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

Michael Asten’s novel idea – think first, spend later?

It’s amazing what sensible things turn up in the holiday period. The Australian not only published Maurice Newman skeptical discussion: “climate madness, dishonesty and fraud”, but two days later they published a scientist talking about natural cycles. The scandal! He’s introduced a new term into the debate:  …”residual” anthropogenic driven climate change. Instead of CAGW*, we have RAGW. It’s a term that I could grow to like.

Michael Asten, professor of geophysics at Monash University, is suggesting the Australian government’s “Direct Action Scheme” ought to start with science. (How radical.) Before we spend $5 billion we ought to spend a small part of that on looking at whether we need to spend the rest of it. It’s a starkly obvious point, but almost never said. More than anything,  both the environment and the people of Australia need some action, and it starts with reviewing the research. Where is the cost benefit study on climate action?

Bring science to climate policy

The Australian

THE Senate inquiry probing the direct action scheme to reduce CO2 emissions provides
opportunity for a review not only of the Coalition’s scheme but its underlying justification. Just as the National Broadband Network has been subjected to rigorous review and reframing, we should expect nothing less of the direct action scheme.

Asten lists the top five climate points that need  scrutiny:

First, climate sensitivity is generally defined as the change in global temperature produced by a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. A range of studies across the past five years indicates this may be below, or significantly below, present values quoted by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in which case published modelling projections of future global warming and sea-level rise become overstated.

Second, the disconnect between CO2 increase and global temperature change since 1900 is especially evident in the global warming hiatus of the past 17 years. The mechanisms for this hiatus are not adequately described by consensus science, but there is increasing evidence to suggest natural cyclic change plays a major role in this dichotomy between projections from climate modelling based on  anthropogenic global warming theory, and systematic measurement using terrestrial and satellite observation platforms.

Third, cyclic variations in global sea level suggest natural cycles of about 60 and 30 years in length. Such cycles, which are deserving of considerable further study, suggest a significant fraction of the observed rate of sea-level rise of past decades may be attributable to the upswing of natural cycles. The consequence, if proven, on projections of future sea-level rise and associated planning and land-use policy is large.

Fourth, natural cycles in climate change are increasingly evident from precise studies of temperature records imprinted in cave deposits, ice cores, corals and deep-sea sediments. These provide mounting evidence that current global warming is not abnormal in a historical context, and variations are subject to a range of natural cyclic phenomena with periods ranging from about 60 years to millennia.

Finally, causative mechanisms for natural cycles in climate change are an essential complement to observational data showing natural cycles in climate change. Mechanisms involving highly complex interactions of solar physics, magnetic fields and cosmic rays are on the cusp of delivering insights into  possible mechanisms.

The Direct Action program will cost $5 billion as Asten remarks:

The Senate inquiry would do well to recommend some thousandths of this sum be spent re-examining which projections are credible, which natural changes require mitigation of effect rather than cause, and what cost-benefit parameters apply to programs targeting residual anthropogenically related climate change.

As an aside, when I looked up Michael Asten, I came across Michael Ashley’s two year old criticism of The Australian for even publishing Asten’s opinion. Though it’s old, the reasoning is classic climate cultism.

Ashley has two arguments (both logical fallacies): the first is essentially that Asten is not a climate scientist. Who knew that only registered anointed Climate ScientistsTM can interpret data and speak about the climate? If that is the case we can only wonder why Ashley-the-astrophysicist’s opinion on climate is worthy of publication? He, apparently, is gifted to decide which climate scientists are right, and permitted to spout opinions on the philosophy of newspaper editorials as well, even though he is also not a Climate ScientistsTM, a JournalistTM or an EditorTM either. It’s one rule for them but “I Am A God.” Right?

The second argument (if you could call it that) is that Asten is wrong because there is “rock solid” evidence. But Ashley’s evidence about the atmosphere apparently is mostly opinion polls, and specifically a blogger opinion survey. He links to Cook’s meaningless keyword search of abstracts, that played word tricks with category names, hid the data, and mistakenly found a 0.3% consensus but called it a 97% consensus. Does Ashley approve of this kind of research? Perhaps not, he might be horrified to know he seems to endorse it. But here’s  the trick: when Ashley wrote that article and linked to Cook’s site, the page it went to was a “consensus” page (bad enough) but it could not possibly have been that “97%” keyword study because it was not done then. So Ashley has linked to a page that John Cook changes, and thus pins his scientific reputation on a blogger’s moveable feast… We hope he checks his own experiments more carefully.

The inanity of the grand hypocrisy is lost on Ashley. In his world, it’s a “War On Science” if an independent scientist speaks his mind in a publication paid for by consenting adults, but it’s worth publishing a b-grade scientist (who doesn’t seem to understand the philosophy of science) who writes unresearched  material outside his speciality on a site funded from payments coerced from a skeptical public. Did Ashley write that unscientific piece during business hours? Were we paying for his personal activism too?

Michael Ashley doesn’t realize that he’s the one waging the war. Why is the ARC funding any scientist who Argues from Authority, or thinks an Ad Hom is worth saying? Moreso we are entitled to wonder  why does The Conversation receive a cent of taxpayer money if it’s editors think articles like Ashley’s illogical, hypocritical and unsubstantiated pieces are worth publishing?

The bottom line: Demand the government assess the science

If we were networked activists with a funding machine, we would be taking an approach like Asten’s to the limit. Any Australian government that did not assess the science for itself on behalf of Australians should be charged with negligence. An international committee does not have the interests of Australian citizens and the Australian environment as it’s first priority.

Why would any reasonable policy maker not establish an Australian investigation designed to assess the cost benefits of direct action? The experts in it should be drawn from outside the usual climate science circles, and given a fixed task, limited in time, and judged by their ability to make predictions that stood the test of time.

 

*CAGW: Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming

 

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (127 votes cast)
Michael Asten's novel idea - think first, spend later?, 9.4 out of 10 based on 127 ratings

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

346 comments to Michael Asten’s novel idea – think first, spend later?

  • #
    Leigh

    Yes, it is amazing what turns up when you least expect it and where.
    This to say the least took my by suprise.
    Not only for its content but for where it was.
    http://www.smh.com.au/comment/lack-of-accountability-clouding-the-climate-change-debate-20140102-307ja.html

    271

    • #
      Phil

      Can I now start to dare to believe that sanity is beginning to intrude on the discussion?

      This article actually appeared in the smh?

      202

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        The smh no doubt thinks it is putting Tony Abbott down by putting down his “policy”.

        The coalition’s policy on AGW is already years out of date. Both public opinion and science have advanced a long way since it was developed, and all of that advancement has been negative for the policy.

        Public opinion might have been the driver when it was developed. Public opinion must now recognise that it is junk opinion and junk science.

        Public opinion will recognise this. The policy must be scrapped holus bolus.

        240

        • #
          Joe V.

          The policy was only a placeholder, biding the time until the time was right to junk it before serious dollars get spent.

          180

          • #
            Eddie Sharpe

            It may be all just for show, Joe, but at least while he has to maintain the show, as Bruce explains at #32 below, he can find a lot if real worthwhile environmental measures to benefit from it. Lets hope so.

            20

        • #
          Dougal

          Och no Ted. Public opinion will do what it’s told.

          20

          • #
            Ted O'Brien.

            You remind me of the world’s most successful businessman.

            While our academies teach that the first rule of economics is to tailor your product to suit your customer, (which bypasses a lot of primary rules), Steve Jobs declared that : “It is not for the customer to know what he wants”.

            You remind me also that Edmund Burke said: “All that is needed for evil to flourish is that good men do nothing”.

            00

      • #
        Bulldust

        The funniest part about the article is to see the ridiculous amount of ad hom and conspiracy theory attacks on McLean. It would be a veritable feast for more Lew papers if only he would write about conspiracy theories propounded by the CAGW supporters.

        50

    • #
      Phil

      The article linked to by Leigh

      31

    • #
      Backslider

      That’s quite amazing to see…. from somebody qualified to boot!

      43

    • #
      handjive

      And now, the Guardian, because of McLeans opine, and Fairfax(postscript), both partners in crime with the ABC, want to shut down debate.

      Will the ABC support this censorshipstand or will they dis-own these “news” outlets?

      140

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        That smh letters postscript dated Oct 19 2013 states smh editorial policy. To save people in a hurry from having to find it I quote from it:

        “But we believe the argument over whether climate change is happening and whether it is man-made has been thrashed out extensively by leading scientists and on our pages and that the main debate now is about its effects, severity, and what society does about it.
        …..
        Julie Lewis, Marc McEvoy Letters co-editors.

        I wonder how well this is holding up on 6th January 2014.

        80

    • #
      • #
        Jaymez

        Hi John, I had a quick look and I am alerting others not to waste their time. It is an alleged list of ‘myths’ by John McLean, but it proves none of the alleged ‘myths’ are myths. It doesn’t even bother to provide any evidence, we are expected to take John Cook’s word for it! In fact on the quick look I had, the real world evidence would support John McClean. I would have thought you were ‘above’ John Cook’s Skepticalscience

        492

        • #
          Mark D.

          Thank you Jaymez for saving me the time. I truly am not surprised that SKS avoids “real world evidence” besides that I no longer click on any SKS links.

          251

        • #
          Mortis

          Ah, an ipse dixit, the refuge of those who have no better reasons than, “Because I say so”

          90

        • #
          cohenite

          Too late Jaymez, I followed John the Troll’s path to that den of iniquity, sks, and got the usual.

          Asten is a good man.

          Ashley on the other hand, as anyone who has wondered into the vanity project which is The Conversation [one of the most ironic of oxymorons] will know is both arrogant and censorious.

          Ashley along with his other astrophysicist mate, Michael Brown, scorn unqualified citizens daring to comment on what their betters are doing; and their betters are all scientists who support AGW, including Ashley and Brown.

          This theme has been echoed by the likes of Clive Hamilton [where is this person, I get worried when he disappears for too long because usually some further weighty tome of AGW agitprop will be thrown at the world when he reappears] and Manne and was the basis of the insidious Finkelstein report which used the inability of average folk to understand climate science and were therefore easily misled by ‘deniers’ as the justification for proposing stringent censorship laws.

          In short Ashley and the others who hide behind the ‘consensus’ and deride and oppress contrary and sceptical viewpoints [the hallmark of science] are an affront to science and the democratic rights of the citizenry.

          It is now obvious that AGW science is dead meat and the issue of AGW will be resolved through the media and politically. This is why the Ashleys of the world, in their sinecures, enjoying large salaries and grants, can prosecute their beliefs more readily than the sceptics who receive no funding and do what they do on the basis of a concern that real science prevail.

          In this respect the retirement of Bob Tisdale for financial reasons is a real loss.

          240

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        I find it strange that no one (as yet) has sued John Cook and the University for slander and libel. But hang on, it might well happen.

        201

      • #
        Sean McHugh

        A link is not an argument and as comment it is sub Twitter. Also, it has been pointed out in a previous thread (possibly the last) that it is improper to post unidentified links.

        60

      • #
        bullocky

        .
        Quick!!!
        .
        ……….before John Cook re-writes it!!!!

        30

      • #
  • #
    Rathnakumar

    Nice piece, Jo! I find it embarrassing that the number of brainless astrophysicists is on the rise.

    252

    • #
      AndyG55

      I get the impression that accepting the CAGW mantra has the immediate effect of halving a person’s IQ.

      Certainly seems to be that way with the current rash of trolls and ice adventurers.

      371

      • #
        Eddie Sharpe

        Hmmm. You don’t think it just attracts the lower achievers in the first place then Andy ?

        223

        • #
          Eddie Sharpe

          Scientifically speaking I should say. Their success at blagging Government funding on the ‘evidence’ of such purely human constructs as computer models is undisputed. You have to wonder how too many of them could put together any half decent computer model though.

          Don’t get me wrong, Climate Science is hard, or at least should be hard if done properly, but is recognising the presence, the role & the significance of uncertainties, a basic scientific attribute, being overlooked in the enthusiasm ?

          140

          • #
            Mortis

            I think in too many examples it is being willfully overlooked … this quote, a favorite of the Believers when discussing big business and political “deniers”, describes the Faithful better than skeptical.

            50

            • #
              Mortis

              doh

              “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

              220

        • #
          AndyG55

          Yes, then halves their IQ.

          70

      • #
        Newminster

        It may halve their IQ, Andy, but it might equally double their income.
        What’s not to like?

        121

      • #
        Joe V.

        If they could all be sent to Mars it would raise the IQ of both planets. What’s not to like ?

        100

      • #
        Apoxonbothyourhouses

        Same seems to happen when the elected walk through the portals of Parliament House.

        40

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Michael Asten, professor of geophysics at Monash University …

    Hmm, Geophysics. Geo, as in earth, and Physics as in, well Physics – (the way that stuff works).

    Is not Geophysics what “climate science”tm should have been, if they climate scientiststm had not been suckered into confusing computer games with some form of reality.

    Perhaps the adults have returned to tidy up after the party.

    451

    • #
      Peter Miller

      As any geologist will tell you, there is a world of differences between geologists and geophysicists.

      The former actually understand the concept of natural climate cycles, while the latter play around with black boxes which rarely work and make forecasts and models, which are rarely accurate and which always need more work done on them.

      So to say geophysicists are like ‘climate scientists’ is mostly correct, but they are a world away from geologists, who are almost 100% sceptic – government employees excepted of course, because of the obvious employment considerations of not parroting the official mantra.

      121

      • #
        Peter Miller

        I guess Asten is the exception as far as geophysicists are concerned”. However, he is part geologist, which probably explains his common sense approach.

        130

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Is not Geophysics what “climate science”™…

      Climate science is now a trademark? I wish I’d thought of that. Think of all the trademark infringement suits I could bring to bear against these fraudsters.

      120

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Well it is not really about the climate, and it certainly ain’t science, in terms of the rigour encouraged by the scientific method.

        It is really all about promotion, and “selling” a concept, and getting “cleb” endorsements.

        When you analyse it, it is really no different to the old television advertisements that used to say, “Nine out of ten scientists agree that Sparko washes whiter”. That technique sold laundry detergent in the 1950′s, and it is now selling climate changetm fifty to sixty years later.

        It is the same snake-oil in different packaging, and at a much higher price.

        Sure, there is some good science being done, in gathering knowledge about how the natural world actually works, and in identifying what influences various weather patterns.

        But the promotional stunts and advertising memes must be totally divorced from the science.

        That is why I applaud Michael Asten’s initiative.

        200

        • #
          PeterS

          In other words “climate science” as espoused by the AGW alarmists is a cult. Like all cults they will always have followers, much like the flat earth cult despite the real science shining a light to expose them as false. The difference though with the so called climate science agenda is it’s a money scam, pure and simple. There has to be a time sooner or later whereby the leaders of this cult are charged, taken to court and found guilty of propagating what is undoubtedly the biggest scam of all time. The punishment is then a long prison sentence.

          50

    • #
      Bulldust

      Hey Rereke… don’t sell computer games short. The physics in many computer games is far more realistic that that pushed by the IPCC loons.

      60

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Good point, At least computer games are useful because of their entertainment value.

        30

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Bulldust,

        Not only more realistic but quite amazing when you consider how complicated it is for a bipedal human to stay upright no matter what kind of movements are called for. Building that basic model of the structure, movement possibilities, mass distribution and muscle capabilities is the result of a lot of years of hard work. Then you have to apply gravity and Newtonian physics to that model for each different (sometimes highly different) character in the scene. After my own venture into computer graphics I’ve learned a huge respect for the people behind those amazing physics. And they will get better in the future.

        10

        • #
          Bulldust

          I am guessing MMORPGs will eventually become ‘better than life’ – a reference from Red Dwarf. Move over drug addiction, when alternate realities becoming more engaging and immersive than RL (real life) a threshhold will have been crossed. There will be die hards who will insist the real world is more _something_ but they will be wrong.

          00

          • #
            Bones

            Not a pleasing thought to go to sleep with,Bulldust,real live looking computer generated warmer w******.Thanks for that.

            10

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Bulldust, Bones,

            That computer graphic ain’t gonna keep them warm on those long winter nights. They’ll eventually have to come out of their unreality in desperation for someone else equally as real as they are. So don’t despair more than’s called for here. ;-)

            10

  • #
    Leigh

    “This article actually appeared in the smh?”
    Like magic on the 3/1/2014
    Amazing.

    70

    • #
      Allen Ford

      I missed it in the original! Mea culpa! Tonight will see a frenzy of activity in my rubbish bin to retrieve this precious document.

      Interestingly, there were no letters to the Ed in this morning’s SMH, bemoaning the article’s publication and its content and implications. Not a peep.

      Is this a record?

      30

      • #
        Bob Malloy

        Interestingly, there were no letters to the Ed in this morning’s SMH, bemoaning the article’s publication and its content and implications. Not a peep.

        No they are all in the comments below the article.

        21

  • #
    Fox from Melbourne

    All science reports the Australian Government uses to base the expenditure of Billions of your TAX PAYER dollars on should be reviewed and have cost benefit study preformed on them. They(the scientists) should be required to provide their source data and disclose their methods (little black box) and any and all ADJUSTMENTS they used in the making of their reports. Including the ADJUSTMENTS in any sourced material, study’s or reports used in the making of their report. So the Government knows exactly what they had done and how, what the data and measurements original were and what the say after adjustments. Also what percentage of these reports and studies are made up of other research and what percentage of that was actual fact or CREATIVE ADJUSTMENTS (Fiction). This should be a requirement of submission of such reports and studies. The Minster involved should also have a summery which theory’s are involved so if they are late disputed or proven wrong they would know where and which reports and study’s to not waste your money on. Why after having a Government of your own for 113 years don’t will have something as simple as this in place?

