JoNova

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


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Warmists Are Never Wrong, Even When Supporting Genocide

Brandon Shollenberger writes a follow up of the survey last week that was inspired by Stephen Lewandowsky’s work (thanks to all the people who helped fill it out). Note the footnote and the background reading, before commenting. ;-) – Jo

Warmists Are Never Wrong, Even When Supporting Genocide

Brandon Shollenberger

Global warming proponents support genocide. That may seem hard to believe, but remember, they’ve said it’d be right to blow up dams and burn cities to the ground:

Unloading essentially means the removal of an existing burden: for instance, removing grazing domesticated animals, razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine. The process of ecological unloading is an accumulation of many of the things I have already explained in this chapter, along with an (almost certainly necessary) element of sabotage. If carried out willingly and on a sufficiently large scale, this process would require dismantling many of the key components of civilization; no person would be foolish enough to cut off their own limbs unless they were suffering from some kind of psychotic delusion, and no civilization would be willing to remove many of the pillars of its own existence. Looking from the outside, though, a civilization hacking off its own extremities would seem like exactly the right thing to do.

That view is not from some fringe element global warming proponents shun. James Hansen, arguably the most influential member of the cause, supported the book that was said in. Hansen has also suggested “coal trains will be death trains” and GHGs could “destroy much of the fabric of life.” Supporting genocide is incredibly extreme, but clearly some extremes are acceptable to them.

But supporting genocide? That’s hard to believe. I’d need some strong data to make me even consider the idea. That’s why I collected some. Using the approach of Lewandowsky et al, I created a survey (copy here) which got 5,697 responses (two of which I filtered out for being incomplete). Three items on the survey were:

You believe global warming is a [sic] real.
You believe global warming poses a serious threat.
You believe genocide is…

Respondents were asked to rate their level of disagreement/agreement (1-5) on the first two. For the third, they rated bad/good (1-5).

Table_1

I found statistically significant correlations (at the 99.99% level) for all pairings of these items:

As you can see, people who say global warming is real but not a serious threat are more likely to oppose genocide. On the other hand, people who say global warming is a serious threat are more likely to support genocide. The effect isn’t large, but it is statistically significant. There’s more. The survey also included the item:

You have never been wrong.

Table_2

The effect is small but statistically significant at the 99.99% level. Believing global warming is a serious threat correlates with believing one has never been wrong. Believing you are fallible correlates with merely believing global warming is real. Combine these two findings, and we get:

  1. Believing global warming is a serious threat correlates with believing you are never wrong.
  2. Believing global warming is a serious threat correlates with supporting genocide.

Therefore, global warming proponents believe they are never wrong, even when supporting genocide.


Quick note, Stephan Lewandowsky built upon correlation matrices like mine by using factor analysis and structural-equation modeling (SEM). These cannot change observed patterns; they can only tease out additional ones. I am not replicating those steps.

  * * *

 Jo Nova’s Footnote: The conclusions should be taken every bit as seriously as Stephan Lewandowsky’s finding that four potential unconfirmed skeptics (who responded to surveys on alarmist sites) say they believe the moon-landing was faked. Though Shollenberger’s study was five times the size, only used one version of the survey instead of two or three different ones, and makes no claim that 78,000 warmists saw the survey on a site which had no links to it. Plus when I asked for the data it was provided immediately. We look forward to further analysis ;-)

Footnote #2: Filed under Satirical science.

Important background material:

All posts on Stephen Lewandowsky

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.8/10 (75 votes cast)
Warmists Are Never Wrong, Even When Supporting Genocide, 9.8 out of 10 based on 75 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/kmmwc6q

116 comments to Warmists Are Never Wrong, Even When Supporting Genocide

  • #
    Brandon Shollenberger

    As I said over at WUWT, there is one thing I regret not working into this post. I didn’t make any jokes about the discovery the Skeptical Science team photoshops themselves into Nazi regalia.


    Report this

    260

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      Well, the way they work out their homo-erotic fantasies on a Lodge night should be nobody’s business but theirs. There’s nowt so queer as folk, as they say in Yorkshire.


      Report this

      60

      • #
        bullocky

        .
        If ‘saving the planet’ demands..er..hem… ‘unconventional’ behaviour,.. so be it!


        Report this

        40

        • #
          Safetyguy66

          I love the way we (filthy humans) are not part of “the planet” but an accessory to be disposed of.

