #
        Ian

        Perhaps a PhD doesn’t signify very much now but those who have gone through the process of a laboratory based PhD, where experiments have first to be designed then performed and the results then analysed, can testify to the fact that completing one isn’t as easy as it may appear. But then having completed such a PhD about 30 years ago I would say that wouldn’t I? Whatever it does give one an appreciation that the science is rarely settled and the process of peer review

        60

      • #
        spence

        There’s no need for Universities in the internet age. They offer learning, help, direction and practical experience, only the practical hands-on stuff is missing from the internet, that could be solved easily and kids would no longer be inculcated into so many bad habits at an impressionable age. A bit radical I know but lets move with the times.

        10

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        To address the root of the issue…….the major parties are simply unprincipled.
        I suppose it is fair dinkum if one party, such as labor, espouses the ‘principles’ of Marxism, big government, severe limitations to liberty, etc.
        However, the opposition should by the same token be bridled to the principles of individual freedom, free enterprise capitalism, and determined to GET GOVERNMENT TO HELL OUT OF MY FACE.
        Adherence to those principles necessarily mean that government has no business in business, whether that be education, health, infrastructure, etc.
        Instead we simply have both major parties veering gradually off teh road in the direction of the Communists Greens.

        60

        • #
          Angry

          Agreed we have the alp (Australian LIARS PARTY) and then the Coalition which is “labor lite” and not a true conservative party…….

          11

  • #
    Neville

    The science behind AGW is one part that can be debated, but the mitigation fraud and con should be exposed.

    Even Flannery admitted to Bolt that there is very little that can be done for hundreds of years and perhaps a thousand years.

    And that’s if every country in the world stopped emitting all further co2 emissions today.
    Lomborg’s team have shown that if all countries had applied Kyoto to the letter we would still have the same temp in 2100 that would have occured in 2096 under business as usual.
    In other words for all the endless trillions $ wasted until 2100 we would only postpone the temp by just four years.
    This is pure idiocy and only requires simple kindy maths to understand, but this seems beyond our brightest??????? pollies, scientists etc.
    We should spend a small amount of our funds on more R&D and adaptation and not flush billions straight down the drain for a guaranteed zero return.

    111

    • #
      John Brookes

      Even Flannery admitted to Bolt that there is very little that can be done for hundreds of years and perhaps a thousand years.

      I think he said that the CO2 in the atmosphere would be around for hundreds of years. Of course if we keep emitting like there is no tomorrow, then it will be worse.

      112

  • #
    Dave

    Labor employed Tim Flannery, after all.

    The then Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, said Tim Flannery’s appointment is to:

    “provide an authoritative, independent source of information on climate change to the Australian community” and “build the consensus about reducing Australia’s carbon pollution”.

    This means he sells us whatever scheme the Government cooks up to tax carbon dioxide, doing to the economy what the floods have done to Flannery’s hot-rocks investment.

    Flannery quote:

    “There are hot rocks in South Australia that potentially have enough embedded energy in them to run Australia’s economy for the best part of a century and the technology to extract that energy and turn it into electricity is relatively straightforward.”

    One of Geodynamics’ five wells at Innamincka collapsed in an explosion that damaged two others. All had to be plugged with cement.

    The hot rock idea was hit by the kind of floods Flannery didn’t predict in a warming world, with Geodynamics announcing work had been further “delayed following extensive local rainfall in the Cooper Basin region”. “The technological and financing difficulties mean there is no certainty now that a commercial-scale plant will ever get built, let alone prove viable, so it’s no surprise the company’s share price has almost halved in four months.”

    Kevin Rudd in 2009 awarded $90 million to Geodynamics to build a geothermal power plant in the Cooper Basin. One of Geodynamics five wells at Innamincka collapsed in an explosion that damaged two others. All had to be plugged with cement.

    This is why ALL POLITICIANS should be banned from making appointments, grants, departments, research orders, etc until a cost reality study has been done by an independent auditor.

    There has been way too many dumb FW’s that have been promoted to areas of “Climate Change” policy where havoc has reined, and Greg Hunt is the latest example, and will continue in his predecessors footsteps.

    111

  • #
    david purcell

    My correspondence with Greg Hunt a year ago showed him to be a true CAGW believer. Religeously so. He told me I was entitled to my opinion but he had a different opinion and that was that. He has no idea how science works and appears disinterested in finding out. This is very disappoiting.