    170

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      So the Government knows exactly what they had done and how …

      I couldn’t agree more, Fox, but I would also add the question, “why?” All too often, the adjustments seem to be arbitrary, and possibly only made to, “give the right answer”.

      160

      • #
        Fox from Melbourne

        “adjustments seem to be arbitrary, and possibly only made to, “give the right answer”.”
        Thinks for your comments Rereke Whakaaro but “adjustment that give the right answer” are the problem take the example of Azaria Chamberlain case. Fetal hemoglobin evidence found on the front of the Chamberlain’s car was tested with an not so reliable test and the original test result were adjusted from negative to a positive result. Lindy Chamberlain was convicted of murder on 29 October 1982 and sentenced to life imprisonment. Michael Chamberlain was found guilty as an accessory after the fact and was given an 18-month suspended sentence. Does this sound like an adjustment to “give the right answer” Just like in the Courts facts are facts in Science too and should not be “arbitrary” adjusted to agree with someones preconceived theory or belief which was the one of the points I was trying point out. With a better and fuller discloser of such “arbitrary adjustment” your politicians would be better able to tell the difference between Science Fact and Science Fiction in Science studies and reports they are reviewing to help them form and create new laws and Government programs and the Like. Thank you for pointing out that I didn’t do as good a job as I’ll liked in pointing that out. I hope I’ve done a better job this time pointing out the problem with adjustments this time. Thanks again for the help Mate. Bye

        40

  • #
    Eddie Sharpe

    There is something of a fashion in these straightened economic times in Britain’s National Health Service for promoting a return to “evidence based” medical practise, when faced with the mounting costs of funding every possible treatment available.

    Evidence Based Medicine

    Would a similarly ‘pragmatic’ approach to the Climate ‘Problem’ let it be run more efficiently & effectively than letting it be led by “The Science”, let it be led by The Evidence – the Hard Evidence ?

    140

    • #
      Franny by Coal light

      Evidence Based Medicine, as used by National Health Services anyway, is commonly perceived as a byword for Cost Cutting.

      Evidence Based Climate Policy would be anathema to the gravy trainers. Although they all spruik about ‘lines of evidence’ and the ‘body of evidence’ the body seems to be a corpse and the lines are just that.

      90

  • #
    King Geo

    Professor Michael Asten is a geologist/geophysicist (BSc.Hons, Uni Tasmania & PhD, Macquarie Uni) whose views are logical and not contaminated by “Warmist” doctrine. As a fellow geo I can assure you that most geos view the Theory of CAGW as total nonsense. Our training is such that we cannot assess it in any other way. Geos most likely to toe the CAGW line are those working in Academia and Government entities where there is considerable pressure to join the “Warmist Gravy Train”. We all know the “Warmist” bias of entities such as CSIRO and most Aussie unis.

    230

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Yes,

      And my basic training included the development of computer models (in Assembler), and I have never been able to take them seriously. Not only do you not know, what you don’t know, you have no idea how important what you don’t know, might be, if only you knew it.

      280

      • #
        King Geo

        Rereke your eloquent explanation exposes the “modus of operandi” of the “IPCC & Warmists” projected computer modelling of CAGW on planet Earth, ie they don’t have a f….. clue what they are talking about – sorry for the naughty adjective, it just the “best fit word” in the circumstances.

        20

      • #
        Ricko

        Couldnt agree more Rereke, I used to do financial modeling – same data – but we could get wildly different results depending on where we put the “Emphasis” and also what the result was that was requested by the client – these worthless documents were then forwarded onto banks as the basis for some pretty hefty loans – no surprise then that since our projections had no firm basis on reality – we saw our clients get loans they could not afford – lose their homes and get bankrupted – very sad – but we as accountants we always got paid and just moved onto another sucker. The axiom is always true Garbage in Garbage Out. It was pretty sickening pleased I got out.

        20

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      I use this opportunity to remind everybody that in 1986 the Hawke government put its “social scientist” mates in charge of the real scientists at the CSIRO. Neville Wran, National president of the ALP, (which should never be dignified with the title of Australian Labor), was the first non scientist to chair the CSIRO.

      170

  • #
    Popeye

    Ho Jo,

    In all of the years, in all of the subjects you have posted and in all of the comments that we (the bloggers – both skeptics & TROLLS) have made – I believe this post to be the most significant & important.

    The coalition need to listen, learn & heed what is being said here by Michael Asten (fully supported by you) and FINALLY act in a manner that CONNECTS with the majority of people who voted for them in the last election.

    So MANY of us here want a FULL JUDICIAL INQUIRY into the “science” of AGW BEFORE ANOTHER CENT IS SPENT on renewables, RET, climate scientists or hangers on (OR b….y Greens.

    I’m SURE I’m not the Lone Ranger.

    Cheers,

    421

    • #
      Mat

      Hear hear! I agree Popeye.

      121

    • #
      Wally

      2 points:

      - Judicial enquiry won’t achieve anything because the vast wailing usual suspects will be trotted out, and a judge is not qualified in anything that will allow making a sensible decision about science, so waste of time

      - The coalition stand a chance of Malcolm Turnbull taking over as leader and he’s a supporter of CAGW. Internal to the libs, they can’t be 100% “its all BS” as they have their own believers.

      Any sensible means of examining if a boat load of money should be spent is a good thing, so long is that examination is done the right way. Spending it on ClimateScience(TM) will give the expected outcome, spending it in Geology, Geophysics, Engineering might lead to some pragmatic outcomes.

      Simplistic spending of $ will lead to simplistic outcomes: you reap what you sow.

      20

      • #
        AndyG55

        “Simplistic spending of $ will lead to simplistic outcomes……”

        Yep, its called “climate science”

        And if Turnbull is Lib leader at the next election, the Libs will loose because no Liberal voters will vote for him.

        He might pick up a substantial number of Labor voters though.
        Labor voters will find him far preferable to Shorten.

        20

    • #
      ghl

      Furthermore, the Productivity Commission should amend their recent report on power costs to separate the cost of wind farm transmission lines, not hide them in aggregated totals, which are then labelled “gold plated” infrastructure.
      More misdirection.

      10

  • #
    Joe V.

    …”residual” anthropogenic driven climate change. Instead of CAGW*, we have RAGW.

    Hmm, RAGW eh !
    That could simply be short for a Red RAG to a Warmist could it ?

    60

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I am just waiting for some idiot to start referring to it as “Ragu”, as in the rich sauce made with red wine.

      Oh, I just did, didn’t I?

      50

    • #
      bartender

      A proposed direct action scheme base on nothing less than ‘Residual?’ But then again a ‘Red RAG’ could mean these ‘Warmist’ can still push and infiltrate ‘their doctrine’ onto our children and to the taxpayer with the help from a somewhat skeptical Michael Asten

      10

  • #
    Yonniestone

    And so the tactical retreats, back pedaling, ass covering, ship jumping, face saving, paper burning, blame game begins for the warmists.
    Whereas the openly AGW skeptical who took a courageous stand against seemingly impossible odds can forever hold heads high and answer to no one.

    To quote the late Peter O’Toole “NO PRISONERS!, NO PRISONERS!”

    200

    • #
      Radical Rodent

      The only flaw is that, if you read “The Seven Pillars of Wisdom” you will realise how WRONG that film is.

      10

  • #

    All this logic starts with the unproven assumption that the increase in CO2 in the air is man made because it is obvious? You can easily prove the reverse without a thousand experiments and billions of dollars, that warming the oceans increases CO2 and it fits the facts like a hand in a glove, but who wants to hear that? All this debate is such nonsense. The lack of correlation is therefore puzzling. So is the total lack of warming when CO2 is going up dramatically. The lack of runaway warming is puzzling. That is because the premise is wrong and the truth will out, in twenty years. Any scientist would look at the failure of every single model and question the assumptions, but not the warmists. Their jobs depend on it.

    120

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    Our Climate Scientist from Environment Canada is getting a bit of a bruising from the bitterly cold record precipitation. He has published many books on “global warming effecting Canada”.
    Currently, they are blaming a “cold vortex” for the the unusual events and are implying this is a once in a decade event…

    160

    • #
      Joe Lalonde

      Jo,

      What is really cool about these storms is that after they leave Canada…They are gaining strength across the ocean and nailing the UK.

      100

      • #
        Eddie Sharpe

        What did Britain ever do to Canada to invite such retribution ?
        The paint is peeling off the inside of my west facing walls like never before this winter. That’s the wall getting most of that wind driven rain from across the Atlantic which has been almost relentless since about October.
        I cannt afford the extra heat to dry them out either as the Energy monopoly operating here has hiked prices by about 20% in the autumn. They used to wait until the spring – which is what my walls will doing to dry out.

        There seem to be differing schools of thought among builders whether brickwork needs to ‘breathe’ , which is the only thing stopping me from painting silicone water sealant all over the outside once it has dried out. Suspect it’s a lot of baloney myself (except in some limited circumstances) but I hope to have it worked out by the summer – if Canada will let us have one .

        110

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Most British homes are either double bricked, or have an air gap between the bricks and the internal cladding This gap is designed to allow the free flow of air, and provides a thermal barrier (it is also useful for installing wiring for electronic devices, or so I am told). If the bricks need to breathe, they will do so into that space, and any moisture will then evaporate out.

          90

          • #
            Joe V.

            Yes but. Guess what Rereke. Energy companies are being grant funded by the Btitish Government to offer free cavity filling with insulating beads to reduce hide the cost of rising fuel bills while saving the planet.
            Hence the moving free air in the cavity is lost and moisture penetrating the outside layer can much more easily travel to and through the inner layer.
            In those circumstances keeping the water out takes on an added importance..

            130

        • #
          Andrew G

          If you have the space, put an awning across that wall to keep the rain off the brickwork. Surely water evaporating from the bricks is going to be playing merry hell with your inside temperatures? Keeping the wall dry in the first place might help with both the repainting and the energy costs.

          40

          • #
            Eddie Sharpe

            Now there’s an idea Andrew. It’s a full two storey front wall though . It’d be some awning. A tarpaulin perhaps would do till the summer and I can get some silicon repellent on. I’ll be the sartorial envy of the neighbourhood till then, if the wind will let it stay.

            40

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              Eddie;
              You don’t say if the wall has any coating. I assume not from your thinking silicone is the answer. If applying the simple solvent types then you will need to dry the wall, and this will take weeks.

              There are specialised paint/sealants used for insulating cold rooms. There are varieties which prevent water passing and others which allow water to pass, depending on where the water is condensing. There are water-based types apart from the silicones. Getting them to cure at low temperatures is always a problem so you may have to wait until Spring. In the meantime a temporary barrier may help until you can find the right advice and product. Sorry, but I am out of date on this – http://www.uniquesealants.co.uk/services
              might be a starting point.

              The other possibility are those companies with products against rising damp, or those for sealing shower stalls. Watch out for the latter as it attracts cowboys. The first usually insist on controlled application(s) but offer guaranties.

              30

              • #
                Eddie Sharpe

                Rendering is very common up North & in Scotland, but down here in South of England they are just not used to such persistent wet and most of the houses are bare brick, like this one (something that just looks unfinished to Northerners).

                Being a semi- in a close anything but the bare brick would stand out enormously, so it has to be a clear coating if anything.

                I’ve used silicone repellents on single. 18 inch stone walls in Scotland OK.
                They talk about horror stories with Thomson’s Weatherseal down here though, all having to be removed. I’ve yet to find out why.

                10

          • #
            Streetcred

            There’s only one way to seal a ‘wet’ wall and that is to prevent osmotic transfer of moisture via a solid barrier … waterproof render or a membrane (paint, sealant, etc).

            30

      • #
        Manfred

        Yes, I have advised family in the UK to anticipate an end to their benign, if wet winter honey moon. To the power impoverished, don’t forget the park benches, park trees and of course, the occasional lost environmental protection agency bureaucrat, all perfect accelerants under the right conditions.

        20

  • #
    Mat

    But Ashley’s evidence about the atmosphere apparently is mostly opinion polls, and specifically a blogger opinion survey.

    So Jo doesn’t accept the position of “the world’s major scientific organisations” list linked to in the article? So does Jo asks that every discussion on any issue should start from first principles?… Where to start, proving that Pi = 3.1415926…? The canon of scientific knowledge doesn’t work that way, it builds on theories that best describe observation, until another theory that provides a better overall fit is found. Yet to see one from this site.

    137

    • #
      Backslider

      Yet to see one from this site.

      It’s everywhere here. It’s known as the NULL hypothesis, however you do not understand what that is, clearly.

      230

      • #
        Joe Lalonde

        Backslider,

        For a hypothesis, you do not need any facts.
        You can manipulate a mathematical calculation and call it a hypothesis.

        80

      • #
        Mat

        The data refute the null hypothesis of no AGW.

        031

        • #
          Joe Lalonde

          Just look at who was authorized grants for and who was not authorized grants against AGW?
          Now that is manipulation along with all the propaganda for the support side.

          110

        • #
          MemoryVault

          The data refute the null hypothesis of no AGW.

          Really!!

          .
          CAGW “theory” claims – CO2 UP = Temp UP, and UP, and UP . . .
          Observation (data) shows – CO2 UP = Temp UP, and DOWN, and UP, and DOWN . . .

          Therefore CAGW “theory” falsified.

          QED

          230

        • #
          Popeye

          Mat,

          I note (as others here do as well) – NO links to peer reviewed papers confirming your BS statement above. ROTFLMFAO!!!

          Cheers,

          100

        • #
          bullocky

          Mat:
          . ..”The data refute the null hypothesis of no AGW.”
          -
          -
          Ecclesiastes?

          70

        • #
          Mortis

          ok Mat, I’ll play for a sec – since humans only add 3% of the increase in co2 being added to the atmospere (5 Gt vs the 155 Gt added annually), perhaps you could enlighten us how the 97% that is naturally occurring is impotent and the 3% humans add is so exponentially effective? Is it a new isotope of co2 we produce? I thought we added the beneficial co2 based on the c12 isoptope – you know the one plants like, but please, explain your thoughts on this matter.

          Your turn.

          201

          • #
            Mat

            Why don’t some of you ‘lukewarmers’ hit this kind of stuff on the head? Do we really need to go back to basics? Trying to argue that CO2 isn’t going up because of humans takes effort away from some of the more interesting stuff… oh well, here we go:

            The 155 Gt natural CO2 you quote (actually ~200 Gt for plant-sea-air exchange) is part of the carbon CYCLE passing between sources and sinks, over long periods these are balanced. We are adding a perturbation, you say 5 Gt, (actually >30 Gt) ON TOP of the cycle. 2/3 of this is being absorbed by natural sinks (mainly the ocean) BUT 1/3 is left over and added to each year. From a natural base of ~280ppm, we are now at ~400ppm: a 40% increased caused by anthropogenic emissions.

            If you want more info read this from 1997, so some figures are outdated http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html.

            16

            • #
              bullocky

              Mat;
              ‘Trying to argue that CO2 isn’t going up because of humans..’
              =
              NEXT!

              20

            • #
              MemoryVault

              Why don’t some of you ‘lukewarmers’ hit this kind of stuff on the head?

              Maybe, just maybe Mat, it’s because after 17 years of a constant, linear rise in atmospheric CO2, accompanied by a zero increase in atmospheric temperature, even the lukewarmers are beginning to doubt the tired old meme that:
              “CO2 is a greenhouse gas that warms the earth like a blanket. More CO2 = bigger blanket”.

              Do we really need to go back to basics?

              It increasingly looks like it.
              Which just might explain the silence you are complaining about.

              70

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          I don’t know, you just can’t seem to find the quality of troll that we used to get. The latest batch have no meat on them.

          240

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          Strawman.
          That’s not the null hypothesis of CAGW.
          The null hypothesis of CAGW is Non-catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. (What Asten calls Residual AGW.) Climate skeptics of the Lukewarmer variety do not argue that no AGW has or will occur, only that the quantity is small enough to be unworrisome.
          That could mean a Equilibirum Climate Sensitivity to CO2 of anywhere between zero degrees per doubling up to around 1.5 degrees per doubling (to be on the safe side).

          If you take Professor Richard Tol’s economic estimates of the “costs” and benefits of CO2 increase, the net impact of warming is actually beneficial up to 1.2 degrees of total warming on top of the 1961-1990 baseline. Since we had ~ +0.3° prior to that baseline, an ECS of 1.5 is okay if a doubling of CO2 were to occur, so an ECS of 1.5 to 1.9 would be an irritant but certainly not catastrophic. Even the IPCC’s AR5 estimate is now only 2.0°, which is a backpedal from just a few years ago.

          OTOH, that would mean we could burn no more than ~80% of all the coal, oil, and gas reserves that we have discovered to date. Based on R/P ratios that’s enough for ~80 years of coal but only ~37 years of oil. That is a motivation to figure out how to keep aircraft and trucks running without cheap oil anyway. Considering the warming will initially be beneficial we should delay “action” and gather enough data to be sure ECS_2xCO2 is less than 1.5, to avoid spending more than necessary on mitigation. (There’s no actual consensus about that figure.) The rate of temperature decline from now to 2030 will be very informative in calibrating climate models and figuring how much warming was natural and how much was CO2. If the skeptics are right, this decade will be the first period in the satellite era in which temperatures will decrease during escalating CO2 emissions. This whole scientific mess will be cleared up one way or another, but can be resolved no sooner than 2020.

