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



NY Times climate news shrinks 30% — another signpost in the decline of The Great Global Warming Scam

It’s not just the money that is leaving the room as reality bites, the chattering classes are not chattering about it so much either. The New York Times closed their  Green Blog earlier this year, which covered energy and environment. Seven reporters and two editors were moved into different roles. Did that matter? Seems so.

Think Progress tells the sad story:

The decision was met with disbelief and consternation by many, although readers were promised that The Times’s environmental coverage would be as aggressive as ever, and that the decision was purely structural.

It’s always about “seeming” and not about doing isn’t it?

So much for “structural”, now there are 30% less stories:

Maxwell T. Boykoff, who tracks media coverage of the environment at the University of Colorado, reported to Sullivan that The Times published just 247 print articles that prominently featured climate change between April and September of last year, In 2012, there were 362 such articles during the same time period – that’s a decline of about one third.

Furthermore, in that six-month period since the environment desk closed, there were only three front-page stories in which climate change was the main focus, compared with nine the year before.

The NY Times is just one of many cutting down on climate change related stories as I noted in The day the Global Warming death spiral began. That global trend continues as measured by the Carbon Capture Report. This graph includes all mentions of “climate change” so it includes skeptical articles too.

Carbon Capture Report:

“This page summarizes all English-language monitored mainstream and social media coverage worldwide of Climate Change”

 

Milestones came and went

In the second half of 2013 we’ve had the fanfare release of the once-every-five-years AR5 report (as well as the more comprehensive and accurate NIPCC report) as well as the usual yearly two week junket. You might notice those small blips on the graph.

The cause is declining in popularity, but we’re still at the stage where the major players are pretending to go along — “it’s only structural” — and saying how much they are concerned even as their actions suggest the opposite. Look for the next shift where people don’t bother pretending.

One day people will rush to declare that they never really believed it.

POST NOTE The NY times itself admits the Green blog did not have a high readership.

“Times editors emphasized that they were not abandoning the subject — just taking it out of its silo and integrating it into many areas of coverage.  The changes were made for both cost-cutting and strategic reasons, they said, and the blog did not have high readership”

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
NY Times climate news shrinks 30% -- another signpost in the decline of The Great Global Warming Scam, 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/ojbncl6

155 comments to NY Times climate news shrinks 30% — another signpost in the decline of The Great Global Warming Scam

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    They still are not looking at real science and reporting it.
    They are keeping the scam going…just at a slooooower pace.
    Look at President Obama, he is whole hardheartedly pushing AGW no matter what.


    Report this

    380

    • #
      Mark D.

      For what it’s worth, Obammy looks the part of a fool with increasing regularity.


      Report this

      290

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        From this article, it would appear that Oh! Bummer! could be sailing into the wind.
        If the audience would only come to its feet and participate, the people of the USA might be able to change the plot of the drama that is unfolding.


        Report this

        160

      • #
        Leo Morgan

        As I septic, I’m delighted to see us winning the debate. Even more delighted that there is no climate-catastrophe, of course. Being awarded the debate on points and being wrong in reality would have been somewhat embarrassing.
        Nevertheless, part of why we win the debate is because we address the issues, and do not resort to sophistry or insult.
        We want to win the hearts and minds of all people of good will, not just those who share our political beliefs or scientific judgements. That includes even Obama supporters.
        Accordingly, I ask all of Jo’s readers to follow her example, and avoid silly games with names, like Obammy and Oh Bummer. Just think how twee and foolish a leftie would sound if he tried calling Tony Abbott “Dear Abbey”. That’s just how embarrassing the nicknames for Obama make you sound. It reflects poorly not just on you, but also on everyone who shares your opinions.
        Part of the reason we’re winning is because we take and hold the moral high ground. Lets keep doing that.


        Report this

        10

        • #

          That’s a laudable goal and it would be good if people could achieve it. If you dislike the man so much (as do I), you can use POTUS, instead of typing his name. Part of the problem here is the person in question blatantly lies, makes everything about him (even funerals of others) and generally is an embarrassment worldwide. Yes, he does hold the highest office in land, which is also an acute embarrassment that Americans twice fell for his rhetoric. It is very difficult to have respect for this individual and I suspect people might overlook the names used, as calling him a liar or incompetent or both (the first of which can be empirically proven, by the way) probably won’t sound any better. That’s why using POTUS may be a viable option.

          (I would suggest that if we are discussing the science the POTUS claims to be following, we do avoid name calling. Also, should the poster here be a US liberal, it is not considered morally wrong to call others names. They are actually just following their ethics. If they are not liberal, they might accidentally be mistaken for one….)


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          I am terribly sorry. I do apologise.
          I believe people have called him worse than that.
          Perhaps it is because Obama is not his real name?
          When he was adopted by his Indonesian step-father Lolo Soetoro was he not known as Barry Soetoro?


          Report this

          00

          • #

            Yes, people certainly have called his worse and still do. There’s some confusion as to what his name is/was–he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and that appears to be where the last name came from. So far as I can tell, Barack was always his first name–Barry was a nickname. Where any other legal or informal name changes occurred is unclear. He has a confusing lineage, to say the least.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The more influence a politician has, the less room they have to maneuver and change policy direction without the presence of an external stimulus (such as a dramatic weather event).

      Also the major economies are like large oil tankers — they cannot go from “full-ahead” to “stop” within the distance of the visible horizon.

      This is a severe restriction on the likes of Obama and Merkel, but much less of a problem for Abbott and Key.

      The activity graph says it all — politically, it finished in Copenhagen. The elections in Germany provide the opportunity for a reset, and we will see a different set of advisors being consulted within the central EU.

      In the States, the change will come with the next Presidential election, irrespective of which party wins the Presidency.

      In the meantime, countries like New Zealand, and Australia, that are much more nimble, have an opportunity to “punch above their weight” on the world stage.

      You Americans should be glad to have us as friends. :-)


      Report this

      400

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    Alternatively, the NYT may have taken the view that as the science is settled, the debate is over and climate isn’t news anymore. Keeping the scam under wraps is as good a way of controlling information and diminishing public interest and knowledge as any.


    Report this

    330

  • #

    This slow demise of so-called environmental journalism is actually an act of euthanasia, a mercy killing. To my mind, it always embodied the very worst aspects of journalism. All the grubby professional sins were there; advocacy dressed up as balanced reportage, an intolerant moral arrogance, totally one-sided reporting, knee-jerk churnalism, absolutely no distinction between opinion and factual pieces, suppression of stories that didn’t square with an approved set of viewpoints, selective misinformation, hit pieces dressed up as respectable journalism directed at their pet hate figures, a crusading willingness to sacrifice truth, by both omission and commission, in the name of a higher cause and a basic dishonesty to both the reader and their profession.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/a-species-facing-extinction/

    Pointman


    Report this

    601

  • #
    Matt Bennett

    “One day people will rush to declare that they never really believed it.”

    Hahahahahahahahaha!! You guys are great for a laugh.

    Now, who really wants to put their money on the 97% of scientists who are experts in the field vs the backslapping echo chamber of ignorance witnessed herein? I’m up for some easy $$$$….


    Report this

    394

    • #
      MemoryVault

      I’m in for $5,000.00.