          I actually regard warmists as genetic mutations, or throwbacks somehow. No other species has this “double agent” in it’s midst that is constantly working to bring about at least de-population and ideally, complete genocide. In a civilised society they would be locked up for “species treason” I think.


          Report this

          70

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            Agree, and it’s a point that the greenies constantly miss themselves.

            It’s an odd paradox, even when so many of them try to go “back” to nature. They somehow fail to be natural creatures of the earth, or something.

            As people point out every now and then, we “humans” are part of nature.


            Report this

            70

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      By not cracking jokes, you seem to have roped some alarmists into posting {shocked} reactions. Not a bad days effort! ;-)


      Report this

      60

    • #
      Manfred

      …no civilization would be willing to remove many of the pillars of its own existence…unless they were suffering from some kind of psychotic delusion.

      They got it in one.
      A remarkable and seditious statement, devoid as it is in its context of the insight revealed by subsequent stats.
      Believing global warming is a serious threat correlates with believing you are never wrong.
      Believing global warming is a serious threat correlates with supporting genocide.

      If there was ever any doubt that this is a no holds barred ideological war, now is the time to dispel them


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Marcel Popescu

    I’m surprised I see no mention of the “10-10 no pressure” movie…


    Report this

    130

  • #
    Peter

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100254179/what-if-man-made-climate-change-is-all-in-the-mind/

    If you have the time Jo please read this post by Sean Thomas or link to it. He authored a post last Summer ‘ Heap big Warmy’ bloody hilarious too. The parody in that was prescient indeed when applied to the Turney Expedition which is still an ongoing saga of embarrassment for the Warmist Religion. The ship the green rats abandoned before it was sinking is back in port. They are still in the South Atlantic on the Aurora. It was shortage of food apparently that made them abandon ship. In the event the Chinese helicopter need only have made one resupply run with food. Lots of pork spare ribs, chicken chow mein, special fried rice, prawn balls, pancake rolls and most importantly fortune cookies(lots) to help them plan Global Warming/Climate Change(whatever) predictions, the next expedition or job searches.
    Forgive me for digressing from your post which does explain as I believe that the CAGW religion is indeed sinister dangerous and insane.

    English Aborigine.


    Report this

    120

  • #
    Darkstar

    Why would anyone really be surprised?

    I mean, I believe it is pretty common knowledge that at least a sizable chunk of people screaming “Man did it with his evil CO2″ hate Man, not CO2

    It only makes sense those people would condone genocide to save their precious Gaia


    Report this

    110

    • #
      DT

      It is called socialist eugenics and has been since the formation of the Fabian Society in the late 1800s in England by George Bernard Shaw.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        PeterS

        Which was replicated by the Nazis. Let’s hope that the current awakening of the people to the AGW hoax stops the Greens ever from messing with our economy and social way of life to the extent they have, although it’s too early to tell if it has succeeded.


        Report this

        50

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          Unfortunetly I find the parrody is not. Genocide has been spoken in the media and put in print by many of the proponents of global warming over the last 10 years.

          But before I get to that, Multiple genocides in Africa, Pol Pot, Croacia, Iraq/Iran war, Sadam Vs Kurds. I’ll include North Korea because it’s what they want, not what they have done.

          Now, what I can remember in print: Paul R. Ehrlich and his wife, British courts when they upheld the notion that doing damage to a power station was acceptable if you believed it would save the planet. Australian Greens.


          Report this

          70

          • #
            ROM

            From Quotes on the C3 site

            Quote by Club of Rome:
            “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”

            Quote by John Davis, editor of Earth First! journal:
            “Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”

            Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University:
            “A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer.”

            Quote by John Holdren, President Obama’s science czar:
            “There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated…It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

            Quote by Christopher Manes, a writer for Earth First! journal:
            “The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.”

            Quote by Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor, and large CO2 producer:
            “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

            Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!:
            “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”

            Quote by David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club:
            “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

            Quote by Club of Rome: “.
            ..the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million people but less than one billion.”

            Quote by Susan Blakemore, a UK Guardian science journalist:
            “For the planet’s sake, I hope we have bird flu or some other thing that will reduce the population, because otherwise we’re doomed.”

            Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University:
            “The addition of a temporary sterilant to staple food, or to the water supply. With limited distribution of antidote chemicals, perhaps by lottery”.

            Quote by Prince Philip, royal billionaire, married to Queen Elizabeth II, and large CO2 producer:
            “I don’t claim to have any special interest in natural history, but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in the number of game animals and the need to adjust the cull to the size of the surplus population.”