    160

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Can we engender science-as-a-quest for truth, rather than a policy driven profession?

    It WAS a quest for the quest for knowledge ‘truth’ if you want. But since it has been hijacked by big banks, globalist empires with policy agendas (for the elites own good not the rest of us) who fund the likes of most of the research..then in short NO. ..no hope…

    61

  • #
    handjive

    “Crazy Uncle” Clive Hamilton sticks his head above the parapet over at theconversation.

    The power of the fragment: why politicians have turned their backs on climate

    I posted a link to Topher 50 to one in comments in reply to a skeptical journalist Mark Lawson from the AFR. See how long my comment lasts.

    50

    • #
      Debbie

      Love that Topher link.
      I will be sending it far and wide!
      Absolute common sense!
      Loved it :-)

      40

    • #
      Joe V.

      Why are there no links in the Topher page to the individual interviews it promotes ?
      (The only working links being to the 10minute video and to Topher’s homepage.)
      Aren’t they up yet ?

      20

  • #
    realist

    “The IPCC’s future existence depends on them finding a crisis”.

    A similar principle is the mantra of ALL political parties – Problem; Reaction; Solution. First create/establish a “crisis”, then create an air of urgency or priority to “fix” it by throwing copious amounts of public money at it (paid for by the naive and easily led punters voters). Rudd does this on the run. Fear is the common factor: the crisis “we” can “fix” so you no longer have anxiety that we, with the assistance of the MSM, established. All sides of politics trade on: “it’s their fault and we have a better guestimate policy on how to fix it than the others do”. Dilute or negate the fear/anxiety and hey presto, “problem” solved.

    Hunt, Wong, Combet, take your pick, they all originate from the same school of ignoramus ad infinitum for useful idiots; the only variation is the brand of used car yard politics. We don’t need different political parties to “keep the bastards honest”, we need a society chock full of capable free thinkers, ready to stand up and debate (not just argue) a point of view, ready and able to hold all politicians and bureaucrats to account.

    A core weakness and ability to withstand political manipulation is an uneducated, scientifically illiterate society. Science, but not of the politically correct kind, needs to be re-instilled at all levels of education to establish real nation building. Without a well educated, free thinking populace (by that I mean essentially apolitical) ready and able to dissect, analyse and formulate a coherent argument for two sides of any issue, they are all too easily manipulated and subject to political brainwashing. There are far too many sheep and goats ready to be (are being) shorn. We need more Dorpers, not Dummies ready to be fleeced. But would the Conservative side of politics be willing to stem the tide and correct the left’s intent of socialist domination? Are they part of the problem, like Lightweight Hunt and Turncoat Turnbull?

    I differ on establishing more organisations. Quangoes are all too easily infiltrated. We have far too many of them already and are in need of a drastic thinning out. Not just for reasons of small government. We need to start off the new political year with several open, transparent public enquiries (Royal Commissions?) that examine and bring evidence out into the open for all too see. Not just into Unions but particularly into Climate and other important issues that need a thorough examination in a scientific and legal framework. That would make it difficult for the MSM to cherry pick everything. Particularly when the ABC is required to answer to a close examination of how well it has adhered to its charter.

    90

    • #

      “Dilute or negate the fear/anxiety and hey presto, “problem” solved.”

      Have you noticed, the “problem” is never really solved. The applied solution is carefully designed to fail so that the “problem” remains and is likely worsened. That way they can get larger staffs, over stuffed budgets, and more coercive power to “solve” the “problem” again. The new “solution” has a similar failure built into it so the cycle is endless. That is what government does. It acts in such a way that failure is assured in every thing it does BY DESIGN!

      40

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        Certainly. The program is built into every single little self-centred minion. Overspend this year’s budget on crap, so that next year’s budget can be even bigger. Until the idea gets the chop, it is a vicious circle.

        20

    • #
      Spetzer86

      Well said. Unfortunately, the USA is wandering off on a different educational path. It’s a bit more touchy-feely and, from the looks of things, those thinking skills you’re talking about aren’t part of the picture. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/

      00

    • #
      Angry

      UN IPCC OFFICIAL ADMITS THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS A SCAM…..

      http://www.hotheads.com.au/carbon%20tax%20scam.htm

      01

  • #
    MemoryVault

    Jo, an interesting piece.