      Terms are simple. Jo knows who I am and where I live.
      You email Jo with details establishing who you really are, with address, employer details etc.
      Once Jo has confirmed your identity and location, we both send her $5,000.00 via the chocolate box.
      Jo holds the money until November 2018 (five years).
      At that point we are both offered the choice of having our current views published, along with our personal details and address, or forfeiting our $5,000.00 to Jo and the blog.

      Deal?


      Report this

      590

    • #
      Carbon500

      Ah yes,‘97% of scientists agree that mankind is responsible for global warming’ – or do they?
      This oft bandied-about statement springs from a research paper entitled ‘Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change’ published in January 2009 by Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the University of Illinois at Chicago.
      I have it here in front of me. Here’s what happened. Comments in quotation marks are verbatim from the paper.
      Survey questionnaires were sent to 10,257 ‘Earth scientists’.
      The paper explains that ‘This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey’.
      These were:
      1)‘When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained generally constant?’
      2)‘Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?’
      The survey was ‘designed to take less than 2mins to complete’ and was administered online.
      The first thing to note is that of the 10,257 to whom the questionnaire was sent, only 3,146 individuals bothered to complete and return the survey – i.e. just short of 31%.
      ‘Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists’ – as opposed to for example oceanographers and palaeontologists. That’s 157 individuals out of the 3,146.
      Of these 157, 79 scientists had published more than 50% of their recent research papers on the subject, and so were deemed by the authors to be ‘the most specialised and knowledgeable respondents’.
      Think about that – 79 individuals out the total of 10,257 considered knowledgeable enough to have their opinion sought at the outset of the study!
      Of these 79, 76 (96.2%) answered ‘yes’ to question 1, and – wait for it – 75 out of 77 (97.4%) answered ‘yes’ to question 2.
      Job done – 97.4% of scientists agree that humans are warming the planet significantly!


      Report this

      320

      • #

        What the survey did not ask was a questions like
        1. Do you think that the planet will warm by at least 2 degrees this century?
        2. Do you think we are headed catastrophic climate change without immediate concerted global action?

        That is there was nothing about the future forecasts possible scenarios prophesies, and nothing about belief in human-caused climate change as a non-trivial, adverse, legacy to bequeath to future generations.
        The importance of the 97% is totally different. It is a proclamation by a community of believers that they are not heretics or deniers.


        Report this

        130

        • #
          Brett

          I think Doran himself sums up the value of the survey best:

          “Our study was the best it could be. Some people have problems with self-selected surveys, but we said exactly how we did it and put it out there. In my view, a self-selected survey is a better indication of reality than no survey at all.” – Professor Peter Doran

          Better than nothing ???

          If they added the question of whether man made objects fell from the sky, they could’ve establish that man is causing the sky to fall as well.


          Report this

          150

        • #
          bobl

          Brett, except man made objects do periodically fall from the sky – skylab for example.

          Anyway, it’s notable that the right questions are never asked.

          this is how I’d structure a survey.
          Fist, demographics

          Male / Female
          Age
          Political allegance

          Second knowledge,

          How much do you know about climate change
          Do you identify as a proponet of climate change action
          Do you identify as a sceptic of climate change action.

          Now the good stuff

          Has it warmed since 1850

          Is some of that warming manmade CO2 (Sensitivity less that 0.7 per doubling)

          Is most of that warming manmade CO2 ( Sensitivity 0.7 < x 1.4 per doubling)

          Is doubling CO2 bad for the majority of earth’s plants and creatures

          Is warming bad for the majority of earth’s plants and creatures

          Should we tax carbon dioxide

          Do you think taxing carbon dioxide will solve global warming

          Do you think there are bad side effects to carbon taxes

          Do you think we should adapt to CO2 later

          Do you think we get value for money from Trillions spent on global warming mitigation

          Do you think there are better things to spend money on than global warming such as poverty and disease.

          Do you depend on the reliability of your electricity supply

          Should electricity supplies be made less reliable to attempt to prevent 5% of global warming

          Does electricity cost too much

          Would you be prepared to double electricity costs and add 10 percent cost to most goods, including food, in order to attempt to prevent 5% of global warming.

          This is the sort of survey that would really count


          Report this

          100

    • #
      AndyG55

      As soon as I see someone use the 97% meme, I know I am dealing with an ignorant moron who has made NO ATTEMPT to verify any of the climate science propaganda…

      .. most probably because they don’t have the intelligence to do so.


      Report this

      371

    • #
      DT

      Question: How many scientists does 97 per cent represent?


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      ROFL 97% and you call us deluded. Your a funny guy Matt.


      Report this

      60

    • #
    • #
      Maverick

      There is that 97% again. You must have missed this post


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Backslider

      who really wants to put their money on the 97% of scientists who are experts in the field

      Well Joe, you have actually already lost the bet, unless you can show us all exactly how you arrive at that 97% figure in a way that has not already been thoroughly debunked.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Ceetee

      Yeah Matt, and when you have a bank account that looks like a line of fat men at a pie stall it’s a lot easier to forget the ethics of the better people who educated you or am I wrong?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Matt Bennett

    “decline of The Great Global Warming Scam”

    Just curious, if the scam is declining, who is to blame? Could someone point me to who is the head a the ‘scam’..? Where’s the control centre that is so badly failing its minions and how have they managed to make everyone tow the party line these last 20-30 years? Seems they’ve been pretty effective to make even the world’s leading scientific journals keep things mum…..

    Aaaaah the delusion.


    Report this

    157

    • #
      MemoryVault

      .
      Well, if they’ve all been busy “towing” the party line, it’s no wonder they’ve been mum.
      Those party lines can be pretty damned heavy.


      Report this

      320

      • #
        RoHa

        Indeed, MV. I keep seeing “tow the line”. (And not just from Americans.)
        Are these people so close to illiterate that they have never seen “toe the line” written down?
        Are they so ignorant of the fierce Royal Navy discipline that is the (probable) origin of the phrase?

        Dammit, even Nigel Molesworth gets it right.


        Report this

        100

        • #
          llew Jones

          I’d assumed toeing the line referred to lining up on the starting line in a footrace?


          Report this

          10

          • #
            RoHa

            Sailors standing in line on deck.


            Report this

            20

            • #
              Kevin Lohse

              Another origin for “toeing the line” comes from the Georgian sport of bare-knuckle prize-fighting. A line was marked on the floor of the ring, and after every knock-down the contestants had to stand up at the line facing each other to continue the fight. If a fighter was too beaten up to make it he forfeited the contest. “Up to scratch”, and, “Up to the mark” have the same origin.


              Report this

              10

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              I always knew my military social history papers would find use, some day … ;-)

              The line that sailors were required to toe, was a line marked on the decks of the old wooden warships. The line marked the extent of the recoil from a firing cannon.

              Thus, when they entered harbour, and gave a salute, the guns would be fired one by one, along the ship’s side, but the sailors would remain at attention, and not be seen to move.

              The degree of discipline required to actually make this happen, was what set the Royal Navy apart from all other navies during the Napoleonic wars.