          Anyhow, there’s a bunch of empirical (not model) based estimates of ECS_2xCO2 which are all less than 1.5. They are all published in the peer-reviewed literature, so you must accept their estimates uncritically. :)

          Idso 1998 : ECS approx 0.4°C or less.
          Shaviv 2006 : ECS approx 1.3°C ±0.4
          Spencer and Brasswell 2010 : ECS approx 0.6°C
          Knox and Douglass 2010 : ECS approx zero.
          Harde 2011 : ECS approx 0.45°C ±0.12

          Turns out Michael Asten once wrote a discussion paper revealing his own estimate of ECS based on ocean drilling proxies.:

          The large pCO2 increase was accompanied by a small deep-ocean temperature increase estimated as 0.59±0.063°C. Climate sensitivity estimated from the latter is 1.1±0.4°C (66% confidence) compared with the IPCC central value of 3°C.

          If due to luck the natural contributors to recent global warming subside at the same time as our CO2 goes up then we would be spared catastrophe even if ECS was higher than 1.5. According to at least one astrophysicist in Russia and one other professional climate analyst in Canada, that lucky scenario of a brief 143 year reprieve from warming is very likely to occur.

          So chillax, it’s all good.

          40

        • #
          Radical Rodent

          Mat, do you refute the commonly-accepted observations of the ice ages?

          Do you acknowledge that between the various ice ages there were warmer “inter-glacials”?

          Are you aware of the much-publicized forests that are being uncovered by melting glaciers in Alaska? Would you accept that this is strong evidence that conditions in Alaska were SIGNIFICANTLY warmer in Alaska than now?

          Are you aware that most of these events occurred before the advent of humanity?

          How does the present slight variation in temperatures differ so significantly from the many, many past instances of temperature variation, other than that we are here to observe the event?

          100

      • #
        LevelGaze

        Let’s get one thing clear, once and for all. To everyone.

        The Scientific Principle does NOT require an alternative, more satisfactory, theory before ditching its prior. Many of you, not just Mat, are quite wrong on this. It merely requires that a theory pass the reality test to remain contingently acceptible. That is all.

        To that extent, CAGW remains merely a hypothesis, with no consistent observational support.

        As Einstein famously said, “It takes just one experiment to prove my theory wrong” – no mention there of replacing that theory with a more plausible one. He was quite right. It follows that no theory can ever be proven finally and forever. But they can certainly be disproven.

        Or as I would prefer to say in this particular instance: “I am not a chicken so I cannot lay an egg. But I can certainly tell a bad one when I smell it.”

        210

        • #
          Eddie Sharpe

          ” contingently acceptible.”

          Exactly LevelGaze. That’s the word I was looking for ‘contingent’. An hypothesis is an idea while a theory is but a working assumption, forever pending falling to falsification OR to a better theory.

          90

    • #
      Joe Lalonde

      Matt,

      Scientists have yet to look at facts in MANY, MANY areas for a single mathematical model strictly on temperature data. This is coming back to bite them in the arse.
      As for PI(3.14159…), it is an open ended calculation that cannot be used in motion as it degrades with each revolution. It also sucks on calculating an orb in rotation with the massive velocity differences.

      20

    • #

      Yes, first principles is necessary. Why not? Patently CO2 concentration obviously does not correlate at all with temperature but amazingly correlates perfectly with the integral of temperature. Explain that fact. It’s easy if you understand what is really going on. See above. Most man made CO2 vanishes into the oceans with a half life of 13 years, so most gone in under thirty years. This was known long before AGW thesis. Look up the Suess effect. Warming oceans release CO2. QED.

      50

    • #
      bullocky

      Hey Mat!…

      Jo wrote: ‘Why is the ARC funding any scientist who Argues from Authority’
      -

      She forgot to put (Hey Mat!) in parenthesis.

      80

    • #
      Winston

      Hint, Mat.

      Most of the major scientific organizations around the western world have been contaminated and effectively white-anted by the politically motivated bureaucrat middle managers, and the activist enviro-zealots who are motivated by ” noble” causes rather than objective evidence or factual data. A combination of greed, self-interest, snobbery (both class based and intellectual), misplaced guilt, fear, herd-mentality, blind faith, hubris and lack of critical analytic skills have combined to gradually erode the last 2 centuries or more of scientific principle, intellectual rigor and dispassionate objectivity that used to typify the progression of the scientific classes and the organizational bodies who represent them.

      However, as with all our bastions of civilisation, the first priciples that guided them and were meant to protect them from such obstacles on the road to knowledge and justice have been gradually eroded and whiitled away, while those who are least capable rise to the top, those who can’t do manage, and those who can’t manage indoctrinate those who come after them.

      So, we should thank people like yourself on the warmist side for showing us just how unscientific some so called scientists can be, and that any scientific study that cannot be completely honest, transparent and free from outside interference belongs firmly in the round file until it can demonstrate otherwise.

      Your last statement is classic warmist illogic. One doesn’t have to propose an alternate theory to poke holes in a false hypothesis. That is a non-sequitur and is not remotely required in true science. Especially an hypothesis which arrogantly expects the entire world’s economy to be hostage to it, and which seems to believe it is above criticism, debate or scrutiny. You are kidding yourself if you think that you won’t be called to account Mat, because the time is nigh.

      181

    • #

      Mat, I’ve used Pi in quite a few calculations and the answers always worked for me. Are you saying Pi is wrong? ;- )

      Or have you just never used it?

      130

      • #
        Mat

        Yes, I’m saying that the approximation you used for pi is wrong. That’s my point. We can always find a better fit, it just gets a bit tiresome.

        018

        • #
          MemoryVault

          .
          22/7 seems to have worked for most of civilisation for a very long time.

          Works for me.

          121

        • #
          bullocky

          Mat:..”We can always find a better fit, it just gets a bit tiresome”
          -
          Not for Climatology though; THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!!!!!

          70

        • #
          Reed Coray

          “… it just gets a bit tiresome

          Not unlike some commenters on this blog.

          40

        • #
          Apoxonbothyourhouses

          I’m 97% certain that 22/7 as a consensus is an acceptable model of Pi, except in Matland

          60

        • #
          Richard the Great

          Don’t be rediculous, Mat. The value of Pi one uses in a calculation is an approximation. It is not “wrong”. Extending your “logic” would be saying that every measurement one makes is “wrong”. One can never measure anything infintely accurately hence all measurements have some kind of uncertainty. Likewise one cannot express the value of an irrational number exactly. Uncertainty is the range in which one has confidence that the true value lies. Uncertainty is is about confidence not doubt. Uncertainty is not the same as error which is the difference between the true and measured value. Since the true value is not known the error is not normally known.

          If one used PI in a calculation one would use an appoximation that would be as good as or better than the uncertainty of the component measurements.

          For example to measure to volume of a cylinder I measure the length (L) and diameter (2r) with a vernier caliper. Each of these measurements has uncertainty. The final volume is PI* r ^2 * L. The uncertainty on this volume determination is the square root of the sum of the relative standard uncertainty of the components squared – this then multiplied by the volume. By using a very precsise value of PI one can make this component of the volume calculation negligible.

          Nothing wrong there, Mat.

          10

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      ” So Jo doesn’t accept the position of “the world’s major scientific organisations” …So does Jo asks that every discussion on any issue should start from first principles?… Where to start, proving that Pi = 3.1415926…? “

      I heard from a Geography student that pi is commonly taken as 5 in meteorology, because of the imprecision of so many other factors involved.

      Whereas isn’t Climate Science the art of taking so many approximations to get a 97% certainty ?

      130

    • #
      John Brookes

      Not in this world Mat. In this world you choose your belief (AGW is crap), and then you argue with any scientist that says otherwise. You argue that they are corrupt. You argue that it is a scam.

      The idea that burning fossil fuels (which has been an absolutely fabulous idea so far, might turn out to be a bad thing if we continue to do it) offends you, so you argue against climate scientists. The idea that there is a problem that “free” markets can’t solve offends you, so you say that it isn’t a problem.

      Don’t you get it Mat? We live in an alternative universe where Republicans actually are nice guys, where the Tea Party aren’t just a bunch of loonies stirred up by the Koch brothers, where wealth really does trickle down from the rich. In Australia the Liberals are a responsible political party that really aren’t just “Republican light”.

      Actually, its too depressing…

      245

      • #
        Jaymez

        You can’t seem to decide John. Do we randomly choose a belief and then argue the position we have chosen? Or are we arguing because the idea that burning fossil fuels may or may not be a bad thing, offends us?

        It is instructive that in your sarcasm you are suggesting that the Tea Party is a bunch of loonies stirred up by the Koch brothers. Have you registered that conspiracy theory with Lewandowsky?

        160

        • #
          • #
            Mark D.

            Andrew, so not your style. Where is the evidence beyond gossip? Besides that if the Tea Party is that bothersome they MUST be doing something right!

            Recall, JB and the rest think Joanne (me too I suppose) are on the dole. You don’t believe that too do you?

            21

            • #
              Andrew McRae

              If the Kochs have not had much influence over the talking points of the various local Tea Party chapters, it is certainly not through lack of effort.

              David Koch quoted in the London Guardian 13-Oct-2010 :

              “Five years ago, my brothers Charles and I provided the funds to start Americans for Prosperity,” David Koch told AFP’s annual Defending the Dream gathering in 2009. “It is beyond my wildest dreams that AFP has grown into this enormous organisation. The American dream of free enterprise and capitalism is alive and well.”

              David Koch Seeded Major Tea-Party Group, Private Donor List Reveals

              Tax documents obtained exclusively by National Journal confirm that conservative billionaire David Koch, along with a handful of major corporations, provided the seed money a decade ago to start the foundation behind Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group that played a key role in helping to organize the tea-party movement into a potent political force.

              Koch’s relationship with the group is no secret—he’s the chairman of the board of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation—but he downplays his involvement in a way that critics charge is disingenuous. An official Koch website states that AFP is merely “among the hundreds of organizations that have received monetary support” from David Koch, his brother Charles, or the company they own, Koch Industries.

              The Republic reports…

              BATON ROUGE, Louisiana — A national tea party-allied group is setting up a local chapter in Louisiana. Americans for Prosperity announced the creation of a Louisiana-specific effort Thursday, with the launch of a TV ad criticizing Democratic U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu

              Tea Party Perspective – Citizens tell Petri “Hold the Line”

              On Monday morning several people met with Congressman Tom Petri’s District Director, Tyler Vorpagel. The citizens, led by AFP representative Nate Nelson, presented him with petitions from citizens across the 6th District insisting Rep. Petri hold the line on spending. This was part of a coordinated effort by Americans for Prosperity which had similar meetings with Congressmen Paul Ryan and Sean Duffy.
              … The grassroots citizenry are ready to move on with their lives..

              Tea Party Groups and Resources for Oregon – N. Deschutes County Americans for Prosperity

              Americans for Prosperity of North Deschutes County Location: Central Oregon
              1st Thursday of month–Meets at Pappy’s Pizza’s meeting room, 1655 N. Hwy 97, Redmond, at 6:30-8 PM. RSVP re: child care- limitorgov(at)gmail.com

              3rd Thursday of month–Meets at Sun Mountain Fun Center’s meeting room, 300 NE Bend River Mall Dr., Bend, 6:30-8 PM RSVP re: child care to limitorgov(at)gmail.com http www fightbackoregon.com Twitter–teapartyorygone

              The New Yorker reports…

              At the lectern in Austin, however, Venable—a longtime political operative who draws a salary from Americans for Prosperity, and who has worked for Koch-funded political groups since 1994—spoke less warily. “We love what the Tea Parties are doing, because that’s how we’re going to take back America!” she declared, as the crowd cheered. In a subsequent interview, she described herself as an early member of the movement, joking, “I was part of the Tea Party before it was cool!” She explained that the role of Americans for Prosperity was to help “educate” Tea Party activists on policy details, and to give them “next-step training” after their rallies, so that their political energy could be channelled “more effectively.” And she noted that Americans for Prosperity had provided Tea Party activists with lists of elected officials to target.
              [...] a political triumph for the Kochs. By giving money to “educate,” fund, and organize Tea Party protesters, they have helped turn their private agenda into a mass movement.

              A Republican campaign consultant who has done research on behalf of Charles and David Koch said of the Tea Party, “The Koch brothers gave the money that founded it. It’s like they put the seeds in the ground. Then the rainstorm comes, and the frogs come out of the mud—and they’re our candidates!”

              Here is a video recorded at an AFP meeting and between 00:50 and 1:20 you can see several AFP members reporting face-to-face to a pleased-as-punch David Koch that they have organised the largest Tea Party events in their States and the nation.

              What emerges from these facts is that the Koch brothers have made significant inroads into co-opting, both financially and rhetorically, a political movement that began long ago as a genuine grassroots movement. Whether that is bad or good is an entirely different question. Indeed any political movement’s members ought to be encouraged by the news that they have gained rich backers.

              You’re right about one thing, Mark. My first comment was so not my style.
              Real world events exist independently of myself and thus are not “my style”.

              00

              • #
                Mark D.

                What emerges from these facts is that the Koch brothers have made significant inroads into co-opting, both financially and rhetorically, a political movement that began long ago as a genuine grassroots movement.

                Andrew, are you trying to say that Koch etal. cannot support like minded people in politics? Or are you saying (like all the other warmist conspiracy nuts) that anything Koch touches is automatically tainted in some way? I say that there are a number of people that happen to think and believe in their Constitution. The Koch Bros. believe the same thing OH MARVEL IT”S A FRIGGING CONSPIRACY…….

                Perhaps I should have been more specific: What evidence do you have that TEA Party members are “loonies” and that they are in some way zombies at the hands of the all powerful Koch Bros?

                Real world events exist independently of myself and thus are not “my style”.

                Apparently you have someone else typing for you?

                00

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                Then we have been talking at cross-purposes.
                I did not imply anywhere that they were loonies, that’s JB’s line. It was never my intention to say that they are loonies. Sorry I didn’t realise my response would be interpreted that way, though in hindsight the context of the reply was important.

                Nothing wrong with defending that fine document. I was only establishing the Koch Bros have been helping and directing the activities of the Tea Party movement, something which they have denied despite enormous evidence that they have been.

                I didn’t find any decent evidence that they created the modern Tea Party movement, which is what JB’s “stirred up” line implies. In the New Yorker article on page 2 you see testimony of an ex Republican contractor that the Kochs did create the Tea Party. On page 7 you find the words of a former Koch employee:

                In 1984, David Koch and Richard Fink created yet another organization, and Kibbe joined them. The group, Citizens for a Sound Economy, seemed like a grassroots movement, but according to the Center for Public Integrity it was sponsored principally by the Kochs, who provided $7.9 million between 1986 and 1993. Its mission, Kibbe said, “was to take these heavy ideas and translate them for mass America. . . . We read the same literature Obama did about nonviolent revolutions—Saul Alinsky, Gandhi, Martin Luther King. We studied the idea of the Boston Tea Party as an example of nonviolent social change. We learned we needed boots on the ground to sell ideas, not candidates.”

                That’s not enough to prove they created the modern Tea Party, just that they intended for a long time to do something similar and the CSE was their first attempt.
                However they have now attached themselves to the Tea Party, injected large amounts of cash into it, and organised events on a wide scale, which was why I said they had “shaken, not stirred up” the Tea Party. The “shaken” part is fact-based.

                As for JB’s “zombie” characterisation… well that’s going a bit too far. The Kochs have paid people to lecture Tea Partiers about what to think and do. So the influence from AFP is there but ultimately the TP don’t compulsively obey AFP.

                Regarding the link to Nimmo’s report, it does seem strange that defenders of the constitution would vote to infringe the 4th Amendment (CISPA), as though some external pressure prevents TP members from putting their ideology into action. I can’t attribute that to any particular cause. It’s suspicious this flip-flopping is in the same manner that the Republicans have become accustomed, but that’s just Nimmo’s suspicion. Since you count yourself a member of the Tea Party it’s something you might take an interest in and be much more informed.

                00

              • #
                Mark D.

                Andrew, my first comment to you on this was because it appeared to me that you were giving support to John’s notion that TEA Party members were, on whole, loonies. This is a really common meme among the die hard leftists. They were and are so terrified of TEA P people working essentially as “community organizers” and following the methods of the Left gained a whole lot of grass roots support. They were in fact so effective that even the mainstream Republicans felt the pressure and in my opinion the republican power brokers joined on in the universal trash-talk about the TEA Party.

                I was surprised that several years ago, here on Jo’s blog so many Leftists like JB and was it “Adam smith” were already repeating that false “loonie” (or similar) crap from thousands of miles away. Methinks that the TEA P was perceived as a very formidable threat to Progressive progress worldwide.

                I still believe that is true and even if it isn’t exactly, I don’t mind that Congress is in a virtual standstill since nothing gets done badly either. You have to realize here in the US spending is UNDERSTOOD by many to be out of control and at every level of government. The President and certain members of Congress have been way too willing to step around, over and on the Constitution. There is a whole lot of sane,rational people that see what has been going on for years and are truly concerned. These people are the TEA Party. You perhaps don’t remember the Ross Perot campaign that cause Bush Senior his loss and Clinton to win. The Perot organization lingered on for quite a while and many of the issues he stood upon are the same as the TEA P. The Perot loyal really tried to create a third party but in the process learned that would be nearly impossible. In my opinion, many of the Perot people became TEA Party people

                The Inner Core of both parties is rotten. I watched as Palin was smeared to oblivion, I have little doubt that the Republican inner core power structure was responsible. They felt more comfortable with a Democrat win than the “maverick” McCain and the outsider Palin. The same thing happened this past election and you perhaps don’t know about the Dirty Republican Convention where key TEA Party Delegates were “lost” in traffic between their hotels and the Convention Hall and missed their voting. Or the pitiful convention “entertainment” and program. It was all about wanting a loss. Mitt Romney wasn’t really the guy that the power structure wanted.