    Might I respectfully suggest that, before you write another article on “reasons to steal from the taxpayers and waste their money on MY pet project instead of of YOUR pet project“, you read three books:

    The Law, by Frederich Bastiat.

    How to Understand Economics in One Hour, by Marshall Payne, and

    The Little World of Don Camillo, by Giovanni Guareschi.

    .
    They are small books, and you could probably read all three in the space of a couple of days.
    Having read them, hopefully you will then understand that:

    1) – Any power of government to appropriate monies will very quickly be subverted to appropriating money for the government’s own needs,

    2) – In any vaguely “democratic” system, those government “needs” will very quickly devolve into promising whatever is needed to get re-elected (IE buying the most votes), and

    3) – The reasoning of “My Noble Cause is Better Than Your Noble Cause” is not a valid argument for the expenditure of funds forcibly expropriated from taxpayers. The only assured protection the taxpayer has, is if the appropriation cannot occur in the first place. This is what Part V, Sections 51 to 60 of the Australian Constitution is supposed to be about. Limiting what the Federal government can make laws about (and subsequently raise funds for, via taxation).

    .
    You have simply presented an argument of why taxpayer’s funds should now be expropriated and spent on research on what you NOW consider important. Only a few years ago you and David were completely on the other side of the fence, and, in fact, as a family, derived a substantial portion of your household income from taxpayer funding of the very research you now condemn.

    Yes, it is laudable that you and David have had your own personal epiphanies, and have crossed the Rubicon, so to speak, back to science and sanity. But, in your journey, how many young people did you pass, going the other way, lured to the Dark Side by taxpayer-funded dollars, power, and prestige.

    .
    The ONLY way to stop this, is to end direct taxpayer-funding of research completely. Let government fund university education strictly on a fixed-cost, per student basis only, with no strings attached. Then let the universities decide how they will spend their allocation.

    The market place will sort out the rest.

    130

    • #

      MV:
      Might I respectfully suggest you read my post again?

      Did I not forecast your response? Did I not say that it was a mere matter of time before any government funded entity would be captured by apparatchiks and used to make gatekeepers purr. Did I not say “short term” and did I not suggest reducing government spending on this by 99%?

      Did you think I would read Hayek, and Rothbard, and not know Bastiat?

      If my Nobel Cause is to reduce government waste and restore individual freedom, does that not neutralize the “Pet Project” hypothesis?

      If you also know how to achieve a rapid transformation of our science base from 99% government to 99% private at the same time as removing 20 years of climate propaganda, billions in vested interests, and two generations of nationalized-education-graduates, please tell.

      PS: Why do you want to cut government funding of research, but not make undergraduate courses compete in a free market? See my comment earlier — open education will deprive universities of a captive audience and a cash cow.

      40

  • #
    Ian H

    Congratulations on your 50:1 video.

    40

  • #
    Sunray

    Thank you Jo, for an uplifting article, however, when your enemy believes they have the divine deity(Gaia) is on their side, fine words and ideas are not effective, so stopping power is needed.

    30

  • #
    bit chilly

    bit off topic,but just watched your full contribution to the 50:1 project,great contribution.could you tell your husband he is my new hero,what a compelling statement of fact his interview was.
    i do however agree with memory vault above in relation to university funding,and government funding in general.thge last few decades have seen more and more government funds heading for groups that can shout ” my cause is more noble than yours ” the loudest here in the uk.
    the last thing the hard pressed taxpayer anywhere in the world needs is government finding more excuses for more taxation !

    30

  • #
    Speedy

    Does anyone know if there’s a party going on this Saturday night?

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    40

  • #
    Richard111

    Hummph! Since when did Gaia take sides? Since when did Gaia start responding to fudged data reports? What’s coming is coming. If you are not ready for it – too bad! It’s called evolution, aka ‘adapt or die’.

    10

  • #
    Ed Caryl

    “Only Climate Scientists can understand climate.”
    First, there there are no Climate Scientists. They disqualify themselves from the title “scientists” by their treatment od the science. There was no degree in the science until 2000, when, I believe, the University of Western Australia established that course of study. Most of the prominent people in the field have Physics or Math degrees. A few have Meteorology degrees but are not practicing Meteorologists. Any Engineer has more practice testing theories by taking actual data and comparing to predictions. In fact, many Technicians have more experience practicing Science. Any member of the “97%” has self-disqualified him/her-self as a Scientist. They are co-religionists.