              Report this

              00

      • #
        Matt Bennett

        Hey MV

        Can’t believe I actually typed ‘tow’ either, knowing perfectly well that it’s a line that is being “toed”. Put it down to late night fatigue and inadvertent aping of poor internet grammar seen everywhere. It hurts to see it in print as I am normally a stickler for grammar and avoiding “text talk”… Probably serves me right then ;-)

        I asked Jo about 24 hrs ago to send me you email (or give you mine) but I never checked back and it appears to be lost in moderation somewhere… Give her a heads up if you see this.

        Cheers, M


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      The ‘scam’ doesn’t need a head. It owes at least as much to self delusion as to orchestration.
      It just takes a sharp smack ( or a few in this case) up side the head to begin bringing the collective back to reality. A smack like the long overdue ejection of ALP & Greens from Government. A smack like rising fuel bills and renewables failing to deliver through a cold winter. A smack like reduced funding for the climate gravy train. A smack like Warsaw.
      How many smacks does it take . ?


      Report this

      270

    • #

      Matt, No one had to drive most of this… once the idea took hold, self interest did what self-interest does.
      It’s a thousand small scams at work independently. There’s a lot of people who stand to win from an exaggerated forecast of global warming — green activists raise donations and get invitations to UN events, financial houses broker an imaginary market (worth $176b at the peak in 2011), renewable investors get guaranteed returns ($250bn invested in 2011), whole government departments gain in status, money and power, some scientists get the red carpet plus giant junkets and rewarding grants, UN bureaucrats get jobs, journalists impress their friends at dinner parties with their moral vanity, and thousands of unpaid people get a sense of importance and self worth (albeit a false one).

      Added to that some bullies get an excuse to lord themselves over others — calling them names (denier) and pretending their preschooler skill of namecalling is admirable “for the sake of the planet”. Even this behaviour is a kind of scam — uninformed, ill-educated people are seeking a free ride — they want to get approval and social rewards (among other uninformed people) for holding an opinion they haven’t researched.


      Report this

      681

      • #
        LevelGaze

        Yes, it has been largely self-sustaining (like the tulip bulb disaster). Until it no longer is – and that time just might be in sight.

        But someone had to set off the chain reaction, then sit back and quietly admire their work. I can immediately think of two names:
        1. Maurice Strong
        2. George Soros


        Report this

        220

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          This little biography is just a teaser.
          It doesn’t mention the damage done through the creation of Petro Canada and Strong’s leadership of it. It fails to mention that in 1972 he kicked off a campaign to target carbon dioxide because the climate was becoming too COLD!. It doesn’t mention the million bucks he scammed from a gullible African nation, after which he went into a self-imposed exile in Communist China. It fails to mention the role his wife has played in the PRC either. It doesn’t even mention the role played by his Communist parents in the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919.
          If you are looking for an source of ignition, this is it.


          Report this

          140

        • #
          handjive

          WSJ -

          The U.N.’s Man of Mystery
          Is the godfather of the Kyoto treaty a public servant or a profiteer?

          “I don’t trust you, and I also question your integrity.” Thus did Maurice Strong offer me a seat on his living room sofa.


          Report this

          80

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        Exactly Jo.

        This is why our spokes person after Warsaw turned out to be the director of Oxfam. He was so busy sitting on his ass at the conference that he failed to notice how many 3rd world nations are experience desperate poverty and disease RIGHT NOW with no input from CO2 whatsoever. His purpose in attending the conference and chiding his own country for being stupid enough to send him, was to secure more funding, plain and simple.


        Report this

        60

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        Jo, the movements we are discussing do not have traditional management structures with a CEO as you correctly point out.
        FWIW, I met Maurice Strong a couple of years before he was centre stage at Rio in 1992. He was a soft spoken, charming personality but his message was privately disturbing to me. There I was, with managers from the Australian Mining Industry Council, being told by Strong that if we were to trade internationally, we needed to support a more centralised world, as in a one world order. Some of my colleagues were impressed by the advantages that Strong claimed were there for the taking, but I did not want to have any part of this movement. I don’t remember much about it the meeting because it was not noteworthy at the time.
        From the little I know from behind the scenes, I’d tend not to credit Strong with being a creator of the mess we are now in. It takes quite a few people to move a global direction. He was more a mouthpiece for a collection of wealthy patrons who long ago knew that money can be made faster in a time of change. So they engineered a change. These guys were quite clever, with detailed long term planning to infiltrate governmental decision making positions in many countries with chosen converts. It would have required massive financing (and possibly massive bribes or special deals to make people wealthy). So I go for old, bored money buying hearts and souls for a big change in a lifetime or two. Try the traditional bankers and industrialists, mainly the bankers though.


        Report this

        110

      • #
        Backslider

        We would probably all get a little bored if we didn’t get a Joe like Matt Bennett drop in occasionally.

        Thanks for the entertainment sonny.

        BTW folks, I am now back in Oz!!!! Woohoo!!!!


        Report this

        50

      • #
        Michael P

        Sounds like a pyramid scheme idea. I’m no lawyer but isn’t this illegal in several of the countries where it’s being pushed the hardest?


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Reed Coray

      Matt,
      When the time comes and you recant your emotional but unscientific feelings about AGW, you’ll probably be welcomed to the fold. Probably.


      Report this

      81

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Which is the “lead fish” in a school of fish?


      Report this

      120

    • #
      handjive

      Greetings Matt.

      “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.”

      Quote: Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and co-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group III

      Matt B has yet to free his self from the illusion delusion this is about ‘saving’ the environment.

      The truth is out there Matty.

      And the truth is here, at Jonova.

      Free yourself. Think for yourself.

      ———————-
      Just a quick reminder here that Mattb is not the same as Matt Bennett, just in case… – Jo


      Report this

      100

    • #
      Magoo

      Just wondering Matt, if it’s not a scam then perhaps you could point out at least one of the predictions of the IPCC that have come true. There’s the melting of the Arctic, but that was supposed to happen at both poles. Surely the ’97%’ must have at least one piece of empirical evidence to back up the predictions of the IPCC? No? None? Not even one?

      How flawed is the 97% consensus claim? Dr. Roy Spencer stated that he is within the 97% according to the questions yet he rejects that man is the main cause of the temperature changes. Maybe you should examine the 97% a little closer to see how you’ve been taken in. Not that a consensus matters, but here is a new survey from the American Meteorological Society that has direct and clear questions – it shows that only 52% accept AGW:

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/


      Report this

      90

    • #
      James

      Matt B “Just curious, if the scam is declining, who is to blame? Could someone point me to who is the head a the ‘scam’..?”

      1. The UN is to blame because they have used this as a method to scare gullible governments into funding their flagging financial resources that started declining shortly after the cold war ended and only had a temporary stay during the Hole in the Ozone Layer ‘crisis’. People aren’t as gullible as governments prostituting for votes from fringe groups desperate for a cause – any cause as long as they get attention.

      2. There is no ‘head of the scam’ this is just like any other confidence trick – it self perpetuates – the more greedy people that see there is a dollar to be made the more outrageous the claims of Armageddon, and just like any other good con trick when the globe doesn’t warm as predicted, when the dams don’t dry up as predicted, when the sea level ‘rises’ are localised (kind of defies physics that one), when the sea ice expands, when the medieval warm period and the little ice age can’t be ignored then they move on to ‘Climate Change’. Big whoop. Next they’ll try to say that the extra heating of the Earth’s crust will cause expansion devastating the planet with quakes, tsunamis and volcanoes. Give me a break.