            Quote by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, architect of the new Germanic masterplan, the ‘Great Transformation’:
            “When you imagine that if all these 9 billion people claim all these resources, then the earth will explode.”

            Quote by Jacques Cousteau, mega-celebrity French scientist:
            “In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 per day.”

            Quote by UN Commission on Global Biodiversity Assessment:
            “A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”

            Quote by John Miller, a NOAA climate scientist:
            “I would be remiss, as a scientist who studied this, if I didn’t mention the following two things: The first is that, most importantly, we need to do, as a society, in this country and globally, whatever we can to reduce population”…..”Our whole economic system is based on growth, and growth of our population, and this economic madness has to end.”

            Quote by John Davis, editor of Earth First! journal:
            “I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”

            Quote by Prince Philip, royal billionaire, married to Queen Elizabeth II, and large CO2 producer:
            “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”

            Quote by Ingrid Newkirk, a former PETA President:
            “The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth – social and environmental.”

            Quote by Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor, and large CO2 producer:
            “There are too many people, that’s why we have global warming. We have global warming because too many people are using too much stuff.”

            Quote by James Lovelock, known as founder of ‘Gaia’ concept:
            “The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”

            Quote by Nina Vsevolod Fedoroff, science advisor to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:
            “There are probably already too many people on the planet.”

            Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, mega-millionaire, and large CO2 producer:
            “Third world nations are producing too many children too fast…it is time to ignore the controversy over family planning and cut out-of-control population growth…”

            Quote by Susan Blakemore, a UK Guardian science journalist:
            “Finally, we might decide that civilisation itself is worth preserving. In that case we have to work out what to save and which people would be needed in a drastically reduced population – weighing the value of scientists and musicians against that of politicians, for example.”

            Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!:
            “We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.”

            More of the same on the C3 site


            Report this

            150

            • #
              Tim

              Eugenics theory to save the planet goes back quite a while with an essay by Thomas R. Malthus ‘Essay on the Principle of Population” (1798)and William Vogt’s ‘Road to Survival’ (1948)

              This failed Malthusian theory has been dug up and manipulated into a new argument to tie conservation to eugenics and the C02 ‘Armageddon’.

              Population reduction is nothing new; it just has a bigger propaganda budget now.

              http://perc.org/articles/deconstructing-population-bomb


              Report this

              40

              • #
                kindletot

                You can read the Malthus pamphlet on Gutenberg: it is long out of any copyright everywhere.
                Malthus was doing a thought experiment to explain why Condorcet’s and others’ utopian plans for sharing the wealth and doing away with cultural norms would only cause misery, poverty and raise the mortality level in any society that discarded them. The prose is rather turgid by modern standards and the logic gets confused in the last quarter, but the work is an argument for the philosophy of Adam Smith and a rejection of any communal plan for society. He had the disadvantage of living in a shortage society, before the development of the industrial revolution and the improvement of medicine and farming that gives us the relative abundance of wealth, calories and choices that we have today.
                Be adventurous, read it on your Kindle for free.
                http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4239


                Report this

                21

              • #
                PeterS

                Interesting to note that eugenics was alive in America well before the Nazis took it to a deeper more sinister level. Charles Davenport was a prominent eugenicist and was one of the leaders of the American eugenics movement. Nazi Germany had its “Greens movement”. No surprise to see a lot of common attributes between the Greens of today and the Nazis. In Greece the Green Wing, which was founded by some members of the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party share the same flag except the Green Wing’s version has a green background instead of a red one. Anyone who doesn’t see how dangerous the Greens movement in general are must be blind.


                Report this

                60

            • #
              gbees

              round up the people who made these statements and we’ll start with them and their families …..


              Report this

              30

              • #
                Safetyguy66

                That has always been my position.

                Show me a person who thinks population is a problem and I will show you a terrified hypocrite who hasn’t thought their position through.

                Population control begins at home cowards!


                Report this

                70

            • #
              Radical Rodent

              To be fair to Prince Philip, he has always been known not to suffer fools gladly; as a virus, he will probably target the perpetually-stupid.

              As for those advocating human extinction – once we are gone, how are they going to know how effective it was?


              Report this

              20

          • #
            Truthseeker

            From a comment made over at WUWT by “Txomin” …

            The end justifies the Greens.