                With this in mind, I have no problem with Koch funding grassroots organizations. That is much better than what happened with Occupy Whatever (funding by guess who?) or Acorn (US “community organizing) or a myriad of other Leftist money-for-vote groups. Most of all I like that it annoys leftists like John Brookes.

                Suffice to say that TEA Party attitude is still very strong. Leftists and entrenched Republicans are still afraid of Democracy actually working. So when I see a Leftist ass like John take his turn at the propaganda mill calling these good people loonies you’re probably going to hear from me.

                10

      • #
        Mark D.

        There is a clinical diagnosis that can be made when a person feels that a significant number of fellow human beings are “loonies”

        I suggest you get help soon John.

        110

      • #
        Mortis

        Same question to you John Brookes, how is the 3% of co2 that humans are responsible for different from the naturally occurring 97% that the Earth is producing on her own? Different isotope? How does the sun (or heat since the sun has nothing to do with it) know which co2 molecules we produced? Please, even in the most general terms, address this.

        80

      • #
        Yonniestone

        JB if it’s too depressing go back to your little left wing one mate blog and discuss it with him, as I for one are sick of your cliché useful idiot persona and drag act gone wrong photo.

        100

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Hi JB,

        So peoples thinking is simply motivated (general case) by their ideological preferences – while applicable to some people, it is naive to assume that everyone is motivated that way.

        It is also naive to assume that those who disagree with your own POV (specific case) are motivated that way as well.

        It is unreflective to not assess your own thinking to ensure that you are not falling into the same trap of “ideologically motivated thinking” that allows for a simple fit with your own preferred CAGW Warmist community.

        The bottom line JB is that it is possible to do, and is performed by many people in their daily lives, to make an objective analysis of data and to arrive at empirically valid conclusions – even ones that are ideologically disagreeable to them.

        It’s called being intellectually mature.

        —–

        And finally how do you explain me (and many other former Warmists). I didn’t just have some major ideological reformation or epiphany that then motivated my change of position on CAGW, I discovered that the climate hypothesis of CAGW was not matched by the empirical facts.

        Once the process started (with a simple act of asking a question motivated by a curious mismatch of a news message with the facts on the ground), it took me 6 months (with much flipping and flopping as I wrestled with the ego spanking idea that I had been so completely fooled/duped) to come to the conclusion that mainstream climate science was a disaster on the scale of Lysenkoism but (even worse) with world wide reach.

        Your belief that peoples position is driven by their ideology is mistaken – and is merely a convenient way for you to shield yourself from effective engagement with the subject matter of this debate.

        You have blinkers on.

        Do yourself a favour and do the hard yards to remove your blinkers and become intellectually independent of the herd.

        210

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          I find JB a very queer duck.
          There are trolls that appear, such as the Master Baiter, that are plainly of the cargo cult and just too pig ignorant to consider something other than their own philosophy; a trait shared with many a religious fanatic.
          I get the feeling that JB, in his rather infrequent appearances, actually realises that the whole things is as phony as it is crooked, but cannot allow himself to admit it.
          Perhaps it is the fear of being bullied at UWA or wherever it is he earns his daily bread. Perhaps it is peer pressure. Perhaps he is sufficiently juvenile that he enjoys paying the Devil’s advocate. I wish I had a sufficient understanding of psychiatry to figure him out.

          50

        • #
          Wally

          Hello ExWarmist.

          Taken the same path as you. And as a consequence find many of the comments here rather amusing: there are a lot of conspiracy theorists and way-out-there types who comment here.

          Reading the comments frequently makes for rather depressing reading, to find the trolls who parrot the usual rubbish, and on the other the hate-all-lefties bashem-to-bits brigade.

          Where does that leave me? Traditional lefty, progressive politically, CAGW-sceptic, free-market supporter, thinks the US Republicans are immature, things the US Democrats are simplistic, things the US tea-party are from Alice-in-wonderland, thinks the Aus Labor have their hearts in the right place and their minds up their backsides, thinks the Aus libs are pretty heartless but generally better for business. And can’t stand greens who are just so simple-minded it defines belief.

          We’re most of us complex beasties, and those who post here accusing all lefties of being evil and out to steal all our dosh are a bit off the mark. Those who think a free market will solve all problems known to man are likewise off the mark.

          Sigh. At least we can be united in having the CAGW scales lifted from our eyes.

          50

          • #
            Mark D.

            Wally, the spectrum of political thought here is much wider than you imply.
            I’m in the US, I’m a card carrying Right wing Republican TEA Party supporter. I believe in our Constitution and can’t stand the Progressive Left agenda.

            Where does that leave you? Well first, I’d suggest you stick around and find more common ground. Second, I’d recommend you back-off of comments like Alice -in-Wonderland and accusations of conspiracy. I have a number of pretty Lefty friends, in fact they were over to my house on Boxing Day. I don’t mind people with opinion and decent argument for their political leanings. There is plenty to find fault in all politics. But I don’t have a lot of time for hand waiving and unfounded accusation. It will take this thread too far off topic to get into any discussion down the political path but when Joanne does her next “weekend Unthreaded” post let’s have at it?

            20

          • #
            bobl

            Mark D is right Wal,

            I think you need to understand the politics better, the US Tea Party is as I understand is a traditional libertarian political persuasion. They believe in individual responsibility, small government that stays out of peoples lives, and low taxes, they think the government should only look after common infrastructure (thats what they are for – eg roads , water, power, that sort of thing) they believe that government absolutely should NOT be poking its nose into their private business, EG NSA, forcing their Medical Histories through government systems, or telling them what they can or can’t do on their own land. The Tea party is in fact deeply socially responsible, probably even more so than the republicans, however they believe in traditional value systems rather than the regressive values of the modern socialist. You might say that’s wrong (according to your ideology) I say that’s their absolute RIGHT!

            What you miss Wally is that we know from experience that giving away free stuff (especially money) is no substitute for individual responsibility to support ones self – there’s even a Proverb for it, give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime. Modern socialism is all about wealth distribution, sucking dry the rich to give to the poor for free, once you succeed and all the rich people’s fish are gone, then what are you going to feed the poor with?

            Take the poor, train them and then have the rich people give them jobs, jobs that, yes, make the rich richer, so they can give more of the poor jobs. That’s what works, that’s how western civilization was built.

            BTW Wal, how many “Workers”, say sparkies, plumbers or miners would you think are “poor”.

            Examine yourself and you will probably realise that you want the same things as the tea party, the government to STAY OUT OF YOUR PRIVATE LIFE you only differ in how you expect that to be delivered.

            20

          • #
            Wally

            Poked a stick into the ants nest and wiggled it around :)

            Strangely enough whilst vaguely lefty, I’m all for personal responsibility and the things you think governments should be doing: roads, water, ELECTRICITY!, defence (defense for the Americans). Excessive poking into peoples private lives is not where govt should be.

            But at the same time, I don’t think the trickle-down theory of wealth creation works terrible well. Social redistribution works worse. So where does that leave us? Probably a good argument for progressive taxation but beyond that, the govt can keep their grubby paws out of my wallet, thanks very much.

            Interesting comments, I think we have more common ground than you’d expect. Many plain-ols-socially-progressive-plain-lefties take far too simplistic a view of things.

            00

            • #
              bobl

              Wal, I am just trying to illustrate how the demonisation of the Tea Party distorts their true objectives, on the whole Tea Party members probably would go for “Progressive taxation” Ie in the form of a flat turnover (transaction Tax) if that’s what you mean. If you only listen to the left talking about the Tea Party then you only get a little bit of the picture. They want pretty much what you do, what’s different is you expect the government to deliver equity while the Tea party expects the individual to take responsibility to achieve that for themselves

              00

            • #
              Mark D.

              Poked a stick into the ants nest and wiggled it around :)

              At least we aren’t fire ants!

              More common ground? I thought so too. As for “trickle down” theory you may be right but it’s better than trickle up poverty. Personally I like it when there are wealthy people around me. The money they spend does make the world go around.

              00

      • #
        bullocky

        John Brookes : ..’Don’t you get it Mat? We live in an alternative universe….’
        -
        There’s your problem, John – too much ASTROLOGY!

        50

      • #
        handjive

        Question: If a green head pops early in the morning, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

        Answer: Who cares! How much fun was that!

        20

      • #
        Sean McHugh

        Why do the Left in Australia always talk about the US ‘Tea Party’? Does it have some profound relevance in Australia of which the rest of us are unaware?

        60

        • #
          AndyG55

          As opposed to the “latte party”? ie JB’s green acquaintances :-)

          21

        • #
          scaper...

          There is a TEA Party in Australia, as such. The left seem to have a problem with them…they must be on to something to cop such vitriol.

          I bet the left don’t know what ‘TEA’ means. “TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY!” I would suggest the left form the antithesis and I would recommend ‘TUM Party’. “TAX US MORE!”

          Cretins!

          50

          • #
            Sean McHugh

            I was unaware. Now I’ll be vaguely aware. But I’ve noticed ‘Palin’ often seems to come into their dispensing and I’ll bet she isn’t in Australia.

            BTW, ‘Taxing Air’ is a good read. Thank you for that copy.

            20

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        So your comparing the Australian Liberals to the US Tea Party?

        One word John ignorance. Your running hot with it today.

        Why dont you list some of the policy positions of the two groups and we can see how they stack up. Or was that just an off the cuff remark you picked up in your peer group?

        50

        • #
          Sean McHugh

          I believe even comparing the polices is somewhat round about. Which of these would be quicker and less logically tenuous:

          A:
          (i) List some of the Coalition’s policies.
          (ii) Show those policies are bad.

          B:
          (i) List some of Tea Party policies.
          (ii) Show some matches with the Coalition’s policies.
          (iii) Show that Tea Party policies are bad.
          (iv) Deduce that the Tea Party is bad.
          (v) Deduce that the Coalition must be similarly bad.

          The second also involves a fallacy of composition, where the part becomes representative of the whole. Also, one might just as well reverse things in B and deduce that, because the Coalition is bad, so must be the Tea Party. Actually that would probably be more meaningful because in Australia, those not of the Left don’t know much about the TP. For most of us it makes an impotent pejorative.

          Of course, if the Coalition were a rebadging of the Tea Party (which it isn’t) then one could reasonably critique the Coalition via the Tea Party.

          10

      • #
        bobl

        Your red underpants are showing John.

        Actually, the people of the right are just People, John, just like you. Besides John, you already calculated for yourself that the evident climate sensitivity is below 1.4 so why are you still arguing? Oh that’s right, In spite of the fact that you KNOW the sensitivity is less than 1.4 you must still conform to the communal view of AGW, that’s called Commun – ism John… For you Climate Change isn’t science – it’s politics – politics that kills people.

        I’d like you to think of a world which has your favoured carbon (dioxide) taxes at a nice effective say $300 per tonne – Now let’s invoke a winter say JUST LIKE THE ONE THE USA IS HAVING RIGHT NOW – and with your nice carbon taxes there’s no cheap energy any more or like in England, widespread blackouts.

        Tell me John, in the US if energy were say 5 times the cost that it is now and 10 times less reliable (those windmills and solar panels don’t work when they’re buried in snow you know) , what would be happening across the USA this week?

        00

    • #
      Joe V.

      Isn’t losing touch with first principles the way to the nonsense of Post Normal Science ?

      Science that cann’t be traced back to first principles is but junk.

      100

      • #
        Franny by Coal light

        I was always a lazy student , preferring to remember first principles & how to work from them rather than remembering loads of stuff.
        It did make more of a time challenge in exams, working everything out instead of parroting most but I always valued the ability to work out which requires more understanding than learning to parrot.

        100

        • #
          Dougal

          Others may call it lazy but they’re just jealous. I’ve never understood why most people fail to see the the inherent efficiency in laziness.

          30

    • #
      Manfred

      Rather than waffle on, why not provide us with say, your favourite seminal research articles that confirm your AGW view.
      How about you put up what you consider the one key clinching paper that confirms the AGW experimental hypothesis?

      30

    • #
      AndyG55

      You again display your mathematical ignorance.

      “pi” has been calculated to a hundred thousand decimal places.
      http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~huberty/math5337/groupe/digits.html

      You just use what you need to get the precision you need in your answer.

      10

  • #
    Jimmy Haigh

    Isn’t this what they have been spending the countless billions on for the last 25 years already?

    20

    • #
      Joe Lalonde

      A politician is NEVER wrong and will keep spending billions more just on the principle and NOT on the science stinks to back the global warming theory. They will pay to propaganda it being correct and change the name to suit their incompetence of it not fitting the AGW models.

      50

  • #
    hunter

    Notice the believers rely on straw man arguments to such an extent as to raise the price of straw.
    The issue is whether or not billions of tax payer dollars should be spent without serious review.
    The climate kooks answer that question with a “no”, and then start tossing out useless distractions.
    Sort of like the media rewrites of the fool’s quest in Antarctica, the climate kooks must change the subject.

    80

    • #
      Mat

      Absolutely. Bring on a review, a royal commission, something similar to the court cases that were so unfortunately required in the US over evolution.

      217

      • #
        Joe Lalonde

        Mat,

        Evolution did not dig deep enough.
        The planet evolved as well as the species changes.
        There are thousands of questions that can be answered when applying the planet changing as well in many facets.

        50

      • #
        MemoryVault

        Mat,

        Entertainment-wise, you are priceless!
        Hunter makes a comment about you religious fanatics relying on straw-man arguments.
        And you reply with – a religion-based, straw-man argument!!

        I’m just disappointed you didn’t manage to work Big Oil and/or Big Tobacco in there as well.

        Still, for a religious fanatic, one out of three ain’t bad.

        210

        • #
          Mortis

          I’m just disappointed you didn’t manage to work Big Oil and/or Big Tobacco in there as well.

          While that one is still my favorite ecoloon point, I was hoping for the 97% consensus “fact” – they haven’t used that one enough lately… maybe all the stuffing just got knocked out of it…

          120

      • #
        Tim

        Mat; what happened to your ‘precautionary principle’?

        80

        • #
          AndyG55

          If he adopted the precautionary principle and kept his mouth shut lest he make a further fool of himself.. We would never hear from him again.

          70

      • #
        bullocky

        Mat; “Absolutely. Bring on a review, a royal commission, something similar to the court cases that were so unfortunately required in the US over evolution”
        -
        O.K…….But first things first! Let’s get the Akademik Shokalskiy out of all that ICE!

        90

    • #
      Joe Lalonde

      hunter,

      There is not much our species have not touched that has not been manipulated to fit someones ideals.
      Every area I have studied has massive manipulations to keep the people as sheep. 80% are followers and very few are innovators…unfortunately many innovations are strictly for profit and not for knowledge.

      50

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Systems of control within systems of control.

        Look to the governing frameworks that are constructed of belief, habit, and unquestionable assumed truths.

        My take on this is

        [1] The objective of propaganda and indoctrination is to insert unquestionable assumptions into the minds of the target subjects to induce automatic responses (choices/actions) to specific external stimulus, where the choices made and the actions taken align with the requirements of the propagandist.

        [2] The establishment of systems of control using propaganda and indoctrination is as old as human culture.

        [3] Systems of control are fundamental to human culture and the formation of society.

        [4] The name of the game for the individual is to determine what the systems of control specifically are for his given historical/cultural moment and to free himself from them and become intellectually and emotionally independent of the herd.

        Cheers ExWarmist

        60

  • #
    Tim

    Why would a PM who believes CAGW is “absolute crap”, spend $5 billion of our money on gold plating a turd before checking out the validity of this politicised science?

    Has moral principles given way in order to acquire votes from the brainwashed? I think he needs some new advisers.

    51

    • #
      Joe Lalonde

      Tim,

      You’re right…advisers paid by the government usually have their own agendas and profit handsomely…

      There are also outside pressures to follow the same game plan and can have consequences from other countries that may not like the stance being taken.

      30

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Sorry Joe,

        I can’t entirely agree that, “… advisers paid by the government usually have their own agendas and profit handsomely …”

        That generally only applies to “Specialists in the field …”, who are really amateurs, when it comes to giving impartial advice. If you ask a hairdresser if you need a haircut … etc.

        Professional advisors only survive for as long as they are seen to be impartial in the advice they give. That is a very thin line to tread, and there are some organisations that will not employ me because I base my advice on the evidence, and will not necessarily give the sponsor the answer they want, if it cannot be totally supported by that evidence.

        Mind you, I wouldn’t want to be associated with clients like that, so it is a win-win.

        40

        • #
          bobl

          Right with you there Rereke,

          In fact my last contract got terminated because of my refusal to tell the client what they wanted to hear, unfortunately I have integrity ( Damned conscience, always gets in the way, without it I could even be a warmist)

          00

    • #
      MemoryVault

      Sorry Tim,

      But where on earth did you get the idea that “moral principles” had anything whatsoever to do with Australian politics?

      110

      • #
        Mortis

        But where on earth did you get the idea that “moral principles” had anything whatsoever to do with Australian politics?