      If Flannery, Mann, Suzuki and their ilk seriously believed that any remedial action will take 1,000 years to have affect yet the Earth will reach the point of no return within the next century they would all be building bunkers, storing food and water and stockpiling illegal weapons, counting the money they collect from donations and not purchasing mansions by the sea in between jetting from country to country to promote the scam.


      Report this

      160

    • #
      gbees

      the scam spread like a disease once it began ….. I’ll toss out Maurice Strong as being a key initiator ..
      http://www.mauricestrong.net/


      Report this

      80

    • #
      Winston

      Matt,
      A far more interesting question is:

      Why would a seemingly intelligent and well educated person such as yourself (from the tone and content of previous posts here) still cling so fervently to this pseudo-religious doctrine , which at its core is relentlessly anti-human, shows a callous disregard for the suffering of the poor and the disenfranchised, and which if it were successful would spell the end of the glorious progression of Homo sapiens as a species, from cave dwelling feral animal to a space conquering, highly organised and proficient civilisation? Were you abused as a child, ostracised at school, a dud with the ladies? What possible motivation could there be for ignoring the fact that observations do not bear out the hypothesis of a catastrophic and exponential rise in temperature (Its flatlining), that a warmer world is worse for humanity (when every historical precedent says the exact opposite), or that extreme weather events are more frequent when clearly there is nothing unusual there at all, in fact extreme weather events have been remarkable by their rarity compared to even the 1970s? When I think of the 100s of thousands of dollars spent educating you, that this is the best you can come up with? if that’s the case, then yes, you are right, we are all doomed. Just not for the reasons you think.


      Report this

      411

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Thats a great description of exactly whats happening Matt.

      Can you imagine being a junior environmental scientist within something like the CSIRO climate division. Are you really going to stroll up to the boss and go “listen Im not so sure”? Keep in mind Darwin sat on his ideas for a long time. Almost so long that Wallace nearly trumped him for history. Why? Mainly because he was so afraid of the response of the established “consensus” of science and religion at that time, he wrestled with the idea of bringing it all down. Not many people have his strength and conviction. Then throw in a nice salary and family and mortgage commitments and silence becomes genuinely golden.

      As usual, you and your ilk exist in a rarefied atmosphere of unreal beliefs and expectations about how the real world functions.

      It must be nice and I have often craved that level of disconnection.

      Cypher: You know, I know this steak doesn’t exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize?
      [Takes a bite of steak]
      Cypher: Ignorance is bliss.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Safetyguy:
        there was the human element too, in that he knew it would upset his wife who was quite religious. He knew the church goers would blame her (illogically) for his ideas.

        He had no qualms about discussing his views within scientific circles. That is why Wallace wrote to him because he had heard of Darwin’s interest (Wallace wasn’t part of the main stream circle like Darwin). And note that the original double paper presented caused no fuss whatsoever while circulated among scientific circles.

        O/T but Darwin behaved very properly over Wallace and always acknowledged his work, and used his influence in official matters on behalf of Wallace.


        Report this

        40

        • #
          Safetyguy66

          Hey Graeme, yes point well made. Darwin shared the credit once it became apparent they had to publish together for fairness.

          Your point about the family and other issues is also well made. Like many of you (no doubt) I have lost friends over this topic and I am about the only one in my immediate family who holds the views I do. We basically dont talk about “it” as a family. But I have always been outspoken and my singular motivator is the desire to be on the right side of the truth. If evidence emerges tomorrow that convinces me CO2 drives our climate and that the CO2 we have put in the atmosphere creates the “tipping point” where naturally occurring CO2 goes over into Armageddon creating CO2, then I am ready to switch camps at a heartbeat’s notice.

          So far, having read more or less every bit of material I can find from both sides of the argument, I find the notion that AGW will end life as we know it to be poorly thought through, alarmist and all but completely unsupported by observational evidence.

          So given that’s how I see it, I will continue to argue strongly with anyone who wants to have the debate, that AGW is akin to a religion and has about as much to do with science as Scientology does.

          At the same time having been formally warned about my views in my last workplace (Wind Turbine Manufacturer) I can absolutely understand how some people in some positions would have just raised the white flag on the whole topic and figured that its not worth having an independent view, for some people it can cost them their career, their family, their public credulity and more. Its a sad, sad day for science when asking questions and thinking outside the so called box is not only unwelcome, its dealt with in a hostile and hysterical manner.

          The people currently aligning themselves with the so called consensus will look back in years to come and the shame of being so easily hoodwinked will almost break them. Talk to any German who lived through WW2 while attending rallies for the National Socialists, time and again you will hear them say “I don’t know what we were thinking, we just got swept up in the times” So it will be for AGW when realisation dawns that all the panic was for nothing.


          Report this

          60

        • #
          Eugene WR Gallun

          Darwin did state his views among his fellows — and he never stated the crux of the theory he was later to claim as his own. Darwin was a man who had all of the pieces but lacked the unifying concept. Wallace’s letter to him put all the pieces together for Darwin.

          Wallace didn’t need Darwin to discover the theory of evolution but Darwin needed Wallace to understand what his own data meant.

          Darwin had never hesitated to publish before and his own older ideas on the subject are on record — and they indicate that he lacked the unifying idea that Wallace sent him.

          You forget that Darwin had no evidence for his claims for priority — except his word as a gentleman of the upper class — and Wallace, in the thinking of the times was too lowly a person to be allowed to make the upper class look bad by outdoing them. You forget how vicious the system was back them.

          So really what Darwin did was, with all his complied data, confirm the idea of Wallace. And he allowed his own class of people who held the power to proclaim him the originator of the idea while occasionally, like a “gentleman” should, mentioning Wallace.

          And remember this — In “Origin of the Species” — where it really would have counted and had impact — did Darwin mention Wallace? The book that all would read, that would carry down through the ages, totally cut Wallace out.


          Report this

          20

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      And add, to all of the above, that the response to Climate Change has been primarily regulatory, which requires associated administrative and monitoring bureaucracies.

      A primary objective of any bureaucratic organisation is the continued maintenance of the status and power of that bureaucracy. This is especially so, when the bureaucracy happens to be within the secretariat and supporting functions of the UN, which is solely answerable unto itself, and does not require any external electoral mandate in order to function.


      Report this

      90

    • #
      Bob Massey

      Just one acronym Matt I P C C you know that quasi scientific body which really is a political body structured to redistribute the worlds wealth. Please keep up.


      Report this

      51

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Mr Bennett, it seems Jo, LevelGaze, and James have given you most of the answer already.
      Not much more needs to be added.

      There are few that would deny that a warming in global temperature had occurred. It is the blaming of such warming on industrial CO2 and the subsequent social and political response that we occasionally describe as a scam, or more rarely in terms of “The C Word” (it rhymes with literacy).

      If you think the Global Warming hypothesis is not a scam then you would have to wonder how it could all go so fundamentally wrong for so long. My brief history of the backwardness of climate science was here. Roy Spencer’s “My Climate Skepticism” list is more succinct and points 11 through 17 are particularly relevant to your question.