    The second problem is that most politicians have no science background. They seem to instinctively reject any testing of their theories (laws and regulations) affecting the people they supposedly represent. They have no knowledge or experience that would impel or allow them to judge “Climate Science.”

    Those are the basics of the pickle we find ourselves in. We are are caught between two great religions: CAGW and Islam. At this point, CAGW is the larger threat to the people of the world. They have more dollars.

    130

  • #
    Tim

    A ‘Cost Benefit Analysis’ and ‘Return on Investment’ is a given for the commercial sector, so what happened to the largest global project in history?

    Our fearless leaders handed over our money and their power to handful of political activists with a hidden agenda.

    There must have been some powerful carrot and stick motivation behind the scenes for seemingly intelligent governments to agree without due independent examination, debate and investigation.

    The whole thing stinks of corruption and collusion.

    50

  • #
    Dan Clancy

    Great to see the all knowing Brookes is back.

    40

  • #
    Anton

    Lindzen’s latest telling contribution:

    http://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/lindzen.pdf

    Note where it is published and work out why!

    00

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Jo says “Science needs to be set straight” this is an understatement, consider how much science and it’s method has advanced the Human race.
    Then consider how fast Humans have retreated from positive advancement in recent times, by simply ignoring the method.

    00

  • #
    Jim Stewart

    Thanks Jo, well argued appeal for common sense in political (or any) decision making BEFORE committing us to major changes in our proven wealth generating paradigm.

    The UN’s ‘bloodhound’, the IPCC, has been given a smell of an AGW rag and is following it mindlessly to, hopefully, the edge of cliff appearing in front of it NOW.

    Well done.

    Jim Stewart.

    10

  • #
    Robber

    But Jo, we already have the CSIRO led by Dr Megan Clark, and their website says: “Our scientists are learning how the Earth’s climate system works through observation, measurement and modelling”. And they offer a booklet: “Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia provides the latest information to underpin decisions made in business, in government, and in general”.
    If CSIRO could be held to account, they have the brief and the government funding to deliver on the science.
    And then we have the Climate Commission led by Professor Tim Flannery, and their website says: “The Climate Commission was established to provide all Australians with an independent and reliable source of information about the science of climate change, the international action being taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the economics of a carbon price”.
    So we have two government funded organizations, both claiming to be independent and evidence-based, but led by “true believers” that will tolerate no debate.
    Who was it who said power corrupts?
    And as has been pointed out, Greg Hunt from the Liberals is no better. His website says:
    “The Coalition’s Climate Action, Environment and Heritage policy rests on four pillars:
    Direct Action on Climate, including the Emissions Reduction Fund, One Million Solar Roofs and the planting of 20 million trees
    Clean Land Plan, including the establishment of a Green Army, Landcare Recovery and a One-Stop-Shop for environmental approvals
    Clean Water, including the Murray-Darling Plan, a Plan for Water Security and the Reef 2050 vision
    A National Heritage Plan encompassing community heritage and national heritage icon”

    00

  • #
    sophocles

    A free market in research … how? We’ve just been watching it not work. The IPCC was (effectively) a “private” non-government funder. And look at the havoc it has wrought.

    This mess we have was created when the pollies forced “Performance Based Research Funding” onto the universities and research organisations. Those who published the most papers were more likely to receive their research funding from the available pool. (Guaranteed!)

    Riding on those coat-tails was the concept of monetization” of research. That is, research which could be used to make money (from industrialising it etc) would be
    preferentially funded. That spelt THE END to “Blue Sky” research. It all now had to be “purposed.”

    Academics have responded to these pavlovian cues by:
    – applying for research funding in the area(s) of “the moment” where funding is
    perceived to be readily available. (The IPCC has been an extravagant funder …).
    – developing skills in writing research proposals which contain all the “area of the moment”
    buzzwords/buzzphrases
    – producing trivial papers which mean many more papers
    can be squeezed out of a research grant than ever before
    – developing acute sensitivity to “trespassers” in the “area of interest”
    who might upset the (golden)apple cart
    – creating never-before-seen abusive and pre-emptive defence mechanisms to protect sacred the cash flow
    – writing really scary conclusions to pander to the funder’s pet opinions
    to keep the grants flowing

    In other words: you get politicised Syance, the finest
    re “search” money can buy.