            Report this

            80

        • #
          DT

          Nazism, or National Socialism in full, is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party and state as well as other related far-right groups. Wikipedia


          Report this

          21

          • #
            Streetcred

            Did Connolly edit that as well ?


            Report this

            10

          • #
            scaper...

            The far left and right are the same species of adder with different coloured stripes.

            Can’t stand the chaps.


            Report this

            40

          • #
            PeterS

            Yes, and there are both strong similarities and differences between that and communism. I saw a list somewhere and it was very interesting to see how they agree perfectly on some things yet disagree strongly on others. Hitler’s Nazi party hated the communists almost as much as they hated the Jews, more so at times. As for the Greens, I think they are more aligned with National Socialism than communism, not that it makes it any better or worse. Both are a disaster.


            Report this

            50

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              PeterS:
              I maintain that the Nazis were left wing, and were only called right wing when the Russians became allies in WW2.
              In the early 1930′s many commentators called them Bolsheviks. The ease with which communists could switch to the Nazis (and in some cases after the war back again) was commented on at the time also. The antagonism between the two was almost like that between early christian sects or Sunni v Shia.

              The other point towards this classification is that the undoubted right wingers were nasty but not genocidal; e.g. even Falange in Spain doesn’t seem to have killed more than 100,000. The unlovely Argentinian junta perhaps 30,000. Pinochet was only blamed for ~7500 by the investigating tribunal, although others double that. The nasty Greek Colonels even less than that. Mussolini, when not controlled by the Nazis, preferred imprisonment and doses of castor oil. Nasty but not lethal, and he didn’t dare persecute Jews as the Italian Staff Officers were adamantly opposed to it.

              Meanwhile Mao got rid of 60-80 million, Stalin at least 25 million, and Pol Pot did his best with 2 million (which was a quarter of the population). Hitler reduced the european population by at least 20 million, which makes me think he belongs on the Left. Add in that the regime told people what to eat and (not) smoke, and when to go and worship nature. oh, and they displayed a marked dislike of anyone who questioned the doctrine.


              Report this

              61

              • #
                PeterS

                Doesn’t alter the fact the Nazis hated the communists a lot. Nazism is always equated to far right fascism. It’s certainly not communism. Don’t know where you got the wrong notion that the Nazis were left wing. Might as well call Republicans as left wingers too, which of course they are not.


                Report this

                03

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                @PeterS – HITLER hated STALIN. That does not mean Nazis hated communists or vice versa. And indeed, Stalin was the largest contributor to the Nazi Party in their early years. The “notion” of right wing came from none other than Stalin. he wanted Hitler to join his “International Socialism”, but Hitler would have none of it. So after the Ribbentropf-Molotov pact failed, Stalin labeled Hitler and Nazism right wing. But it never was. If you read the 25 planks that the Nazi party proposed, you will see clearly that they are aligned on the left, not the right.

                We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

                We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

                We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

                In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

                The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

                In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

                Just a sampling from their platform. Nazis are indeed leftwing. These “demands” are no different than those demanded by the Communists, or most left wing parties today.


                Report this

                20

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            William Connolley – Wikipedia.

            Your grade school teacher should have told you that Wiki is not a good source for anything.


            Report this

            10

  • #
    Jaymez

    Of course the whole exercise was done to show how ridiculous Lewandowsky’s methodology was.

    Yet it is sobering to acknowledge that Lewandowsky’s work was not only ‘peer reviewed’ and published, it was widely circulated in the main stream media as evidence that climate sceptics were conspiracy theorists! This is despite the methodology being savagely criticised by almost anyone who knows anything about surveys and statistical analysis.

    That is of course anyone other than those within the sheltered walls of left wing academia, Government circles and the ‘consensus science’ brigade. Including of course all those IPCC supporters and all the Science Academies around the world which warmists like to point out support CAGW. None of them were prepared to point out what utter nonsense Lewandowsky’s work was.

    Congratulations to Brandon Schollenberger for exposing Lewandowsky’s attempts to discredit those who rightly question the IPCC orthodoxy.


    Report this

    220

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Lewanmakeitupsky will probably not see the humour in this.

    In his opinion, he will demonstrate his true strength of character by not responding to it. In private however, his little mind will be telling his feet to stamp, stamp stamp.

    One thing I do admire about Lewanmakeitupsky is his ability to extract funds from the gullible, but I guess that is what ‘climate science’ is all about.