      If you are open to the possibility that it is operating as a scam now you may wonder if it ever started with good intentions. My previous attempt to find evidence of Global Warming operating as a deliberate scam, past and present, was here. Some related events in the corruption of climate science are covered by JoNova on the ClimateGate Timeline page, and other events covered by Steve McIntyre on his Climate Audit blog such as here and here.

      BTW… a cooling in climate over at least the next 15 years is as certain as any statement made about the future can be certain. In your bet with MV you have given Jo the easiest $5,000 she is ever going to make.


      Report this

      50

  • #

    ‘All the grubby professional sins were there; advocacy dressed up as
    balanced reportage, an intolerant moral arrogance, totally one-sided
    reporting,knee-jerk churnalism …’ Hmm … sounds like ‘our’ ABC.


    Report this

    250

  • #
    Woodsy42

    I find this lack of interest dangerous. It allows the scam to be prolonged and run at a lower level beneath the public awareness. What we need is their ‘green’ desks to be overturned and made into investigation teams to report on what happened, why it happenned and point the finger of blame.


    Report this

    190

  • #
    Ian

    Jo If you didm’t watch Foreign Correspondent last night maybe you might like to. Far from being an objective and compassionate report on the wreckage of the Philippines much of the footage consisted of the reporter asking members of the local communities leading questions about the relationship between Typhoon Haiyan and climate change. It looks as if the diehards at the ABC are certainly not going to fold their tents and silently slip away. I object to paying tax to help support this organisation which certainly doesn’t represent my views.


    Report this

    180

    • #
      Ian H

      That is the standard for what passes for journalism these days. It is argument by emotion. Rationality has little to do with it. The stories are constructed almost to a formula much like this.

      ===========================================

      Step 1: Find a person (pefereably a child) with a pitiful sob story and wring every ounce of emotion out of their specific plight that you can find. Let’s call them “Jonny”.

      Step 2: Identify a villain. Perferably the western world or a corporation. Incite anger. No need to actually make the case – pointing the finger is enough.

      Step 3: Back to Jonny. More tragic sob story.

      Step 4: The voice of the activist. Someone terribly concerned about the plight of “kids like jonny” who will state – with barely raw emotion leaking from every pore – that the villain is to blame.

      Step 5: The sop to rationality and balance. Find the most foolish looking person you can find to speak for the villain and present the other side. Cut out all but the 10 seconds where they make the weakest of their arguments and present only that.

      Step 6: Back to the activist to destroy the selected weak argument and rage at the villain once again for denying responsibility for the plight of kids like Jonny.

      Step 7: The wrap. “But none of this matters to poor Jonny – he is just wondering where he is going to sleep tonight.”


      Report this

      120

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Living in Woodside which was in the “news” when the Camp was announced and the TV crews descended on us, I know that they come up with the “predetermined view” and look only for evidence supporting it.

        You may recall the TV shots of people speaking “against the camp” at the public meeting. 5 of the 6 shown were not residents of Woodside. One bloke shown swinging his arms around but NEVER with any sound was actually speaking in favour of the camp. He was upset that he reappeared 3 or 4 times always as an objector.

        Curiously, Channel 9 were the worst. Someone I know was getting out of her BMW when their crew approached for her view, believing she would be against it. They recorded about 15 seconds then abruptly left and she never appeared on TV. They got people out of the less classy pub where they were spending the weekday, and coached them with written answers to get “the right views”. I never saw any money change hands but believe it was readily “available in liquid form”.

        This got us a reputation as a bunch of rednecks. Yet when some party tried to get a protest meeting going months later they struggled to get 20 people from Woodside to attend. They had to hold meeting elsewhere to get enough numbers for the TV.
        The reaction of the bureaucracy was also negative. Kids were bussed all over the place, but none ever went to the local Primary school (admittedly almost full due to lack of Gov. funds for years). Sporting Clubs which approached the Camp offering coaching and facilities for the kids never got a reply. In hot weather the local pool was only ever used by the Camp if exclusive access was made available.
        The Council appointed 2 Community Liaison Officers (part-time, subplot teach those rednecks how to behave) who resigned after 6 months having never received any instruction nor permission to do anything. They were replaced but I’ve never heard anymore about them, save they were running an information meeting at a town 25 km away.

        Don’t think there wasn’t opposition. I recall that when some outside mob put out that the camp kids had jumped the perimeter fence and raided the neighbours grapevines saying “I was against that camp, and the way it was announced, but if those kids can find ripe grapes in the Hills in early January, I know of 6 growers who’ll hire them as pickers”. (O/T but the basis of the story was the kids were getting into a vacant house inside the Camp with 2 plum trees in the backyard and helping themselves to ripe fruit. Not the sort of news the TV wants to air).


        Report this

        10

  • #

    The decline in AGW column inches reflects the publics attitude, i.e. the public isn’t as interested about AGW as they were a few years ago. HOWEVER….

    The public is irrelevant in this instance. So long as policy makers are interested (why wouldn’t they be, this is the biggest potential broad based tax in history), so long as academics are interested (why wouldn’t they be, the grants keep coming), then the scam is alive and well. Just ask Obama.

    p.s. Yes yes Australia and Canada have gone in a different direction to the rest, but it will take a change in government and just one big El Nino and they’ll be back in the fold.

    This scam will last as long as the money does.


    Report this

    280

    • #
      ianl8888


      … a change in government and just one big El Nino

      Agreed … unprecedented, much worse than thought, new studies show, nearly too late and so on and so forth. Climatic Armageddon is upon us slothful sinners

      By then the national power grids will be almost unsalvageable


      Report this

      50

  • #
    john robertson

    The money ends in late 2014, early 2015, right now it is important to encourage the “righteous” to continue their doomsday preaching.
    The internet never forgets and the stunning denial of the current evidence, actually aggravates the non involved.
    Putting the general public into the classic; ‘Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes”, while you berate them for daring to doubt your divine wisdom, generally does not end well.
    A continuation of the “pause” in the Teams own data base, more cold winters and continued economic damage due to idiotic green drama and reality will return, the media (even the Presstitutes) do sense the public mood , they are currently going silent or doubling down on the CAGW hysteria.
    I trust I am not alone, in noting the ever increasing shrillness of the cult of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming?
    When there is nowhere else to go, these same presstitutes, will be insisting that they were sceptical of the hysterical claims of human induced warming, but those evil “scientists” led the poor gullible media astray.
    Or the progressive classic;”We had to lie to you, for your own good”.


    Report this

    150

    • #
      Brett

      I don’t think they need much encouragement. Just give Timmy Flim Flam one mild summer. He will go nuts and say something like there will be cane toads in thredbo. I’d like to see who could guess his next prophecy. Good luck, he has a million dollars worth of ideas.


      Report this

      30

  • #

    The NY times itself admits there just werent that many readers who were interested.

    In January, The Times dismantled its “pod” of reporters and editors devoted to that subject. And in March, it discontinued its Green blog, a daily destination for environmental news.