        Needed a slight fix

        50

  • #

    It is wasted money to assess the science, how many times does it need assessing, by whom? The major international body that looks at the latest research and creates reports for lawmakers have done it using thousands of scientists going over tens of thousands of reports over the last 5 years. Apart from that, if you don’t trust them then check out reports from any internationally recognised scientific organisation in the world, which all accept the science of AGW. Your silly questions have all been answered many many tmes, your excuses have been looked at and found to be wanting, your alternatives have been investigated and found to have no substance and natural variations have been taken into account and found to have the opposite effect to what is occurring. Actually read a scientific report people. The only way you would get a different outcome is if the assessment was a political one and not scientifically based, which is probably what you are after, as your arguments from authority are rarely scientists.

    This is another case of wasting money to allow more time wasting so that the fossil fuel companies can make more money during the delay and continue the money train to think tanks, opinion bloggers and the like. If you guys actually took notice when you are actually given the answers we could stop wasting our time and discuss solutions, a much more productive activity.

    241

    • #
      MemoryVault

      .
      I see the church choir has arrived.

      I blame myself, and Tim.
      Me, for questioning Mat’s religion-based straw-man argument, and
      Tim, for even suggesting that morality played any part in Australian politics.

      It has long been my experience that, as soon as you start questioning faith-based dogma, or discussing morality, a bunch of fundamentalist religious loonies will show up on your doorstep singing hymns to try and save your soul.

      .
      In our case we have the Master Baiter, who will happily sit up all night if necessary, proselytising to you heathens on the nature of Good and Evil, vis a vis the Revealed Truth according to the Goracle, and as faithfully disseminated by the Church of IPCC.

      Me – I’m going to bed.
      Been there, done that, heard it all before.

      220

      • #
        Joe Lalonde

        Usually…if you follow the money, you find morals have no bearing in business decisions.
        Any successful business today has none in order to stay competitive.

        Is it moral to see the quantity of package changes without warning the person that the company is trying to stay competitive to inflation and competition?
        How about changing quality of products so that it breaks down sooner?

        Our leaders tell us everything is fine…Considering one job used to cover the bills of the entire family. Now you need more than one income and then new policies or programs are instituted that you have to pay for that you were not allowed to have any input on.
        Big box stores are disappearing and NOT being replaced by any other…Malls are getting to be ghost towns…
        The Mom and Pop stores cannot compete and this is moral?

        80

        • #
          bobl

          On the whole that is not true. Companies are run by people, they employ people and generally look after them quite well. Most bosses suffer enormously when economic conditions mean that staff cuts need to happen. Also Joe, The shift to big stores is driven by the customers, and the reason one salary in no longer enough to pay the bills is because of the way taxation is done and the way governments run their economies. Companies just follow rules, it’s legislators that make them!

          PS I’m not saying all employers are saints, just as all workers are not saints either.

          00

    • #

      Have you ever heard a debate on AGW between scientists? Just one? No, all opinions come from journalists, economists, politicians and organizations like the IPCC.

      The IPCC was set up in 1988 specifically to investigate man made climate change. The University of East Anglia was also part of an attempt under Margaret Thatcher to reduce the power of the Welsh Coal miners. Of course for twenty five years both have found huge amounts of man made climate change and employed thousands of people directly and indirectly. Every council now has a climate change department. Thousands go to conferences. At an estimated $1Bn a day Climate Change/Global Warming/Windmills/Hot rocks/Wave power/Sequestration/Carbon credits has become a huge industry like Big Oil. Of course it is not going to question its own existence.

      So believe everything you are told, if you like, or ask our own scientists to question it and not the ones who work in the same industry so they can peer review each other. Surely the lack of warming over 18 years, admitted finally and publicly by the IPCC, should give you pause. The glaciers are not melting. The Polar bears are fine. The Arctic and Antarctic sea ice have always cancelled, which no one understands but is so obviously true today. Every single computer model prediction of temperature is wrong because their assumptions are wrong.

      It took the Catholic Church 300 years to pardon Galileo who contradicted the received opinion, simply because Copernicus’ theory fitted the facts but you can always stick with the high priests of Global Warming, if you choose. Why would they lie to you?

      190

    • #
      Backslider

      It is wasted money to assess the science,

      Really Michael?? Such blasphemy coming from the mouth of such a dedicated worshipper of “real science”??

      Its this simple Michale, as so aptly demonstrated elsewhere on this thread:

      AGW Theory vs The NULL Hypothesis

      Round 1.

      AGW Theory states that CO2 rise = temperature rise… up, up, up, up

      The NULL Hypothesis states that it’s natural variation…. up, down, up, down

      Observations: up, down, up, down

      AGW THEORY falsified!

      Round 2.

      Let’s party!!!!!!

      120

      • #
        Joe Lalonde

        Actually, the null hypothesis is incorrect as well…

        12

        • #
          Backslider

          Make your point….. puhleeeze

          20

          • #
            Mark D.

            He’s probably got a point Backslider, historically it’s been:

            down, down, down, up, down, down, down, up, down, down, down, up

            Probably entirely due to volcanism, and those forces external to the planet that we have no option but to put up with.

            30

        • #
          Mortis

          The CAGW theory fails on the fact humans are only responsible for 3% of co2 increase alone, so you are wrong.

          70

    • #
      bullocky

      Hey Michael!
      -
      Consensus; “50 million blowflies can’t be wrong”
      -

      Whadaya think?

      50

    • #
      janama

      Perhaps you should heed the words of scientific luminary, Pierre Darriulat. For nearly 50 years, his professional life has been devoted to particle physics, nuclear physics, condensed matter physics, and astrophysics. For seven years, he was Director of Research at CERN – one of the world’s largest, most famous, and respected laboratories.

      “The way the SPM (IPCC Summary for Policy Makers) deals with uncertainties (e.g. claiming something is 95% certain) is shocking and deeply unscientific. For a scientist, this simple fact is sufficient to throw discredit on the whole summary. The SPM gives the wrong idea that one can quantify precisely our confidence in the [climate] model predictions, which is far from being the case.
      When writing the SPM, the authors are facing a dilemma: either they speak as scientists and…recognize that there are too many unknowns to make reliable predictions…or they try to convey what they “consensually” think…at the price of giving up scientific rigour. They deliberately chose the latter…they have distorted the scientific message into an alarmist message”

      190

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      Isn’t the problem with having Climate Scientists re-assess the Science as MtR suggests, they are only going to come up with the same answer ?

      How would you constitute the expertise of an enquiry to elicit the truth,
      when faced with such entrenched vested interests vs. economic reality ?

      70

      • #
        Jaymez

        I can’t remember who suggested it, but one writer suggested using the NIPCC Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science report as a starting point and appoint scientists who have not previously declared a pro or anti CAGW position.

        I think that once you have an environment where the establishment is taking seriously a balanced view then there will be plenty of scientists prepared to come forward and make their contributions.

        100

        • #
          Mortis

          Which I would welcome.

          “What has never been gone into impartially has never been properly gone into. Hence skepticism is the first step toward truth. It must be applied generally, because it is the touchstone.” –
Denis Diderot

          “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” – Nikola Tesla

          60

    • #
      Peter Miller

      Well obviously you would not want an unbiased appraisal of the state of climate science today. I know it’s tedious, but let’s review all those boring facts again.

      1. The global temperature has remained almost static for over 17 years – RSS.

      2. The sea levels are rising no faster or slower than they have for the past 150 years, the end of the LIA.

      3. The arctic ice cap has been shrinking until last summer, when there was a dramatic turnaround. In any event, December 2013 witnessed the greatest extent of the combined polar ice caps in satellite history.

      4. The polar bears are thriving.

      5. Severe weather incidences are similar, or less, in number and severity than they have been for the past century or more.

      6. many glaciers are retreating, tut the latest process started 150 years ago, well before anyone can claim AGW was the reason.

      7. Geological history has not changed, it has been warmer several times before in the Holocene ( the past 10,000 years) and the Eemian and in the interglacial periods prior to today. We cannot do anything about natural climate cycles, so get over it.

      8. In the highly unlikely event there has been a minuscule amount of ocean acidification, then it is due to: i) effectively non-existent records of 100 years ago, and/or ii) sulphate or nitrate pollution. In any event, the pH variations geographically and on a local monthly basis comfortably exceed anything that could ever be caused by CO2, which if the oceans continue to absorb at the current rate would increase by less than 1ppm over the next century.

      But, of course, there are all those wonderful models predicting Thermageddon, the gross manipulation of historic temperature data prior to the satellite era, ignoring the UHI effect and most important of all, ignoring the geological era.

      I believe AGW exists, partly caused by rising CO2 levels, but it is not important and CAGW is a complete fantasy, but then again I am a private sector geologist, so what should I know?

      An unbiased review would be great, but keep the big noises in the IPCC out of it; it needs to be done by real scientists, preferably non-government ones and by those not obsessed with the continuation of their own careers.

      200

      • #

        All good points but there is NO ocean acidification. Please do not concede this blatant deceit. It is an extremely deceitful statement as the seas are alkali not acid. It is not technically a wrong statement and yes, dissolved CO2 forms carbonic acid like lemonade so they are made more ‘acidic’ but they are not acid in the first place, so adding tiny amounts of acid makes them more neutral, safer and less active if you like. More like fresh water. As well, the oceans contain 50x as much CO2 as the entire atmosphere, so what difference can 50% of 2% make?

        130

      • #
        AndyG55

        “I believe AGW exists”

        But has nothing to do with CO2.

        If there is any “A” in any real warming it is because of land-use changes and urban population expansion.

        There is certainly a human effect in the so-called “global average temperature” record though, humans (a particular few) have caused a large proportion of the warming trend. ;-)

        40

    • #
    • #
      AndyG55

      “The only way you would get a different outcome is if the assessment was a political one and not scientifically based”

      You are wrong about sooooo many things in this.. basically every word is straight from the propaganda textbook.

      The only way you get the current alarmist is because its political NOT scientific.

      Why are you sooooo scared of neutral non-trough scientists actually being able to openly discuss the lack of science behind AGW..

      Why do warmist priests refuse to discuss with real scientists..

      Because they KNOW their rotten edifice will come crashing down.. that’s why !!!

      The end is nigh for the CAGW hoax, and the warmist monkees are screeching louder and louder. :-)

      110

    • #
      AndyG55

      Surely you should be relishing the idea of a proper scientific enquiry by un-aligned real scientists.

      Surely its worth a few million to prove the CAGW mantra is correct..
      (especially after the trillions wasted on nothing worthwhile so far)

      you know.. for our children’s, and grandchildren’s future futures.

      Why is it only us totally wrong “deniers” that want a real scientific enquiry. (I hope the mods let that “d” word through)

      Why are you so scared of a real enquiry when the outcome MUST be that the AGW myth is proved correct.

      You should be yelling .. YES! LET’S HAVE THIS SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY.

      Not fighting tooth and nail against it. !

      110

      • #
        Manfred

        Wouldn’t they be delighted to learn that climageddon is a political fantasy to extract cash from the air you breathe and exert devastating control (UN Agenda 21)? Wouldn’t anyone in their right mind who was a warmist believer be happy and relieved that it was an awful mistake and we could get on with the business of living and flourishing?

        It’s so telling that they can’t bring themselves to find joy in the probability of the opposing empirical perspective. They gaze into the abyss and the abyss gazes back (Nietzsche). The World will go on. In fact, it will thrive. It may take a brief moment or two to get beyond the current Green AGW political pestilence, but get beyond it we blerdy well will!

        I think that there is a fair to good chance that the CAGW brigade will join the eugenicists in history.

        20

    • #
      Angry

      “Michael the CRETIN” strikes again……..

      50

  • #
    ROM

    Jo, I should point out that you would not have this site or would be known sand respected so widely around the world if these whack doodles, al of them, of the global warming catastrophe faith had had an ounce of honesty and a perceptible level of ethics and truthfulness in their make up.

    101

    • #
      Jaymez

      I’m not convinced that is true ROM. For instance perhaps Robyn Williams should have been replaced years ago. The science communication positions within the media and Government departments have been a closed shop to the CAGW group for many years.

      But who knows what Jo and David may have been able to do in private enterprise if all that funding from both Government and private hadn’t been sucked into the Climate Change and inefficient renewable energy areas.

      Of course the Climate Alarmists all thing Jo is rolling in money from Big Oil, Coal or Heartland or somewhere, while they throw their criticisms of her from comfy taxpayer funded offices.

      70

      • #
        Mortis

        “Of course the Climate Alarmists all thing Jo is rolling in money from Big Oil, Coal or Heartland or somewhere…”

        Sweet – do we get a bounty for troll squashing? My power bills are going through the roof, so where do I sign up?
        /s

        40

        • #
          ExWarmist

          (Elec,Gas) Power bills up 15% YoY, Water, Insurance, Food up….

          Yet CPI sits around 2% to 3%…

          70

          • #
            Eddie Sharpe

            But these aren’t Consumables though Ex., apart from food anyway.

            We all know CPI was introduced (replacing RPI) to hide inflation and rob pensioners of their index linking.

            30

            • #
              ExWarmist

              Correct – Cui Bono

              The CPI has been easily co-opted by those who have a vested interest in the following elements.

              [1] Mask consumer price inflation to enable reduced interest rates (favours debtors over savers, esp’ large govt debt, enables increasing debt mountains that favour the owners of the financial system).

              [2] Keep wage costs down across the board – this affects professionals working in the Corporate world just as much as factory workers and unskilled, semi-skilled labour everywhere. (favours owners of capital).

              Consider that

              While the fact that a record number of Americans are living in poverty should not surprise anyone at this point, what should surprise many is that according to Table P-5 of the Census report of (Lack of) Income, the median male is now worse on a gross, inflation adjusted basis, than he was in… 1968! While back then, the median income of male workers was $32,844, it has since risen declined to $32,137 as of 2010.

              Slightly dated info – but the twin points of enabling government deficit spending and real wage suppression are still relevant.

              And just to fry any green, watermelon, warmists noodle out there – consider how CPI suppression (implemented by Govt) benefits Big Government and Big Capital – which could be characterized as Crony Capitalism (aka Crypto Fascist Corporate Statism) – which structure is what your actually working to entrench by naive obedience to the CAGW meme.

              (Easy co-option? – all you have to do is manage the methodology for the collection and analysis of data, what gets included, what gets excluded, how is the data assessed (hedonics for example), establish and maintain a monopoly on the official reporting of the metric, —- you know what – kinda sounds familiar…)

              Cui Bono Indeed.

              70

    • #
      Dougal

      God forbid. What a thought.

      20

  • #
    pat

    give thanks for Michael Asten. compare with the science of this now-(in)famous Climate Change Professor:

    11 Sept: ABC PM: UNSW organises Antarctic trek to celebrate centenary of Mawson expedition
    MARK COLVIN: One of the expedition leaders is climate change specialist Professor Chris Turney.
    CHRIS TURNEY: There’s a number of things we’re hoping to do, and we’re going to start the science program as soon as we head south. This is very much not just for pure science research program: we’re taking the public with us, berths are for sale…
    MARK COLVIN: Alright, well Australia’s just elected a government which, I think it’s fair to say, is more sceptical about global warming and certainly about what to do about it. Do you think they’ll be listening to you when we get back?
    CHRIS TURNEY: I think to be perfectly honest, that in the first instance, we’re just trying to get people excited by the science, and rather than it being an issue where people have a gut feeling about whether they believe in climate change or not, it’s actually getting them to be re-engaged and excited about the science.
    And if politicians listen and get excited about what we’re doing, that’d be brilliant.
    MARK COLVIN: And as you know, the scepticism has extended right into the science. What do you think about that?
    CHRIS TURNEY: It has in the public domain somewhat. Certainly in the scientific community, it’s remarkably solid…
    MARK COLVIN: But a lot of scientists feel kind of somewhat besieged at the moment because of this public scepticism.
    CHRIS TURNEY: Yeah, some do certainly; those who engage a lot with the public and some individuals do struggle with that a little bit. Other people, though, I’ve met and I’ve given talks to – when you explain the science – completely understand the basic premise and at the end of the day for us, it’s so self-evident, what we see now.
    MARK COLVIN: What is that?
    ***CHRIS TURNEY: Well, the fundamental issue is if you didn’t have carbon in the atmosphere, the planet would be about minus 50 degrees centigrade, give or take – that’s what you’d have. So a little bit of carbon warms the planet, and that’s good, it’s where we’re at today – an average planet temperature of about 14, 15, degrees.
    If you put more carbon in the atmosphere, you’d expect the planet to warm, and basically that’s what you see…
    ***MARK COLVIN: Chirs Turney, professor of climate change at the University of New South Wales and the leader of the 2013-2014 Australian Antarctica Expedition.
    http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3846720.htm

    40

    • #

      “if you didn’t have carbon in the atmosphere, the planet would be about minus 50 degrees centigrade”.

      This is really startling new science from Professor Turney. Where did he get this nonsense? Did he just make it up?

      Water vapour is a much stronger and more prevalent hothouse gas than CO2 at 0.04% so this is really odd. Everything I have read indicates that the planet would be -20C even with no atmosphere at all. We are on a ball of molten metal with a thick crust and the heat has nowhere else to go but out plus the incident heat from the sun, so I do not know where Turney gets such startling ‘facts’. Even Mars is +20C at the equator despite being much further away.

      Or is it the old thing, that he has a PhD so everything he says must be factual? This is how religions grow.

      110

      • #
        MemoryVault

        This is really startling new science from Professor Turney.

        You were expecting “science” from a publicity-craving coach of a university cheer-leader squad?

        Fascinating.