    A “free market” won’t fix this. The market will never be free because the crafty, cunning and dishonest on both sides of the “market” will maneouvre to corner their advantages just as they have under the present PBRF regimen, or the modern financial
    markets (and if you think those are free, you are so wrong!). You get this warping on both sides: from those who want/desire “purposed” research to support their money-making and even cabals to control what research takes place. Strings will be attached: “who pays the piper, calls the tune.” No thanks. That’s what government funding was supposed to prevent.

    You are, however, correct about we, the “pee-pull,” having to consider and decide how research should be funded and controlled. I’m easy with The Government supplying funding but it can darn well keep its sticky fingers and opinions to itself. It should never be allowed to dictate the result.

    00

  • #
    sophocles

    A free market in research … how? We’ve just been watching it not work. The IPCC was (effectively) a “private” non-government funder. And look at the havoc it has wrought.

    This mess we have was created when the pollies forced “Performance Based Research Funding” onto the universities and research organisations. Those who published the most papers were more likely to receive their research funding from the available pool. (Guaranteed!)

    Riding on those coat-tails was the concept of monetization” of research. That is, research which could be used to make money (from industrialising it etc) would be
    preferentially funded. That spelt THE END to “Blue Sky” research. It all now had to be “purposed.”

    Academics have responded to these pavlovian cues by:
    – applying for research funding in the area(s) of “the moment” where funding is
    perceived to be readily available. (The IPCC has been an extravagant funder …).
    – developing skills in writing research proposals which contain all the “area of the moment”
    buzzwords/buzzphrases
    – producing trivial papers which mean many more papers
    can be squeezed out of a research grant than ever before
    – developing acute sensitivity to “trespassers” in the “area of interest”
    who might upset the (golden)apple cart
    – creating never-before-seen abusive and pre-emptive defence mechanisms to protect sacred the cash flow
    – writing really scary conclusions to pander to the funder’s pet opinions
    to keep the grants flowing

    In other words: you get politicised Syance, the finest
    re “search” money can buy.

    A “free market” won’t fix this. The market will never be free because the crafty, cunning and dishonest on both sides of the “market” will maneouvre to corner their advantages just as they have under the present PBRF regimen, or the modern financial
    markets (and if you think those are free, you are so wrong!). You get this warping on both sides: from those who want/desire “purposed” research to support their money-making and even cabals to control what research takes place. Strings will be attached: “who pays the piper, calls the tune.” No thanks. That’s what government funding was supposed to prevent.

    You are, however, correct about we, the “pee-pull,” having to consider and decide how research should be funded and controlled. I’m easy with The Government supplying funding but it can darn well keep its sticky fingers and opinions to itself. It should never be allowed to dictate the result.

    00

    • #

      Academics do not deserve any special privileges, if they want money, they should have to ask for it, like anyone else.

      Prominent skeptic Willie Soon gets by, asking private individuals and organisations to fund his research. He might miss the expensive junkets to Cancun and other exotic holiday destinations enjoyed by government funded scientists, but he gets to do the research he wants, free from political interference.

      00

  • #

    I think all state science should be defunded.

    Ayn Rand, author of the book “Atlas Shrugged”, called it right – all state science institutes degenerate into purveyors of imaginary hobgoblins, to scare a gullible electorate into providing ever more generous funding for featherbedded government scientists.

    10

  • #
    David Wood

    Why don’t we organize something like the the Oregon petition only with an Australian flavour. And without denigrating those with degrees in other areas perhaps this could be restricted to those with qualifications in the many areas directly involved in “climatology”, such as geology, meteorology, oceanography,real mathematics, etc (I’m sure you get my drift- Bob Cater explained it well in “Taxing Air”) As a retired Chem Eng (PhD in air pollution related subject) I would be very happy to assist.

    10

  • #

    ”Denier” is: denying that there is any GLOBAL warming. Denier doesn’t deny that the climate is changing; climate changes yes, global warming NO! Actually climate is in constant change – from summer into winter climate and back to summer climate – dry to wet climate changes are constant – BUT there is no global warming: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/

    00