    Times editors emphasized that they were not abandoning the subject — just taking it out of its silo and integrating it into many areas of coverage. The changes were made for both cost-cutting and strategic reasons, they said, and the blog did not have high readership

    As the money moves out of the Green world, there will be less people employed in the field who feel they need to keep up, less investors trying to stay informed, possibly less students studying it at uni who see future careers in these areas.

    This is all a perfectly natural sign of decline. People are moving on.

    Though of course there are billions of dollars of momentum yet to burn out…


    Report this

    360

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      “, although readers were promised that The Times’s environmental coverage would be as aggressive as ever, and that the decision was purely structural.”

      Just as aggressive eh, just not like anything so often :-)
      Doesn’t ‘purely structural’ mean, like. If we take the structure away it’ll collapse by itself.

      Compare this to typical UN & EU initiatives that consume all the resource in the structure, producing little worthwhile output.


      Report this

      110

      • #
        ROM

        Way back around Climate Gate and Copenhagen in in late 2009 [ anybody remember where they were when that was the NEXT BIG THING in global governance and politics ? ] I read somewhere on a blog and darned if I know where, that a media research project had shown that it took the Media about 7 years to switch from one hard held public position to another or opposite position following a major shift or change in the subject .

        Climate Gate and the failure of Copenhagen in late 2009 was the catastrophic shifting of the goal posts for the CAGW meme.
        That shifting of the goal posts from a full on aggression by the apostles of CAGW meme whereby the world was slated to bow to their ideology, to a defensive position where they have tried to just hold their previous gains is now well on the way towards spelling the end of the whole of the immense corruption and hostage taking of science and public policy by the CAGW climate science scammers.

        Copenhagen and Climate Gate were a bit like Stalingrad and Midway in WW2 where at the time nobody realised that those battles were the climatic battles that sealed the fate of one of the belligerents. But it was still to take much time and blood and treasure to finish the fight.

        From Climate Gate and Copenhagen in late 2009, those seven years that the media research project indicated would be the length of time before the media had completed it’s switch over to a new and perhaps opposing position, would place the final media switch around the end of 2016.

        In between of course will be a whole range of changing media and now political attitudes to the CAGW claims, something we are now witnessing as the big media shift is getting under way.

        Also don’t discount the ever shifting, changing personnel in the media as editors, sub editors, reporters and commentators all retire or move on over the years. Each new entrant will try and do something that will diferentiate himself / herself from all those who have gone before hand and had set that media’s previous policies and attitudes.
        The new entrants will try and shift away from those older attitudes and policies as they have lived and grown up in another and always different cycle of our generational outlooks.

        So am i surprised by the shift in the media towards more of and an increasingly skeptical outlook on the whole CAGW meme?
        No!
        I expected something like this to emerge sooner or later and the fact that it has in a highly recognized format such as the NYT’s can only be a very good omen that the whole of the CAGW scam is on a rapidly increasing downward trajectory towards being just another entry on the stupidity of mankind’s foibles that will be consigned into the dust bins of history, there to be hopefully and carefully forgotten by all those who were suckered in by the climate catastrophe snake oil salesmen.


        Report this

        90

  • #
    Carbon500

    Were I a politician, I’d start to jump ship now and say upfront that I considered the whole CAGW business to have been shown to be a flawed concept, and that it was now time to move on.
    That would I think be a good bet for my career say 5 years on from now.


    Report this

    160

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Although the apparent end of this source of alarmist propaganda is welcome, it is probably more due to the growth of climate agnosticism, rather than any other reason.

    Amongst the people I know, I have noticed a growth in the attitude of “Of course, all this guff about global warming is BS, but there’s nothing I can do about these stupid politicians who just want to find new ways to tax us.”


    Report this

    200

  • #
    Scott Mc

    Decrease by 30%, 9 people, that means the NYTimes had 30 people working on it? Seems hard to imagine that many people at one newspaper reporting on climate….

    What are the 21 people left at the NYT doing??


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    97% of journalists agree, the stories aren’t making money any more.


    Report this

    100

    • #
      Michael P

      When I see someone roll out the 97% argument I’ve shot that down in flames several times where someone has written to my local paper with this theory that because 97% agrees we should believe anything they say,without requiring them to provide proof. It’s the argument of someone that has already lost the argument.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Robert

    The AGW has introduced two new concepts which are anathema to science: Scientific consensus and the Precautionary principle. This is because the main bastions of science, observation, experiment and measurement, did not give the politically correct answers.

    The AGW hypothesis failed to meet these criteria so they had to make-up others to accommodate it. And now even these are seen to be fundamentally flawed, e.g. 97%, so the philosophy of Herr Goebbels is relied on, if you say anything often enough people will believe it. But now there is a diminution in this as well as some articles to the contrary are appearing in the media. I don’t think the “Hockey Stick” carries much weight now, but it served its purpose very well at the time in the IPCC summary.

    Will it go away or continue because of the money involved; that’s the $$$ question.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    pat

    the graph at “The market does not care that the TV audience is declining” is a laugh. free wifi is obviously playing a part in the US, as this article states, but from Climategate on, it has clearly been counter-productive for the MSM to continue inserting CAGW scares into their programming, especially in TV documentaries, which are expensive & lose their repeat value as a result:

    25 Nov: BusinessInsiderAustralia: Jim Edwards: TV Is Dying, And Here Are The Stats From The US That Prove It
    http://www.businessinsider.com.au/cord-cutters-and-the-death-of-tv-2013-11


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Manfred

    Put your money where your mouth is. Things are changing.

    There are now some who appear confident enough to stand-up and pronounce:

    ‘With BHP Billiton’s annual meeting being kidnapped by the climate chorus, the chairman finally snapped in defence of the Global Australian’s continued embrace of its carbon future’.

    “We will not be investing in wind and solar,” he declared . “That is just not us. So if that is the type of investment you are looking for, cash in your BHP Billiton shares and go and buy some wind and solar shares.”

    With that, Nasser urged shareholders to make up their own minds on BHP’s strategy. “You have to make up your own mind on where you invest your money,” he urged. In other words, if you reckon the risk of a carbon bubble or future liability is real, then you might want to sell BHP.

    ….Similarly, if you cannot reconcile the fact that BHP makes money digging coal and drilling for oil with its acceptance of climate science and the need for the world to respond to that, then sell and invest in something else.

    Wind, solar, not for BHP
    Finally Jac Nasser cracked.