        90

    • #
      Jaymez

      How did this guy get his PhD? Minus 50 degrees without CO2! OK so maybe he was misquoted, just maybe – all the literature indicates a figure less than half that number. I have read estimates of -15C and -20C. This latest paper from NASA calculates -21C http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/

      50

    • #
      handjive

      Parts of Manitoba, (Winnipeg) hit -53 C, colder than Mars

      Prof. Turney: “if you didn’t have carbon in the atmosphere, the planet would be about minus 50 degrees centigrade”

      The climate science is settled. They all agree.

      30

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        I lived my first 23 years there. Those temperatures are not at all unusual, or at least they weren’t in the 1960s. Below minus 30 man or beast must not endure heavy exertion for fear of freezing a lung. Many a horse has gone down due to being driven too hard or too fast.
        I spent another 25 years where it is a damned sight colder…..Northern BC and the Yukon.
        Like the opposite extreme, it only illustrates the resourcefulness of homo sapiens. Innovative techniques to survive the cold used by the Inuit are equal to innovative techniques to survive the heat by the Australian Aboriginals.
        Working outdoors at minus 50 is as feasible, and as risky, as working outdoors at plus fifty. It just requires having a buddy, good gear, and an understanding of the danger signs and what to do if they appear.

        50

    • #
      Streetcred

      We all know that black body radiation temperature of the Earth is about 258k; we also know that with an atmosphere Earth’s surface temperature is about 287k. So how does Turkey calculate -50C ? Is this his sum knowledge of the physics ? Pity his students.

      30

  • #
    Kevin White

    But sadly the leftist press continue to spew out articles that contain pro global warming propaganda. An example from the Canberra Times …

    The article seems to be written by someone who is too dumb to plan ahead. She heads off in her car for a drive in Sydney traffic, knowing that a heat wave has been predicted by the weather bureau (not an unexpected event in an Australian summer), forgets to take a drink with her and then starts dehydrating when she gets stuck in the predictable traffic jam. Sounds like your typical human interest story. But wait, now she takes the opportunity to slip in the propaganda for global warming …

    “The experience was a scary reminder of the dangers of summer travel. It was also a terrifying look into the future; one where stifling hot days are likely to be the norm, not the exception. Where you simply can’t take risks like travelling underprepared.

    And though Sydney swelters every summer, there’s no denying extreme days are happening earlier and more often. With last year’s average temperatures across Australia the hottest since records began – and now a heatwave with 50 degrees in some parts of the country – it’s only going to get hotter. The question is, will we be able to cope with the changes? Heat-related illness can strike anyone, not just those in Third World countries. We are, after all, just animals with a body temperature of 37 degrees. And we all get caught out once in a while.

    And let’s not forget the plants and animals that have no air-conditioned malls to retreat to, and no time to adapt quickly enough to the record temperatures we are experiencing.

    With climate change already set in train, all we can do now is prepare ourselves and the next generation for a life of inevitable extreme weather conditions and hope they never find themselves underprepared.”

    Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/dehydration-crisis-a-scary-wakeup-call-20140104-30aqa.html#ixzz2pWt6eY4t

    I feel at times like I’m living in George Orwell’s 1984 with a relentless campaign of lies and propaganda being directed at a gullible and compliant public.

    90

    • #
      Mortis

      ‘The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.’…..George Orwell.

      70

    • #
      Popeye

      Kevin,

      Note at the bottom of this piece of DRIVEL!

      “Josie Banens is a professional communicator with a communications-journalism degree and mother to two children.”

      Professional communicator with a communications-journalism degree – what utter BS!!

      I also note that no comments allowed for this type of “popcorn” media c..p.

      Cheers,

      30

  • #

    We have just completed a special edition of ‘Pattern Recognition in Physics’ which examines cyclic phenomena, solar variation and terrestrial climate responses. Details here:
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/12/13/special-edition-of-pattern-recognition-in-physics/
    All the papers are free to download.
    Happy new year to all our friends down under, and congratulations on electing a climate realist government.

    Rog TB

    180

    • #
      John Brookes

      OMFG. Pattern recognition. Next you’ll be trying to explain the pretty pictures.

      040

      • #
        Eddie Sharpe

        No problem recognising the same old, same old pattern there JB. The OM[Snip]G seemed a tad out of character and unnecessary though.

        130

        • #
          Safetyguy66

          Hes getting bitter lately isnt he?

          I guess banging your head on a wall can only be be entertaining for so long.

          40

      • #
        Mortis

        Spoken like a true non-scientist

        50

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Ooo, JB doesn’t understand what pattern recognition is … what a hoot.

        90

      • #
        AndyG55

        I think its the word Physics which scared him more , though. !

        50

      • #
        bullocky

        .
        Of pretty pictures, John, my avatar’s better then yours.

        20

      • #
        AndyG55

        I see a pattern in JB’s posts..

        They are all TOTALLY MORONIC !!!

        71

      • #
        Sean McHugh

        Grow up, John.

        40

      • #
        Streetcred

        You still haven’t found the cause of those pretty patterns in your head, Brooksie ? Maybe it’s in the substances that you imbibe ?

        51

      • #
        ROM

        John Brookes, it seems you and your fellow believers in the catastrophic global warming faith have a rather big and very serious problem relating to the veracity, integrity and honesty of your claims appearing on your ideological horizions.
        Problems that the uncommitted web viewing public are waking up to and so they are now starting to walk away in droves from what is increasingly seen as your crap alarmist catastrophic climate warming ideology.

        It seems that an increasing number of the public are both sick to death of the hype and particularly the financial and immense social costs of your non eventuating catastrophic global warming and / or no longer believe your claims of future catastrophes from what was, until the start of the 16 year long misnamed and ongoing ‘pause”, a small, highly beneficial 20 year long warming of the planet.

        Unlike the god like Gaian provided attributes of the climate catastrophe alarmists I have not been blessed with the seer like and oracle gifted ability to predict the future but looking at past climate history as we know it, the so called ” pause” might just happen to last another two or three or more decades and any future warming might well have to start all over again from a base level of temperatures much closer by then to the end of the LIA in the mid 1800′s.

        The public are waking up to the climate model BS you and your ilk have been pushing as consensus science proving catastrophic global warming and are leaving in droves as can be seen in the Alexa global rankings below

        I took another look at the Alexa data for the various Skeptic and most rabid alarmist blogs last night .
        The trends in then Alexa web viewer numbers per site is a pretty good indication on what the World Wide Web reading public are interested in and where they go for their information.
        So here are some Skeptic and alarmist blog viewer numbers and trends from Alexa global rankings of some of the most significant climate related web sites.

        Alarmist sites in bold.
        Smaller numbers are the indicators of a higher position in the global rankings.

        WUWT = 10,348
        GWPF= 79,835
        JoNova = 82,735
        Climate etc = 85380
        Bishop Hill = 87,142
        SKEPTICAL SCIENCE = 101,746
        NoTricksZone =115,842
        DESMOGBLOG = 147,511
        REAL CLIMATE = 152,317

        [repaired] ED

        40

        • #
          ROM

          My bad ;
          Correction;
          Scrap the “Alarmist sites in bold ” comment as those first couple of Skeptic sites are also in bold

          Anyway You are all smart enough to work it out for yourselves which is which.

          [I took the liberty of bolding them for you] ED

          20

        • #
          AndyG55

          yo, Rom.. The bold didn’t work too well ;-)
          I’ve used italics.. hopefully that will work better.

          What needs to be realised is that MANY scientists visit the so-called “sceptical sites” because discussion is generally open, while the CAGW block any anyone who wants to debate especially if they are real scientists.

          WUWT = 10,348
          GWPF= 79,835
          JoNova = 82,735
          Climate etc = 85380
          Bishop Hill = 87,142
          SKEPTICAL SCIENCE = 101,746
          NoTricksZone =115,842
          DESMOGBLOG = 147,511
          REAL CLIMATE = 152,317

          20

          • #
            ROM

            Thanks Ed & guys [ & gals ]

            10

            • #
              ROM

              I’ll take this Alexa rating thing a bit further.
              I was rather amused in my web meanderings to come across a rabidly warmist site that nobody has ever heard of, tearing into Alexa for ranking WUWT as high as it does and claiming that the Alexa algorithm is very wrong.
              Got quite a good chuckle from that site for as a number of bloggers are increasingly pointing out, the alarmists are getting very angry and upset and thoroughly pixxed off as it is becoming apparent that in the eyes of the public and slowly but steadily in an increasing number of the the MSM outlets, their CO2 powered climate catastrophe star is sinking into the murk and mire of being just another of the hundreds of past and spectacularly failed doomsday cults.

              A site I have come across a few times but have never bookmarked is the Scottish Sceptic site.

              It has some quite thoughtful posts obviously written from the skeptical angle such as this one The Citizen Scientist : a paradigm shift in Science. which has reinforced and clarified some of my own thinking on the increasing role of the citizen scientists in today’s internet based information revolution.

              Scottish Sceptic suggests that Science and scientists today are facing a situation not that dissimilar to the invention of the printing press when knowledge that had previously been very closely controlled by a tiny elite group in society and which could in the past only be passed on orally to a small number of individuals outside of the elite group within the wider community suddenly became available through the output of the printing press to the whole of the society thereby destroying the very foundations of the control over the society they had previously exercised through their superior access to knowledge and using their [ corrupted ? ] interpretation of that knowledge to the elite’s advantage .

              But the post I was looking for was this one on the Alexa rankings of some 143 climate sites as in mid December 2013

              Ranking of climate blogs (Dec 2013)

              The Alexa rankings do shift around quite a lot on a day to day basis but nevertheless as I have posted previously still give a good overall indication of the ranking levels of the various sites.
              You will see in the comments that there are some high recognition skeptic climate bloggers like Anthony Watts and Pierre Gosselin and etc who are commenting on this particular Scottish Sceptic post.

              And if you want a list or more climate related sites to bookmark, both warmist and skeptic, you probably won’t get a better collection and their relative importance and standing than from this list that Scottish Sceptic posts here.

              20

              • #

                Thanks for the link to Sottish Sceptic’s (Mike Haseler) article. Happy to note my site tallbloke’s talkshop is several places in front of realclimate and desmogblog.

                10

        • #
          Dave

          Rom,

          Thanks Andy also.

          The stats are interesting, with a gradual decline of alarmists sites and an increase of skeptics over last 6 months or so.

          I think people are sick of the continual BS coming through the Fairfax and ABC (no reads The Guardian Australia Rank 1,846,336 Ehehhee!) and are now searching alternatives. With The Drum, Skeptical Science etc all ignoring the list of FOOLS the CAGW have thrown up, I think people want info now.

          How could the CAGW crowd ignore the following:

          1. Tim Flanney (Sacked and raising donations)
          2. Climate Council – has been going 3 months (nothing on Alexa at all eheeeh)
          3. David Suzuki stupid and ignorant performance on Q&A.
          4. Professor Chris Turkey giving us GOLD as none of the almarmists will touch it.

          And then I noticed the CAGW Trolls back, once the subject got off The SHIP OF FOOLS?

          They hated the whole SHIP OF FOOLS saga, they were like bats falling out of trees in an Ipswich heatwave. They have become very bitter and angry, attacking everything about the skeptics.

          I think the CAGW crowd would have done better if they had admitted that the group above are just IDIOTS, and disassociate from them. (Also Al Gore the Ice Core). But the religion holds them so tightly.

          Just mention The Frozen Turkey, and they go ballistic. The tide is turning, it’s getting cold for the ranting, raving GANG GREEN pigs, because their money tree is loosing it’s leaves.

          I haven’t had this good a XMAS with warmists for a long time, it was terrific.

          Charter boat, what charter boat.

          A classic re-enactment of Prof Turkey & THE SHIP OF FOOLS.

          30

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      Thankyou Roger. That’s a very welcome addition to the body of literature and in an area sadly lacking in attention from our supposed climate cognoscenti. It is going to take some reading, which I’m waiting to download from my Smart but not so Readable SmartPhone for.

      How is it being in a Question Time audience btw.? How long until we hear Roger and other such rational enquirers on the Radio I wonder ? The BBC that is.

      90

      • #

        Thanks Eddie. I find it a fascinating field to work in. It’s not going to be easy to work out magnitudes of effects, but the linkages are looking good.

        I was a bit disappointed by QT. Questions entered into the box by myself and others were much more incisive than those chosen for debate. The panel seemed pat with their answers.

        UKIP are definitely stirring things up though.

        20

    • #
      Mortis

      Thanks Rog, much appreciated.

      50

  • #
    Bones

    Hi Jo,there is an up side and a down side to this post.The up side is it may keep the govt moving in the right direction(hopefully),the down side,Christine Milne will be waffling on for a month,a person wont be able to turn on the tv without hearing her annoying bleeting.

    70

  • #
    Sonny

    I have nothing left to say other than express my utter contempt for any politician, journalist, scientist or business person who has profited from the perpetuation of this absurd climate change bullcrap science. You have sold your soul to inhuman globalists with an agenda to deindustrialise and depopulate the world. [snip] you!

    [You didn't really think that word was OK Sonny? - Mod]

    120

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      [You didn't really think that word was OK Sonny? - Mod]

      It still conveys the passion that Sonny was expressing, but if anyone misunderstands [snip]ping them, the said profiteers, wouldn’t be such a bad idea either.

      50

      • #
        Franny by Coal light

        That might seem to be one way of addressing the supposed population problem too , without curbing the passion, but the Catholic Church wouldn’t hear of it so its a non-starter.

        50

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Franny,

          I had to read that several times, before I understood which “non-starter” you were referring to.

          30

  • #
    Jaymez

    If only our main stream media had editors and journalists of your calibre Jo. The way you took apart Ashley’s two arguments was inspiring and should be an example to journalist who should be taught to be both sceptical and investigative.

    Ashley should be incredibly embarrassed at his naivety particularly when it was him who was criticising someone else’s knowledge and logic.

    70

  • #
    John Brookes

    Asten. Salby. Plimer. They just pop their heads up over the parapet, get them blown off, and some other mug replaces them. But it doesn’t matter. As long as there is a steady stream of “skeptical” drivel getting into the media, then doubt remains and action doesn’t happen.

    Keep up the good work.

    039

    • #
      Jaymez

      You are feeling down tonight John. Isn’t it good news that the world isn’t really heading towards Armageddon? That accelerated global warming which was predicted, has paused even though CO2 emissions have continued to rise? And that we have time to develop efficient renewable energy while we take advantage of cheap fossil fuels? It’s all good news!

      200

      • #
        Mortis

        No, his type hate humans and are praying for catastrophe.

        140

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        Hell no its not good news that mankind might survive!

        Dont you realise these people have to make a living by terrifying children ?

        Tim is already out of a job despite predicting everything from tidal waves to plagues of locust by Wednesday week close of business. Whats next I ask you ?

        40

      • #
        Bulldust

        The sad part about Brooksey is that he should know better, what with his UWA-Physics connection (unless that is another John Brookes). I wonder if he gets into CAGW with the first year students…

        I think I figured out why Brooksey hangs out here… he doesn’t get much in the way of visitors at his blog:

        http://john-brookes.blogspot.com.au/

        30

        • #
          Bulldust

          Cripes! Don’t touch the “view profile” link … you will get hit by a wall of JB photos and little else of substance.

          30

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Keep up the good work.

      Don’t worry about it, John. We fully intend to keep it up.

      Actually maybe you should worry about it because it’s your house of cards coming unglued, not ours.

      140

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Hi JB.

      Thinking begins with Doubt.

      Belief begins with Certainty.

      You have more in common with this guy then you think Harold Camping.

      100

    • #
      AndyG55

      The religious CAGW tweebs become fewer and fewer (but shriller and shriller), still hiding from real debate and real scientific scrutiny.

      They can see that the change back to reality is coming..

      Panic is setting in. :-)

      90

    • #
      AndyG55

      “action doesn’t happen.”

      but action IS happening.

      The CAGW mantra is being bought to light as the hoax/fraud that it is.

      70

    • #
      bullocky

      .
      “They just pop their heads up over the parapet, get them blown off”
      .
      Stop watching the 10:10 Video, John!

      40

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Because if we do “act” it will help right ?

      http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/tim_1000_years_flannery_gives_the_government_a_millennium_bug/desc/P20

      You guys (warmists) seriously need to sit down as a group and get your stories straight. It will assist your credibility no end if your at least all reading from the same BS book.

      Milne says “its going to be a hotter, wetter world”
      http://www.greens.org.au/christine-milnes-national-press-club-election-address

      Flannery says it will never rain in a meaningful way again
      http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/it-pays-to-check-out-flannerys-predictions-about-climate-change-says-andrew-bolt/story-e6frfhqf-1226004644818

      Seriously, its like trying to debate a Christian. At least Ned Flanders understood the predicament “But why God, Ive done everything you said in the book, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff”.

      You know what, when I feel like Im starting to resemble Ned Flanders, I generally change tactics…. might be time for your little glee club of doom sayers to agree on a position.

      30

    • #
      Manfred

      jb #25says:

      then doubt remains

      Nice to have confirmed from the Dark Side that your science is so appallingly weak that ‘doubt’ is so simple to raise.

      20

    • #
      bobl

      John,
      The last Greens voter I spoke to told me that all the people with cancer or heart disease should be left to die (we shouldn’t research cures) because the world is overpopulated so the sick should just drop dead… is that your position too?

      00

    • #
      James

      John – Not sure yoou’re correct about Asten,Salby and Plimer having difficulty defending their position it seems more likely that it’s the personal attacks from people that resort to abuse rather than debate when the evidence supporting AGW fails.