    Report this

    190

  • #
    Gbees

    Meanwhile the Greens are madly distributing more propaganda in the form of a climate action toolkit. http://www.greens.org.au/node/3198


    Report this

    30

    • #
      DT

      ABC The Drum has published an article today on line that Australia is now experiencing more extreme hot weather than cold weather periods. I did not bother to read it. The Climate Office charity released it apparently.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        James

        Also just referred back to the Climate Council Report – bush fires during the Bush Fire Season, Heat waves in the middle of summer, geez Australia, who knew? Glad it’s no longer my money funding these keen observers of the blatently obvious on the hottest, driest continent on earth.


        Report this

        100

      • #
        llew Jones

        Just got home from a productive 8 hour day in our Reservoir (Vic) factory. Couple of thermometers there were reading 42C. Shirt off with a gentle sweat was quite an enjoyable but rare experience not enjoyed since we had real heat waves.

        One of my sons who runs the engineering business was a bit worried I might find it too hot in the factory today. I advised him that we tough old bastards were raised on this sort of weather.

        Couldn’t help thinking of the day after day plus 100F (37.8C) summer temperatures we experienced in the 1940′s as kids. Those were the days when the asphalt on the roads started to melt and stuck to our bare feet or shoes. Bread and milk were delivered by horse and cart to our home in Essendon (just over the road from Windy Hill then home of the mighty Bombers) but it still got hot. Maybe it was the horse’s farts that did it.

        Then I remember as a teenager noting all the burnt out trees on the tops of the mountains visible from such places as Healesville. Nothing has compared with that bushfire devastation in Victoria since.

        Not surprising, that despite the editing of the older records by the BOM, to make recent temperatures appear higher, 1939 still holds some high temperature records.

        Also remember going to a cousin’s wedding held in a church in Camberwell in the late 1950s it was strictly a suit and tie affair though the temperature was 114F (45.6C). The day either side of that was 109F and 112F.

        One problem with a lot of the still wet behind the ears climate scientists and their fellow travelers is that they have had no personal experience of some of those significant weather events that make a nonsense of their claims about the relative frequency and present imagined record high temperatures.


        Report this

        80

      • #
        PeterS

        Yes, and they have already forgotten about the idiots who were stuck in ice in the Antarctic during summer time. I suppose if we had snow falling in NSW during this summer it would shock them. Hang on – it did happen last December! I think it’s time we publicly tarred and feather global warming alarmists for being such dunces.


        Report this

        40

    • #
      James

      Just read it:

      Hotter dryer weather. Colder wetter weather. More bush fires. More floods. More property loss. More death and misery.

      Ends on a bright note – “Happy reading”

      Dumbasses…


      Report this

      70

    • #
      bullocky

      -

      …’ climate action toolkit. http://www greens.org.au/node/3198
      -
      Good for…. http://www. hotwhopper.com/users


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Well…. Im almost speechless at this one…

      http://greensmps.org.au/sites/default/files/impacts_of_climate_change_tas.pdf

      What a pathetic little bleat of nonsense and guesswork. To the paper’s (lol paper more like note) credit it does not say anything with any certainty, which is pretty amazing but probably on advice form lawyers. But the overall message is basically be afraid and nothing more.

      -Tasmania could experience sea level rises and greater storm surges

      No kidding? We could also experience sea level falls, less sun, more wind, some cloud, a bit of dust and a light rain on Wednesdays but not during footy training.

      -Up to 15,000 of Tasmania’s residential homes are at risk of flooding from a sea level rise of 1.1 metres.

      Orly? And up to everyones home could be at risk if we had a 20m+ sea level rise which is what Flannelbrain predicted only a few years ago. So basically the Greeens arnt saying there is any chance of a 1.1m sea level rise, they just want you to experience some fear….. just in case you were enjoying life too much.

      http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/flannery_vs_bolt_transcript/

      When the reality is…

      “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states projections of global sea level rise show an increase in sea levels, relative to 1990 levels, of between 18 and 59 cm by 2095. However there are provisions for larger values with the potential increased ice melt from Greenland and Antarctica, in which case the projections increase by a further 10 to 20 cm.”

      From… http://www.redmap.org.au/article/rise-in-sea-level/

      “By using the benchmark records and more recent information, Dr Hunter calculated that from 1841 to 2002 sea level rise due to increased ocean volume was approximately 17cm at Port Arthur. That’s an increase of 1.0mm (±0.3mm) a year due to thermal expansion (and taking into account land uplift).”