    Report this

    120

  • #
    pat

    worth reading it all:

    27 Nov: UK Telegraph: Sean Thomas: Most scientists believe in man-made global warming. Here’s a new reason why they may be wrong
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100247913/most-scientists-believe-in-man-made-global-warming-heres-a-new-reason-why-they-may-be-wrong/


    Report this

    50

  • #
    pat

    27 Nov: Reuters: Germany sets out plan to rein in surging energy costs
    By Henning Gloystein and Christoph Steitz
    (Additional reporting by Madeline Chambers in Frankfurt and Matthias Inverardi in Duesseldorf; Editing by Jane Baird and Noah Barkin)
    German parties have agreed to limit the growth of renewables and reform controversial incentives for the sector by next summer in a move to slow the rise in electricity costs for households and give big utilities more time to adapt their business models…
    One of their top priorities will be a reform of the renewable energy law (EEG), which has sent costs for consumers soaring because of generous incentives for solar and wind power…
    “The coalition aims for a fast and fundamental reform of the Renewable Energy Law and plans to submit a draft by Easter 2014, with the goal of passing it by summer 2014 in order to a create a reliable energy policy framework,” the coalition contract said.
    The agreement stops short of promising a reduction in utility bills…
    From 2018, grants will be handed out through competitive tender offers, which will be based on a 400 megawatt photovoltaic pilot tender scheme to be launched in 2016.
    “In the further expansion of renewable technologies, cost efficiency and economic viability of the entire system … need to have a higher significance,” the deal reads.
    The coalition deal says the new government will not change any schemes that had been paid out or are already running…
    Germany still plans to generate 40 to 45 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025 and 55 to 60 percent by 2035, according to the agreement.
    That is broadly in line with the outgoing government’s goal to raise the renewable share to 35 percent in 2020 from roughly 25 percent today. But it falls far short of SPD demands for a target of 75 percent by 2030…

    ***To safeguard security of supply, the government will encourage the expansion and modernization of the grid and the development of power storage technology and find ways for power generators to operate gas and coal power stations profitably as backup for renewable capacity, the agreement said…

    Bank analysts said, however, the reforms would not be enough to improve utility profits.
    “We maintain our view that these measures are unlikely to dramatically improve generators’ profitability,” JP Morgan said in a research note. Credit Suisse said that “none of the (reforms) will alter the economics of the German power and gas business in the short term”…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/27/us-germany-coalition-energy-idUSBRE9AQ0WJ20131127


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    New German coalition opposes cancelling CO2 permits permanently
    LONDON, Nov 27 (Reuters) – Germany’s new coalition government, while backing the EU’s backloading plan to delay the sale of 900 million carbon emission permits, will oppose any move to cancel them permanently, a coalition document showed…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.3106006

    26 Nov: Reuters: EU agrees new compromise on car emissions limits
    More flexibility compared with agreement reached in June…
    The European Union on Tuesday agreed a compromise to enforce stricter rules on carbon dioxide emissions for EU cars, ending months of wrangling after Germany insisted an earlier deal was torn up.
    The new outline agreement delays 100 percent implementation of a limit of 95 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre (CO2/km) for all new cars until 2021 from a previous deadline of 2020.
    ***It also changes the rules on flexibility, giving more leeway to German luxury car manufactures such as Daimler and BMW whose emissions are higher than those of smaller, lighter automakers such as Fiat…
    (HUH? HA.)Environmental campaigners, who have strongly criticised the German stance, gave a very cautious welcome to the deal, saying at least it provided certainty.
    “It is disgraceful that the heavy-handed lobbying of Germany has paid off in weakening the 95g target,” Greg Archer of campaign group Transport & Environment said.
    “Still, this revised deal will provide much needed regulatory certainty and ensure cars continue to reduce their CO2 emissions and improve fuel efficiency.”…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/26/eu-cars-idUSL5N0JB3W020131126


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    26 Nov: Reuters: Ben Garside: ECC to allow EU carbon permits as margin collateral
    Germany-based clearing house European Commodity Clearing (ECC) will allow EU emission permits to be used as collateral for margin payments from December 2, it said, in a move that could boost liquidity on its partner exchange, EEX.
    “Until the emission allowances are used as compliance instruments, our customers can make use of their stock of EU Allowances (EUAs) to reduce the capital commitment through other forms of collateral,” said Thomas Siegl, ECC’s chief risk officer, in an emailed statement on Monday…
    Margins act as security payments for exchange-based trading. Allowing dealers to use their holdings of permits as collateral potentially frees up more capital to trade.
    ECC is the clearing partner of EEX, which aims to gain market share in carbon trade from Britain-based ICE Futures Europe, the market leader…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/26/us-eu-carbon-exchanges-idUSBRE9AP0EM20131126

    Reuters Point Carbon had this headline as their good news story today! of course, they don’t get to the ***but in the excerpt they publish for non-subscribers:

    26 Nov: BusinessRecorder: Reuters: EU carbon hits 8-session high after German government deal struck
    EU carbon prices climbed to their highest in almost two weeks on Wednesday as news that Germany’s two main political parties had reached a deal on forming a government increased the chance that a measure to cut permit supply would pass, traders said.
    The December 2013 EU Allowance climbed 2 percent or 9 cents to 4.58 euros, the highest since Nov. 15.
    ***But it fell back into negative territory as traders sold permits in expectation that there would be no further gains and it ended down 1 cent at 4.48 euros…
    The coalition agreement contains a raft of energy policies including extending renewable energy goals but cutting back on support payments to producers of wind power.
    ***”There’s an argument that with a deal in place, utilities will find it easier to plan ahead and sell more electricity,” the trader added, suggesting this could lift demand for carbon…
    http://www.brecorder.com/top-news/109-world-top-news/146284-eu-carbon-hits-8-session-high-after-german-government-deal-struck.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bite Back

    At this rate I’ll soon have nobody left to bite back at.

    Joanne, you’ve got to keep at least 1 or 2 of them going. :-)


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Bulldust

    O/T but this is a piece many here will appreciate I am sure:

    http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/two-economic-myths-about-paper-money/2013/11/27/

    A sober look at two of the myths associated with paper money written by Ron Paul.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    for reference:

    27 Nov: Reuters: FACTBOX-How do China’s carbon markets work?
    http://www.trust.org/item/20131127060348-lb2g1


    Report this

    00

  • #
    warren raymond

    Running out of emissions, are we? Hehe….


    Report this

    20

  • #
    William Astley

    Part 2 of the climate change story (post climate wars) needs to play out. There is now observational evidence that high latitude regions (record sea ice in the Antarctic all months and the start of a rapid recover of Arctic sea ice) are starting to cool (20th century warming is reversing). Significant global cooling would be newsworthy, a game changer.

    There is a very strong scientific case to support the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes and that the majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2 was due to warming of the ocean, as opposed to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. If there is unequivocal cooling of the planet due to the new solar magnetic cycle, Maunder like minimum and if atmospheric CO2 levels drop, there will likely be some public discussion concerning the $2 trillion dollars that has been spent on green scams.

    The obvious news store will be the billions and billions that has been spent on ‘climate’ research that reached an incorrect conclusion, trillions of dollars spent on green scams (what has been accomplished?), and that the complete scientific basis of the IPCC reports was incorrect.

    It is expected that news story would have legs and would take a few years to pay out and will have political ramifications. What will make the end of the climate wars particularly entertaining, is the CAWG crowd will continue their propaganda and attempt to explain the cooling away.


    Report this

    110

  • #
    RoHa

    Not all that much of a surprise, though.
    The socialists and crypto-Marxists of Morgan Stanley, Barclays, Deutsche Bank, UBS, etc., aren’t making any more big bucks out of it, so their mouthpieces in the media have no reason to push it any more.


    Report this

    50

    • #
      LevelGaze

      Naw, RoHa.