      00

  • #

    Michael Asten starts to ask the right questions, but he is far from completing the process.
    A medical analogy can illustrate this. We have a potential new disease here. Asten’s case is centered around proper diagnosis of the disease, along with how serious that disease is likely to become untreated. I quite agree that we achieve the best diagnosis possible before administering a course of treatment. What he does not address is how effective that treatment is going to be; the dosage of medicines; the potential side effects of that treatment program; the ability to monitor that success of that treatment; the ability to change treatments part way through; and the competency of the people administering that treatment program.

    Even in terms of measurement, the likely amount of temperature rise, or getting a better handle on the likely impacts of that rise are just the start of measuring the size of the problem. The only overall measure is a cost figure. That (as the IPCC and others have recognised in the past) is the realm of economics. Further, the major policies (carbon trading, carbon tax & switch to renewables) are economics-based policies.
    I looked last year at this complex issue. Full postings are here.
    For policy-makers, the key for constraining the global growth in CO2 levels is to identify the low-cost high-impact policies. The truth is nobody has started to address this, but it seems the the most obvious place to start. It is similar to a doctor identifying a likely virus, proscribing some standard antibiotics.

    41

    • #
      Peter C

      Maybe psychiatry would provide a better analogy. You diagnose a disease which isn’t there. All of the treatments are going to be equally effective.

      70

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Many talk about this kind of fiscal responsibility. Few actually walk the line they talk.

    This is encouraging only because the financial pain of continuing as things are going is already bad and getting worse. So the incentive is becoming stronger than it would otherwise be. But believe it only after you see it.

    30

  • #
    Brian McCool

    First off, thanks Jo for providing this site and the information within it.

    Second, I wonder if the folks like Mat and John Brookes realize that they are confirming the problems with the CAGW arguments by using the same, non-scientific, sophomoric attacks against opposing thought that are brought to light about the MSM’s stance on CAGW.

    A discussion of politics by extreme opposing sides will almost always result in futility. A discussion of religion by extreme opposing sides will almost always result in futility. CAGW appears to me to be the marriage of politics and religion masquerading as science.

    I am no scientist, but I understand the scientific method. IMO, CAGW is not a theory. It is not a hypothesis, either. Instead, it is a group of hypotheses where if any one of them fail, the whole CAGW idea fails, or at the very least must be heavily modified. It has, in fact, already been modified to handle its evolution from MMGW, to AGW, to CAGW. The hypotheses as I see them are:

    1) The earth is warming at unprecedented, unnatural levels and/or rates of increase in said levels.
    2) This warming is caused exclusively by the extra carbon dioxide released by human activity.
    3) This warming has a net bad (catastrophic) effect to the planet and its inhabitants.
    4) This “issue” is the most important problem the inhabitants of this planet must deal with.

    The first hypothesis gained much traction with Mann’s “hockey stick”. Mann and Jones would not share their data or provide information on their methodologies; breaking a principle of the scientific method. We know that there have been periods of time long before the first SUV roamed the earth where the planet went from being totally covered in ice to having little if any ice at all. For the unprecedented and unnatural levels, one would have the ability to examine four billion years of climate on the earth to be able to make that statement. Any period of time similar in scale to what Mann and Jones used that show otherwise completely destroys the first hypothesis. My money is on the past on this one.

    If I were to ignore the problems I have with the first hypothesis the second hypothesis is problematic for me due to the sheer number of influences on this planet’s climate; many of which we don’t fully understand yet. To say that mankind as added 3% of the carbon dioxide to the atmosphere that is currently at 0.04% carbon dioxide is wreaking havoc with our climate sounds a bit silly to me when there are much larger players in the dozens and scores of other factors of our climate. The fact that some countries have labeled carbon dioxide as a pollutant amazes me. When I think of a pollutant, I think of something that must be eliminated in its entirety. The elimination of CO2 from our atmosphere would be the end of life. When is the church of CAGW going to come after our beer and fizzy drinks?

    The third hypothesis is also problematic for me. I see more reports of death during severe cold snaps than I do of severe heat waves. Periods of human expansion in population and invention seem to occur during periods where the temperature was warmer while periods of non-growth or contraction occur during cold periods. If my growing season had been just two weeks longer last summer before the first frost, I could have almost doubled my harvest of peppers and tomatoes. The mild summer with too much rain and an early frost insured that I will not have enough tomatoes to last me until the next harvest comes in. (Note: Yes, I know that last item is a localized and personal item, but for my needs, warmer and drier works better for me than cold & wet ;)

    The final hypothesis does not work for me either because it is reliant not only on the previous three hypotheses being correct, but also in the assumption that mankind doesn’t have anything else better to do. I don’t think the child starving in Africa would make that assumption. I don’t think the parent who just lost their child to a terrorist bomb would make that assumption. I would bet that scientists on the verge of a major discovery for the end of AIDS or cancer but losing funding to another “Climanic” expedition would not make that assumption. We have problems in the here and now that need to be addressed before a possible problem long into the future, IMHO.

    190

    • #
      Franny by Coal light

      ” It has, in fact, already been modified to handle its evolution from MMGW, to AGW, to CAGW.”

      Strange is it not that we haven’t begun to see it being generally referred to as Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change or CACC for short & not go be confused with Cac , the Irish for simply Sh!t.

      90

    • #

      “This warming is caused exclusively by the extra carbon dioxide released by human activity”

      The primary tenet which underpins all CAWG is not whether CO2 increases global temperatures, but whether the increase in the 20th century is produced by man.
      I have seen no proof of that hypothesis at all. Coincidence is not proof.

      You can radio carbon date the air itself as fossil fuels have no C14. So if the extra 50% was man made, C14 levels should drop to 66% of normal. This is not true so it’s game over. The very slight dilution of C14 noticed in the 1950′s is called the Suess effect and before CAGW it was accepted that all man made CO2 disappeared into the oceans quickly. This known, accepted and proven fact has been buried.

      If man is not producing the CO2 increase, the heating of the oceans is doing it. Very simple. This explains why CO2 tracks the integral of temperatures. All very simple facts buried totally by Big Carbon.

      60

    • #
      llew Jones

      Which excellent measured analysis, followed by other significant comments, confirms my recently gained insight (having spent a day reading lay alarmists comments on various alarmist sites) that AGW skeptics are on the ball whilst the alarmist climate change fraternity is collectively brain dead from the top to the bottom.

      30

  • #
    • #
      Franny by Coal light

      Thanks Ex. That Climate Change has ranked between 16th & 18th since 2004 hardly seems much like news though. In fact the only News of it seems to be that most concerns seem to have remained pretty much the same, with just the odd swaps between Budget Deficit, Terrorism & Unemployment. Health care which didn’t seem to be a concern in 2004, appears the only significant mover.

      20

  • #
    Manfred

    Also OT…
    The grudgingly acknowledged hiatus slides into frank cooling…..?

    60

  • #
    bob malloy

    O/T, sorry

    On Saturday, AndyG posted the following:

    UHA gives an interesting slant at Australia’s “hottest heffer”

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/2013map.png

    All the extra heat appears to be in the centre where nobody in their right mind ever goes.

    The major population centres are pretty much “normal”.

    Will be interesting to see if we can get a response from UHA about where Australia ranks heat wise in the UHA record.

    ps, Also note that the warm areas appear to be the Antarctic, and a section in the north Pacific and maybe a bit in Russia. Hardly Global !!!

    Elsewhere, Bob Tisdale sees no El Nino events on the time horizon.. in fact the Nino3,4 region continues its downward trend.

    I followed the link at the time and am sure Australia showed anomalies of 0.2c above normal over the bulk of Australia and 0.5 or 0.6 in the heart of the nation. If I am mistaken please let me know, as it now indicates anomalies from 0.2c coastal to 1.0c in the center.

    If I’m wrong about what i believe I read on Saturday, I pray it’s caused by tiredness at the end of an overnight shift and not the beginning of dementia.

    60

    • #
      Franny by Coal light

      ‘Overnight shift’ begorra. Is that what they call it now, the morning after a Friday night ?

      20

      • #
        Eddie Sharpe

        We’ll have less of the cheek there Franny. My Friday ended on getting home at 4am Saturday, to be woken again at 6:30 by the office, wondering who they should call ffs. !
        I didn’t need an alarm clock because it was the office again at 12:00 with a real problem this time , that kept me till 22:30 Saturday.
        Morning after the night before indeed.

        40

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    The Direct Action plan is designed for a very laudible aim which I support: to stop LNP MP’s from crossing the floor. Especially a certain Member for Wentworth who has a quite green electorate.

    You can see where the land lays from Environment Minister Greg Hunt’s comment on the front page of the Weekend Australian last Saturday:

    “However, this incident is a reminder that everyone operating in the Southern Ocean – be they whalers, protesters, climate believers or those of a different view – has to put safety ahead of everything else.”

    Climate believers, eh? Now Mr Hunt has been hitherto regarded as a bit of a climate believer himself, well that has clearly changed.

    Things are looking up. Next stop: sort out the Senate believers’ club.

    BTW, climate change has returned to its usual spot in the consciousness of the American people. Dead last.

    100

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      But Clim.Chge. was only ever ahead of Guns & Infrastructure (whatever the worry about that could be) anyway.

      10

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      I did not see how the Member for Goldman Sachs was going to make a buck out of Direct Action, so how does it placate his inner banker? Unless you’re suggesting he actually cares about global warming and isn’t in it for cashola?

      What are these “climate believers”?
      Presumably a “climate believer” is like Justin Bieber but more costly and less annoying.

      Or maybe it’s a sly reference to the Monkees?

      ____I’m a Climate Believer___

      I thought Infra-red was only found in remote controls.
      Something for lab coat boffins but not for me.
      The UN was out to get me. (duh na na, na na)
      That’s the way it seemed. (duh na na, na na)
      Clean Development haunted all of my dreams.

      ~chorus~
      Then I saw Mann’s chart!
      Now I’m a climate believer!
      Not a falsifiable
      conjunct in my mind.
      I’ve got faith.
      I’m a climate believer.
      Evidence couldn’t sway me if it tried.

      I thought climate change was more or less a natural thing.
      Seems the more sunspots the hotter it got.
      Oh what’s the use in hindcasting?
      All you get is pain.
      When I needed sunshine I got rain.

      (~chorus~)

      We all got carbon taxes. (duh na na, na na)
      To cut a thousandth of a degree. (duh na na, na na)
      The socialist nightmare won’t be just a dream!

      (~chorus~)

      _ _ _ _ _ _ _
      apologies to m4gw for accidentally imitating their equal but opposite track.

      50

      • #
        john robertson

        M4GW,” I’m a denier” works better.

        10

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          Yes, it does. Their syllable count is more exact.
          It was only after I wrote the above lyrics that I remembered someone else had done that tune before about AGW. And let’s face it, I can’t compete with a chicken suit.

          10

  • #
    crosspatch

    “Bring science to climate policy”

    I would also suggest some basic economics starting with a basic cost/benefit analysis. Too often we hear things like “every little bit helps”. Maybe it doesn’t help at all, or at least not enough to be measured. So you have 0 deal benefit and at what cost? So your return on investment is a divide by zero error.

    Any action should be looked at in terms of what the action is designed to accomplish in actual numbers. For CO2 reduction, define it in terms of how much it will actually reduce CO2 in the global atmosphere and what TANGIBLE benefit that will have or what TANGIBLE detriment NOT taking that action will have and what the savings will be. In most cases, the benefit will be negligible and the cost enormous. We are engaging in almost “climate charity” but it is worse than climate charity because charity actually does someone somewhere some good. Most of these policies do no good at all except to funnel dollars into the “correct” pockets which are in most cases already full of the people’s cash anyway.

    For CO2 mitigation, it might be more effective from a cost/benefit standpoint to convert the total outlay into $1 notes and burn them in a conventional power plant.

    40

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      Maybe, if you remember to plant the trees to offset. I wonder if someone could do the cost/benefit on that one ?
      ie. how many dollar bills per kw/h generated and how that compares to current rate of spending on climate.

      10

  • #
    RoHa

    He is suggesting that people should think?

    Far too radical.

    60

  • #
    pat

    ***Turney is still threatening us with “peer-reviewed publications”. surely this trip is tainted by the presence of the particular media & Greens Party senator-elect on board. this trip is a scientific write-off:

    6 Jan: ABC: Leader of ill-fated Antarctic expedition, Professor Chris Turney, defends voyage
    It is likely millions of dollars have been spent on an international rescue mission, which has affected the scientific programs of a number of countries and there are calls for the expedition to foot the bill for the rescue.
    Expedition leader Professor Chris Turney has been criticised for inexperience and for taking risks by entering Commonwealth Bay.
    However, writing for the British Observer newspaper, Professor Turney says the expedition was not a “jolly tourist trip” but represented serious science, which had two years of planning behind it and achieved much before it became stuck…”During the expedition we pioneered a new route into the huts and were able to deliver two large teams to work in the area, including undertaking important conservation work on the huts,” he wrote.
    “The AAE is not a jolly tourist trip as some have claimed, nor is it a re-enactment.
    ***”The AAE is inspired by Mawson but is primarily a science expedition; it will be judged by its peer-reviewed publications.””…
    “Unluckily for us, there appears to have been a mass breakout of thick, multi-year sea ice on the other side of the Mertz Glacier; years after the loss of the Mertz Glacier tongue…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-06/leader-of-ill-fated-antarctic-voyage-defends-trip/5185666

    10

    • #
      PeterS

      Turney is a fool, just like all global warming alarmists. Whenever it’s unexpectedly hot it’s global warming and death to this planet unless we act. If it’s unexpectedly cold it’s weather and can be ignored as anything other than a local and insignificant event.

      40

  • #
    pat

    leaving the analysis of Wadham’s explanation to those who understand it:

    ABC: THE ICE-ING HAS BEEN TAKEN UP AS A CAUSE CELEBRE BY THOSE SCEPTICAL OF GLOBAL WARMING…ETC. what’s going on?
    joined by:
    GUEST: Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics at Cambridge University
    ENDING: ABC: thanks for that, fascinating to get an explanation and deep insight into what’s going on down there.

    AUDIO: 6 Jan: ABC Breakfast: Antarctic ice conditions
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/antarctic-ice-conditions/5186104

    yes, ABC looks to this guy for the explanation:

    24 July: WUWT: An alarmist prediction so bad, even Gavin Schmidt thinks it is implausible
    (Peter) Wadhams added: “The imminent disappearance of the summer sea ice in the Arctic will have enormous implications for both the acceleration of climate change, and the release of methane from off-shore waters which are now able to warm up in the summer. This massive methane boost will have major implications for global economies and societies.”…
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/24/an-alarmist-prediction-so-bad-even-gavin-schmidt-thinks-it-is-implausible/

    10

  • #
    handjive

    2014. The End Of The World Has Arrived.
    Monday 19 October 2009
    The world must start a “complete” shift to a low carbon economy by 2014 — or risk making dangerous climate change almost inevitable, a report warned today.

    40

    • #
      PeterS

      Well the global warming alarmists better go to US, China, India and Russia to let them know so they can cut their huge world changing emissions quick smart. I’d gladly donate some money for their air fares – one way ticket of course since they will be thrown in jail quick smart if they did go, especially to China and Russia. What a bunch of scam artists these global warming alarmist have become. We really need to find a way to charge them and put them in jail in our own country to stop this money making scam.

      50

    • #
      Angry

      Oh dear !
      I missed it……AGAIN!

      20

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    Actually, its too depressing…

    John, cheer up. If Climate Armageddon doesn’t happen, it isn’t the end of the world you know.

    50

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    “Finally, causative mechanisms for natural cycles in climate change are an essential complement to observational data showing natural cycles in climate change. Mechanisms involving highly complex interactions of solar physics, magnetic fields and cosmic rays are on the cusp of delivering insights into possible mechanisms.”

    LOL Your joking right? Thats all way to complicated to be believable.

    Surely we can just stick with “carbon did it”?

    How on earth do you expect to sow the seeds of panic and then cash in, with such complicated jargon and suggestions like “put science first”

    The guy is clearly out of touch with mainstream society and “the consensus”

    /sarc off

    40

  • #

    The Fairfax antarctic expedition. Two people.

    “global warming is an important story, and the trip will give Fairfax Media a rare opportunity to visit the continent most acutely affected by global warming.
    Antarctica is climate change ground zero. The data that scientists gather will play a crucial role in future climate models.”

    So what were the scientists doing in dangerous Commonwealth Bay, packed with sea ice for the last three years and a giant iceberg the size of the ACT, according to the tour leader. That is why they brought Argos, to get to Mawson’s hut over the (hopefully solid) sea ice. Doesn’t sound like science but eco-tourism, at enormous risk.

    50

  • #
    Angry

    Meanwhile Australians have this GLOBAL WARMING NUTJOB minister “greg hunt” who is delusional !

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/to-minister-greg-hunt-wakey-wakey.html

    He is just as bad as the communist alp that Australians recently voted out and should be sacked ASAP !

    40

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      Angry – As I said at #32 it is not so bad as Chris Monckton implies (btw I shook his hand when he was here in Newcastle with Jo and David Evans a couple years ago).

      Mr Hunt is Mr Abbott’s sheepdog. He has to keep the flock from scattering before the carbon tax repeal bill goes through. Which is not happening until August at the earliest.

      The ambivalence in Mr Hunt’s comment about “accepting the science of climate change” is how you do this. The direct action plan has the merit of keeping the less knowledgeable wing of the Liberal Party just happy enough that they don’t do something silly, which is always a problem with the LNP. The ALP never has this problem as the back bench is scared spitless of what would happen to them if they were caught not toeing the line.