      1mm per year BAHAHAHAHAHA!! Yeah its panic stations folks.

      So even on the IPCC/Warmista agreed apocalypse model, its like 75cm MAX by 2095 with an error margin almost as wide as the entire data spread. This is little more than guesswork. Again proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that one of the most consistently inaccurate, inarticulate and misleading sources of information on AGW and its supposed effects are The Greens…. surprise, surprise.

      I wont even bother listing the rest of the crapola…. its just embarrassing.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Lennox

    Green Religion, Global Governance, and the Kyoto Treaty | Henry Lamb

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo9rkuS6EBg
    .
    Uploaded on Jun 1, 2010
    Lecture presented by Henry Lamb at the 16th Annual Meeting of the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness held in Scottsdale, Arizona; July 1998. http://www.ddponline.org

    Henry Lamb is the founder of the Environmental Conservation Organization, founded in 1988, Freedom21, Inc., and founder of the Freedom21 Federal Credit Union. He is the chairman of Sovereignty International and also serves on various boards and committees of other organizations that promote environmental stewardship, private property rights, and Constitutional values. http://sovereignty.net

    DISCLAIMER: Doctors for Disaster Preparedness has given permission under the Creative Commons license that this media presentation can be publicly reposted as long as the proper credit is given to DDP and other guidelines are followed. More info at: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/b

    This YouTube channel is in no way endorsed by or affiliated with Doctors for Disaster Preparedness, any of its lecturers or staff members.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    jaymam

    You say “You believe genocide is…”
    Is what? Since the poll has closed I can’t read the original question, and I can’t remember what it said.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Brandon Shollenberger

      You need to read just a little further. The next line includes this: “For the third, they rated bad/good (1-5).”

      The item was the same in the survey.


      Report this

      10

      • #
        jaymam

        For a moment I found a link to the actual questions asked, but I can’t see it now.

        I think the answer that I was wanting to know is:
        You believe genocide is 1. terrible 2. bad 3. not a concern 4. good 5. great

        I think it would be a good idea to list your three questions in that form.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    handjive

    Steve McIntyre notes Chris Turney, of “Ship of Fools” fame, is a secondary Climategate correspondent and co-signer of Lewandowsky’s multisignatory letter in the Conversation in his latest post.

    No where to hide for Lewandowsky’s ‘partner in crime’.
    What a damning time-line of incompetence.

    Junk Science Global Warming: The peter principle (why do things always go wrong) to the power of 10.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Thanks handjive, another book to add to my list of thing to get.

      I’ve read some great articles on the question “why do things always go wrong”, and I’ve witnessed the unfolding of slow motion wrecks in the workplace multiple times over the last 30 years.

      The answer is obvious, incompetence. Yet it continues to happen, slowly, inevitably.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Yonniestone

    This survey whilst being interesting (well done Brandon) will be written off by warmists much the same way as AGW skeptics ridiculed Lewandowsky’s effort (effort is a stretch).

    The big difference is the underlying subjects in the information processed are quite the opposite, as Lew’s seemed to focus on exposing Skeptics apparent conspiracy theory bias Brandon has sought to find links to Eugenics type warmist thoughts on population.

    This comes as no surprise to people who have bothered to research and found direct links of AGW belief’s of UN Agenda 21 and virtually any “Green” connected organization pushing for large reductions of population but the message to the existing people should be what personality type would you like to know and trust more?

    I think I’d like to endure a persons enquiring mind than their simmering loathing of everyone on the planet.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    John Brookes

    Given that some “skeptics” have argued in the past that global warming and higher CO2 levels are good, did the current survey allow you to rate “I believe genocide is good”?


    Report this

    015

    • #
      James

      Hi John,

      Can’t remember about a question of genocide being good, but it still hasn’t been established that warming is bad.


      Report this

      80

      • #
        bullocky

        -
        John Brookes

        January 16, 2014 at 9:45 am · Reply

        Given that some “skeptics” have argued in the past that global warming and higher CO2 levels are good, did the current survey allow you to rate “I believe genocide is good”?
        -

        The freedom of Jo’s blog allows you to express your views on genocide quite independently of any survey.

        Which you seem to appreciate.


        Report this

        80

    • #
      AndyG55

      Ah, JB arrives with yet another vacuous moronic post.

      Keep up the good work, [snip -c'mon substantiate those insults]!!