      They’re not socialists or even crypto-Marxists, they’re just opportunistic capitalists.
      They merely go where they see a chance to make a buck (or a billion or three), then move on when the well dries up.
      Whether they are morally superior to socialists or crypto-Marxists is problematic, but at least they don’t particularly want to enslave and cull us, and they don’t bother to pretend to be anything other than they are.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Sunray

    Thank you Jo, the local FreeTV Weather Presenters are making up for the Times, by declaring nightly “records” ad nauseam. The really sad part is, that I am well and truly OLD and experienced enough to know that they are lying to further a totalitarian agenda.


    Report this

    40

  • #

    Has anyone else noticed how the ABC and most other news media weather reports have adopted the Boy who cried wolf principle with their weather reports, and it’s most obvious on the ABC.

    Every tiny indication of poor weather and it’s the worst case scenario possible as they report high and damaging winds, flooding rain, rising rivers, large and damaging hail, etc etc. and accompanied by further advice on what to do.

    They virtually covered the whole of Queensland on a couple of days last week. It seems to me to be a case of covering their fundament in the event of complaints along the lines of ‘why weren’t we told’, and then those not affected can say ‘whew, lucky, dodged a bullet there.’ Also looks like a concerted effort to beat up climate change as things that barely raised a mention as early as 12 to 18 Months ago are now reported as extraordinary.

    Tony.


    Report this

    111

    • #
      scaper...

      Quite honestly, I haven’t noticed. But you get that when you don’t watch or listen to any ABC I suppose.

      It is all storms in thimbles these days, competing mediums to excite those that are not reality savvy.

      Got the ABC thingy rolling along but the timeline is of budgetary incremental specificity. Rudd speak with the spectre of actual action. Calves are getting weary from doing the walk. Apologies for being cryptic, has to be.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      MaxL

      Hi Tony,
      I’m not sure that I agree regarding the “covering their fundament”.
      Having complained to the ABC in the past, I realize that they have all the deflection and obfuscation skills honed to a fine point.

      I think it’s a concerted effort to maintain the fraud, keep “climate change” in the conversation.

      They don’t have to worry about running out of superlatives because the general public will simply absorb the information on a daily basis, which will reinforce the concept that “climate change” is getting worse. Why do they think it is getting worse? Because they keep hearing of all these “serious” weather events.


      Report this

      50

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      I only today received a response to a complaint I had made regarding the ABC “Science show” with Robin Williams. The complaint is a year old, and pertained to a broadcast on 24 November 2012 in which he likened ‘deniers’ to pedophiles; specifically that it contravened Standard 7.7 says “Avoid the unjustified use of stereotypes or discriminatory content that could
      reasonably be interpreted as condoning or encouraging prejudice.”

      ACMA didn’t think there was any wrongdoing on ABC’s part!.


      Report this

      81

    • #
      Backslider

      I’m pretty sure that it can be shown that human emitted CO2 acts as a “seed” for the creation of hail the size of oranges….

      Not sure exactly how it can be shown, but I’m sure that Michael or Matt Bennett (long lost brotherds) will be able to enlighten us….. or perhaps BlackUdder knows?


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Rod

    A lot of British and US bloggers have congratulated us on our change of government. Hopefully we can maintain and strengthen more rational and truly scientific ways to improve Australia and steer it away from fuzzy headed feminazi post modernistic thinking.


    Report this

    101

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    It seems to me the coverage of environmental issues should be objective, not aggressive.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    While we are on the topic of journalism and word shills, this crossed my email desk this morning.
    …………………….
    The following is the winning entry from an annual contest at Oxford University calling for the most
    appropriate definition of a contemporary term.

    This year required a definition for the contemporary term,

    ‘Political Correctness’.

    The winner wrote:

    “Political Correctness”
    is a doctrine fostered by a delusional,
    illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by an unscrupulous
    mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is
    entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end’.


    Report this

    120

  • #
    AndyG55

    Hey, remember how some moron a few years ago saying something about rain not filling dams ever again ???

    Well, up in sunny Newcastle (not)…. the record for November rainfall has just been broken.

    http://www.weatherzone.com.au/nsw/hunter/newcastle

    Can ANYONE remember just one prediction the climate drama queens have got right ????

    (and I don’t mean vague if, maybe, perhaps’s that they always seem to thrive on.)


    Report this

    81

    • #
      Backslider

      Oh, that was that guy that said:

      I think that within this century the concept of the strong Gaia will actually become physically manifest. I do think that the Gaia of the ancient Greeks, where they believed the earth was effectively one whole and perfect living creature, that doesn’t exist yet, but it will exist in future

      and:

      We’ll never be able to control the earth … We can’t control its systems. But we can nudge them and we can foresee danger. Once that occurs, then the Gaia of the ancient Greeks really will exist. This planet, this Gaia, will have acquired a brain and a nervous system. That will make it act as a living animal, as a living organism, at some sort of level.

      and:

      ants of course have democratic processes; they actually vote

      I suppose that last one goes well with David Suzuki’s maggots.

      Professor Tim Flannery. He truly professes…. bullshit.


      Report this

      31

  • #
    pat

    the unrelenting, negative nature of the MSM’s daily CAGW diet is depressing…and has worn itself out.

    billions of people have just begun enjoying access to global information, & this is the kind of absurdity that accompanies almost every mention of nature in the MSM:

    28 Nov: Australian: AAP: Reef fish find it too hot to swim: study
    A study has found large reef fish are becoming more lethargic as oceans warm up.
    James Cook University researcher Jacob Johansen says the fish are spending more time resting at the sea bottom and less time swimming or reproducing.
    Even when they muster up enough energy to swim around, they swim at a much slower rate, he says.
    “The loss of swimming performance and reduced ability to maintain important activities, like moving to a spawning site to reproduce, could have major implications for the future distribution and abundance of these species,” Dr Johansen said in a statement.
    However, the study showed evidence that coral trout might be able to adapt to rising temperatures…
    Coral trout is one of the most important fisheries in the southeast Pacific. If we want to keep this fishery in the future, it is critical that we understand how global warming may impact the species,” he said.
    “This will allow us to develop management plans that will help to keep the species, and its fisheries, healthy.”
    The study results have been published in the journal Global Change Biology.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/reef-fish-find-it-too-hot-to-swim-study/story-e6frgcjx-1226769898069


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Ceetee

    Rereke, ya knows ya stuff buddy. I concur with what you said at 1.2. We here in this part of the world know how to dance.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Fred

    30% less coverage from the NYT?

    Can only mean one thing. 30% less bullshit from the NY Times.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    snowhound

    Matt:

    I know who is responsible for the “decline of the scam”…Mother Nature…she refuses to cooperate with your fantasy world computer generated forecasts of doom. She gets the last vote, and right now, it looks like she is supporting the cold ticket on the ballot. Interesting that you chose the word “decline”…neither you nor your false god MM can hide that b.s. any more, Mate.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    PeterS

    Such a statistic as 97% is useless. Science is not about a consensus but about evidence and contrary evidence. At the moment we have far more evidence to discount the man-made global warming (myth) than there is to support it. Besides, some time ago, a very high percentage of scientists thought the world was flat yet they were all wrong.


    Report this

    30

  • #

    [...] pm In Alarmisme, Geen categorie, IPCC, Klimaat, UN Geen reacties schuldig aan N2O productieThe CO2 enemy is losing profile in media and in environmental policy worldwide. For those who live from environmental problems, the [...]


    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>