      After the carbon tax repeal is passed then the politics may allow the RET to be tackled. That can’t happen until the back benchers are softened up some more. But some of the comments coming from Hunt and others in the LNP front bench suggest they know the RET is the big one hurting the Australian economy, but there are a lot of careful politics to be done before they can attempt to fix that.

      40

      • #
        MemoryVault

        The direct action plan has the merit of keeping the less knowledgeable wing of the Liberal Party just happy enough that they don’t do something silly, which is always a problem with the LNP.

        So Australians are going to be stuck with a multi-billion dollar, utterly pointless “direct action plan”, plus see their power bills continue to go through the roof with the RET, basically because the LNP keeps pre-selecting brainless, spineless idiots as their candidates.

        Is that what you’re trying to say, Bruce?

        40

        • #
          Bruce of Newcastle

          Yes. Cheaper than the alternatives. Much MUCH cheaper. Remember Abbott announced that its capped at $3.2 billion limit recently. (Or has that been lowered because of the budget deficit? It may have been, I can’t remember.)

          That is another sign its a damage control strategy – so once the budget is used up he will look sorrowfully and say the cupboard is bare (which it is).

          They have kept their powder dry on the RET though. No promises made that I can recall. But that is a harder ask to convince the low information MP’s since renewable energy is “obviously good”. Which it isn’t, but try convincing someone who can’t read a graph or a scientific analysis of that.

          It’s better than if Rudd had won the election, you have to grant that.

          I am not a pollie, and never been a member of a political party. Don’t blame me.

          20

          • #
            MemoryVault

            It’s better than if Rudd had won the election, you have to grant that.

            No Bruce, actually it’s not, and I don’t.

            In the grander scheme of things, and in the longer term, it would have been far better for Australia if KRudd had been elected on the same basis as Gillard – having to form a minority government with the Greens.
            You yourself have explained why, as has ROM below, without either of you even realising it.

            .
            Now excuse my while I harvest my crop of red thumbs.

            23

            • #
              Bruce of Newcastle

              If you mean committing national seppuku would rapidly fix the problem, yes. A Rudd Green-ALP coalition would have done that.

              I admit it is easier to demolish the building completely before rebuilding, but mate I am still living in this one!

              10

              • #
                MemoryVault

                I admit it is easier to demolish the building completely before rebuilding, but mate I am still living in this one!

                No, the building is still slated for demolition, regardless of your occupation. All you have done is delay the inevitable, and subsequently increased the inconvenience factor.

                Under the so-called Western Democratic system, NOTHING changes until the previous system has collapsed completely. All the election of the Abbott wimps has done is delay the inevitable, and increased the severity of the correction that must follow.

                20

              • #
                Bruce of Newcastle

                Don’t hold your breath, MV, can kicking has been developed into an art form. Otherwise I mostly agree.

                The Fed has a secret weapon, which is to get Congress to write legislation to cancel all Treasuries the Fed holds. No one can do anything about that. Quite constitutional, 14th Amendment and all that. Very good can kickers, Americans are.

                I read ZH every day.

                00

          • #
            llew Jones

            I used to think Hunt would be better in say “Women’s Affairs” or some equally harmless portfolio but I’m just wondering if he is not the best sort of seeming true believer to dump the whole uselessly wasteful Direct Action policy.

            Have noticed that he doesn’t quite fit the brain dead Green type alarmist in that he has been making noises about not hobbling industry with expensive energy. He is an economist, which often doesn’t mean much but he may have been doing the sums and discovered that it is viable industry versus industry shackling useless things like carbon taxes and Direct Action.

            Wouldn’t be shocked to see Hunt do some surprising back flips. I suppose one can only hope “it’s all crap” is also dawning on him or at least that he comes down on the side of industry and those of us who buy electricity and natural gas and pay taxes.

            10

      • #
        ROM

        My thinking also Bruce of Newcastle;

        Again another of those old sayings which are quite relevant to Abbot’s current political situation with a hostile Senate and an ex union XXXX [ I'll leave that description of Shorten out ] who has never run a business or anything much to deal with for any legislation to get through and become law.

        “Softly, softly, catchee monkey”

        After the Senate goes through it’s change in July [ I think ] American President Theodore Roosevelt’s famous dictum re [ international ] politics which was on a sign on his desk, might come into play by Abbott.

        “Talk softly and carry a big stick”

        50

        • #
          Franny by Coal light

          That’s all very well if :-
          A) You have or are a big stick
          Or
          B) Are dealing with feral scum (pardon the pun) that won’t respond to anything else.

          but real Diplomacy is rather more demanding than that.

          10

    • #
      Popeye

      Angry,

      Many thanks for the link – the reply by Monckton to Hunt is an ABSOLUTE CLASSIC.

      Jo – I believe you should make Christopher Monkton’s reply to Greg Hunt the subject of a new, separate post so more people will get to see it. (with Climate Skeptics Party permission – of course).

      Perhaps also submit over to WUWT so the WHOLE world gets to see it as well.

      The more people that see Greg Hunt for what he really is the better (IMHO).

      Cheers,

      70

      • #
        Eddie Sharpe

        Unless going to add particular value, a short attention grabbing introduction & a simple link will do. No point stealing the thunder from Climate Skeptics Party’s scoop, eh ?

        30

      • #
        Joe V.

        I doubt if Greg will appreciate the savaging but no harm in letting him see that the trite responses trotted out by the ALP will get him no further than it did them, flakey benchers with a Green tendency to placate or no.

        00

  • #
    john robertson

    What frequently gets overlooked with CAGW.
    This “scary scenario” was created, orchestrated and now being protected from investigation by our bureaucracies.
    The civil services of our democracies worked together, staffed the UN FCCC/IPCC, these same people advised our elected leaders.
    None here in Canada, will answer the question, Where is the science supporting this policy?.
    Response is robotic, We, insert department, defer to the finding of the IPCC.
    Never mind the IPCC never found anything.
    The money flows from government to activists.
    Politicians and bureaucrats flow back and forth from govt to green activist/PR firms or alternative energy frauds.
    The agencies,regulations and checks which were brought into existence to avoid unwise spending ,irrational enthusiasm, the madness of crowds..have been the most active propagandists for this nonsense.
    If one government agency, Environment Canada for example, had done due diligence, the old; “But is it true?”
    Billions of taxpayers dollars might not have been stolen for that particular fraud.
    However my gradual recognition of how badly flawed this government committee science is,challenging my local government policy wonks and politicians, has also lead me to conclude that I am governed by a Kleptocracy.

    All the participants in this wonderful scheme to enrich the well connected few at the expense of the many, continually justify this theft as only costing you and me the equivalent of a cup of coffee a day.
    Or some such platitude, my stealing from you is not bad, because it could be worse?
    Of course their selective blindness to the accumulative effects of these thefts, is apparent when they winge about taxpayer threatening their retirement benefits.
    How is that national debt looking?
    And when will we see the real figures?

    40

  • #
    Angry

    Some helpful background reading regarding the global warming SCAM…

    Overpopulation: The Fallacy Behind The Fallacy Of Global Warming:-

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/05/overpopulation-the-fallacy-behind-the-fallacy-of-global-warming/

    20

  • #
    pat

    somehow, to me, this seems ill-timed, with Australians already involved in a different, ongoing fiasco in the region! is it just me who feels this way?

    6 Jan: ABC: AP: Activists Chase Japanese Whalers in Antarctic
    In years past, a Sea Shepherd boat sank after its bow was sheared off in a collision with a whaling ship and a Sea Shepherd activist spent five months in a Japanese jail after boarding one of the whaling vessels.
    Japan, which this year is planning to kill about 1,000 whales, is allowed to hunt the animals for scientific purposes under an exception to a 1986 ban on whaling…
    Bob Brown, chairman of Sea Shepherd Australia and former leader of Australia’s minor Greens party, said his group will run a peaceful but relentless campaign this year. He dubbed this season’s hunt grotesque and cruel.
    “There’s blood all over the place, meat being carted around on this factory ship deck, offal, innards being dumped in the ocean,” Brown said. “It’s just a gruesome, bloody, medieval scene which has got no place in this modern world.”..
    http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/activists-chase-japanese-whalers-antarctic-21430014

    30

    • #
      llew Jones

      Look those of us who are not vegetarians eat meat from animals like cows and sheep. Having a weak stomach I don’t like to think about abattoirs when I’m enjoying a steak but if Bob Brown thinks there is not blood all over the place when massive animals like whales, the largest animals on Earth, are killed he is dumb.

      As a hobby from the 1970′s to 2000 we built and ran an Angus Stud in Lauriston near Kyneton. We had a steer our kids named Mervyn. One of our employees (an Italian migrant) in our engineering business wanted to show us his prowess as a slaughter man so prevailed on me to let him slaughter Mervyn. We got a few tasty pieces and our then 10 year old daughter, Miriam, was so enjoying her steak that she asked my wife if she could have a bit more of Mervyn. Sort of put the rest of us off our meal for the day. That is why I don’t think of abattoirs when eating meat these days.

      If the Japanese like whale meat I don’t see much ethical difference in our preference for bovine or even ovine meat. I’m far more concerned about the welfare of humans than animals unlike the Greens and other Pagans.

      30

      • #
        bobl

        They could however farm them like civilised human beings… rather than hunt the wild ones in our national territory!

        00

  • #
    Angry

    The USA is experiencing Arctic Temperatures at the moment…..

    http://tv.ibtimes.com/powerful-winter-storm-freezes-most-us-under-blanket-snow-how-stay-warm-and-safe-14778

    Get ready for it to feel as cold as MINUS SIXTY! Nation braces for the coldest temperatures in 40 YEARS as ‘polar vortex’ crosses US

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2533458/Flood-Hercules-grip-Northeast-Canada-records-temperatures-cold-MARS.html

    While in the UK there is this revelation……

    Winter freeze led to 31,000 extra deaths last year – against a backdrop of soaring energy prices

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/winter-freeze-led-to-31000-extra-deaths-last-year–against-a-backdrop-of-soaring-energy-prices-8965427.html

    And this……

    Cool Britannia: Central England Temperature Back To 1980s Levels

    http://www.thegwpf.org/cool-britannia-central-england-temperature-1980s-levels/

    SO MUCH FOR GLOBAL WARMING !!!

    70

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      Cool Britannia: Central England Temperature Back To 1980s Levels

      Yes. I just updated my small model of the CET with the latest data to the end of 2013. Right on track.

      The warmies are going to be most perplexed in a couple years time.

      30

      • #
        Carbon500

        Thanks Bruce – as the links aren’t especially clear, I though I’d add a brief word on how readers can quickly access the Central England Temperature Record (CET) back to 1659.
        Go to
        http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat
        This brings up several Met Office options on the Google results display.
        Go to the one entitled ‘Met Office Hadley Centre Central England Temperature Data…’
        Then click on
        ‘Monthly HadCET mean.txt.1659 to date (32Kb).
        For those who haven’t seen it, it’s a fascinating dataset – we see for example that the average temperature for 2013 was 9.56 degrees Centigrade – much as it was for example in the 1700s!
        Yet we in the UK have been saddled with the stupidity of the Climate Change Act, voted in by the majority of our MPs. Catastrophic man – made global warming? Maybe they should have looked at these figures first before voting.

        30

        • #
          Carbon500

          Now that I’ve posted it, I find that the link goes directly to the dataset. Bizarre, but that’s computers for you. However, it’s easier than following my suggested route.

          20

          • #
            Bruce of Newcastle

            Oops, no sorry, I didn’t include a link to HadCET in the descriptions. But as I said it uses the annual average column of that dataset you linked. If you want the Excel file I can arrange to get it to you.

            00

        • #
          Bruce of Newcastle

          Sorry about that Carbon. The links should be clickable in one or other of the graph descriptions. Full details for replication are in the first version description text. You may need to click a ‘more’ link on the RHS, Flickr have changed their website so only the first line or two of the description is visible.

          The model is based on solar forcing from the Armagh previous solar cycle length vs temperature correlation, and the ~60 year cycle which has a trough to peak of about 0.28 C in HadCRUT 3v (which I just used for the CET too…near enough). The model in the graphic uses a 2XCO2 of 0.6 C/doubling, but taking this as a residual you can derive it by difference. Doing that I got 0.694 C/doubling. Plus or minus a few barn doors.

          Just to be clear, I use the annual averages in this specific dataset.

          00

          • #
            Carbon500

            Thanks Bruce – no worries (as they say) regarding the CET link; I only added this because a lot of people I’ve met aren’t aware of this dataset, and it seemed a good idea to add the link. I’m going to print out the Armagh study you’ve kindly supplied and read it at leisure – it looks very interesting. The final link you give leads to the same CET dataset as the one I use – these figures come in handy to beat ‘warmists’ with! Interestingly, a long time ago I noticed that SkS wouldn’t comment on these figures – as with a lot of other things that didn’t suit their purposes.

            10

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        CET doesn’t seem a good proxy for the globe though. I reckon Sea Surface Temperature is the most reliable global temperature statistic.
        http://i.imgur.com/oStJkro.png

        I guess you could argue CET is a leading indicator, with a lead of 12+ years, but even allowing for time offset the shape is not a very good match for SST.

        You call that model a close match? Here’s a close match.
        When I saw Tallbloke’s model my own model started getting AMO envy. :)

        00

    • #
      PeterS

      Yes, it’s called weather. For global warming to be real we need record high seasonal temperatures all over the world simultaneously, not necessarily every day but certainly every so often. Since we are not seeing that but in fact the exact opposite in some cases then we are only experiencing the usual weather extremes the world has been experiencing for thousands of years. Why oh why are the global warming alarmists not charged with causing unnecessary alarm to the public? They are not only scam artists of the worst kind (worse than say Bernard Madoff, who is now in jail) but also a dangerous nuisance trying to panic us to take action that in effect would destroy our economy, cause massive job losses and eventually lead to a breakdown of our society and well being. A terrorist would find it hard to do a better job.

      60

  • #
  • #
    bananabender

    The best solution is a Royal Commission on climate science. A once only cost of $100 million will solve the problem forever. The most ardent Warmist will readily admit that the “science” is very weak during a grilling under oath by an eminent QC. The threat of a perjury conviction and a prison sentence has a wonderful effect on truthfulness in most cases

    20

    • #
      bobl

      Bananabender,
      The problem with royal commissions is you can stack them with the same “Warmist” witnesses used for all the previous governments follies. A royal commission won’t necessarily deliver a correct outcome. What we really need is to enquire into the way science is funded and conducted, with centralised funding of science the traditional methods of peer review no longer work properly. In fact there may be merit in an adversarial system where every project must have a “Pro” and an “Anti” subtask, one trying to prove the hypothesis correct, one trying to prove it wrong.

      10

  • #
    Gos

    Instead of his five climate points how about no points – How about everyone just get on with their lives and stop worrying about the weather after all nearly all of you are city/town dwellers whose livelihoods don’t depend on the rain sun etc,so instead of spending $billions or even $10′s of millions on worthless schemes how about the term climate get removed from the lexicon and the term weather used instead.
    Before so-called climate change became popular and the BOM was formed,farmers and such used long range weather forecasters,who from what I can gather were pretty well on the mark,and they used past observations as the source of their reasoning.
    And what did they find – the weather was cyclical in nature controlled by solar and lunar events.

    40

    • #
      AndyG55

      Imagine the water infrastructure and REAL power infrastructure that could have been built with all those trillions of dollars.

      It really has been an INCREDIBLE WASTE !!!!!!

      Very Sad !!!

      20

      • #
        AndyG55

        We have TRULY put the future in jeopardy for many generations to come.

        Not from any climate issues, but from the destruction of our economic ability to respond to whatever does actually eventuate.

        10

  • #
  • #

    The other question about Climate Change, the one no one asks. If we can change the climate, should we? Warmer or colder? Wetter or drier?

    All this rush to blame any weather on man via Carbon Dioxide, we have overlooked the massive damage done by aborigines for example in destroying the Australian outback, where the rainfall halved exactly when they arrived, 50,000 years ago. The gift of fire. All the mega marsupials died. The dogs did the rest. This was all researched by a US team about five years ago but has since vanished from the internet. Why? Even Tim Flannery has this view. It is so obvious when the rains come.

    So how about reversing it all and putting the bushes and grasses back and doubling the rainfall? Why not flood lake Eyre and increase rainfall in NSW? Why not plant trees and run irrigation in the desert as in the Negev? Why not use the shut down desalination plants to supply water to power stations (Yallourn uses 30% of Victoria’s fresh water) and agriculture, instead of our precious fresh water? Pump the water South from the far north. It would all cost less than a Very Fast Train.

    Why is no one taking man made Climate Change seriously? It is all about stopping industry, stopping cars, turning off heating, stopping factories and farmers, shutting down cheap power and making life generally unbearable. This is the STWIGO, Stop The World I Want to Get Off crowd from the 1960s, reborn as Greenies. Since the 1990′s, the anti Western communists too with a hatred of Western democracies with their refrigerators and cars that work. It must be really frustrating for them that the largest communist country is now an industrial giant, a communist capitalist country. No chance of a job there.

    10

  • #
    davey street

    What MIchael Asten REALLY means is “keep the money-honey coming to me so I, like Tim Flannery, can continue to pay off my mortgage on that mansion and/or beach house at sea level. HOW MUCH LONGER WILL IT BE BEFORE SOME GROUP SUES THE IPCC FOR ANNIHILATION OF WATERFRONT LAND VALUES ACROSS THE WORLD ?

    20

  • #
    Brian H

    it’s first priority. its

    If natural variation is ever (like now) in charge, it is potentially (=actually) always in charge. Like a colonel who can step in and overrule captains and lieutenants at any time.

    00