      Report this

      101

      • #
        crakar24

        I knew a green bot once who said the answer to our prayers was to de populate (genocide) i asked “whom gets to decide who lives and dies?” (not sure on the whom and who, will wait for RW to correct :-) ).

        Anyway he had no answer so i suggested he lead by example and top himself, i then gave a further suggestion in that he raise awareness of his imminent topping via twiter and facebook and with any luck many of his followers will follow his example.

        Many of the casual onlookers laughed their guts out at these suggestions and we dont speak much anymore (the green bot and i).


        Report this

        90

      • #
        AndyG55

        sorry mod, I thought it was a known fact.. me bad ! :-)


        Report this

        20

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        We could do an ABC news type quote for him.

        ABC News Headlines: John Brookes respected environmental activist and climate change expert announces “I believe genocide is good”.


        Report this

        30

    • #
      jaymam

      John Brookes said ‘did the current survey allow you to rate “I believe genocide is good”?’
      The answer is yes. Did you not look at the survey?

      In the survey that is the subject of this article, the question is asked:
      “You believe genocide is 1. terrible 2. bad 3. not a concern 4. good 5. great”

      I repeat that the entire three questions should be shown in their entirety in this article, since clearly people are commenting while not having looked at the survey.


      Report this

      50

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      And another fish is reeled in.


      Report this

      20

    • #

      Given that some “skeptics” have argued in the past that global warming and higher CO2 levels are good, did the current survey allow you to rate “I believe genocide is good”?

      If you had read the article, you would have noticed this

      Using the approach of Lewandowsky et al, I created a survey (copy here) which got 5,697 responses (two of which I filtered out for being incomplete)

      The one-page survey gives the answer.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    ROM

    Off topic but it seems the last bastion of the catastrophic global warming / renewable energy meme and it’s scammers is about to fall;
    This is big news indeed as the europeans [ I guess I can borrow a phrase from the catastrophist's tool box ] irrevocably begin to reverse course as the rapidly increasing economic and immense social costs escalate uncontrollably and European industry begins to shut down due to anaffordable energy costs.

    Maybe a future post for Jo

    From the english version of the warmist orientated german mag Spiegel On Line

    Green Fade-Out: Europe to Ditch Climate Protection Goals

    The EU’s reputation as a model of environmental responsibility may soon be history. The European Commission wants to forgo ambitious climate protection goals and pave the way for fracking — jeopardizing Germany’s touted energy revolution in the process.

    &

    But now it seems that the climate is no longer of much importance to the European Commission, the EU’s executive branch, either. Commission sources have long been hinting that the body intends to move away from ambitious climate protection goals. On Tuesday, the Süddeutsche Zeitung reported as much.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Bulldust

    Warmist Nobel Laureate bets on warmer earth in 20 years:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/nobel-scientist-willing-to-bet-on-global-warming/story-e6frgcjx-1226802801018#mm-premium

    Usual work around to bypass paywall. Briam Smith has taken up Maurice Newman’s bet of $10,000.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Bulldust

    Warmist Nobel Laureate bets on warmer earth in 20 years:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/nobel-scientist-willing-to-bet-on-global-warming/story-e6frgcjx-1226802801018#mm-premium

    Usual work around to bypass paywall. Brian Smith has taken up Maurice Newman’s bet of $10,000.


    Report this

    10

    • #

      you need another post “Smith” should be “Schmidt”


      Report this

      03

    • #
      John Brookes

      Its like taking candy, from a baby…


      Report this

      06

      • #
        AndyG55

        Yes, and I assume Maurice and Richard will share their winnings, assuming they are both still with us in 20 years time.


        Report this

        40

        • #
          Safetyguy66

          My idea has always been to have the people placing the bets put the money with a reputable law firm(theres an oxymoron for you) in trust and the proceeds including interest and less fees, go to the next descendant. That way you can bet over periods of 50-100 years or more and make it interesting.


          Report this

          50

          • #
            Eddie Sharpe

            That’s what I like about ‘reputable’ it may imply integrity but it doesn’t actually say which kind of repute applies. Perfect language law firms circling their prey.


            Report this

            10

    • #
      Konrad

      In accepting that bet Professor Schmidt, who won the 2011 Nobel prize for Physics, says: “Despite myself also not being a climate scientist, I do have considerable knowledge of the science at hand.”

      It seems he’s not a solar scientist either. Doesn’t seem to be up to speed on predictions for solar cycle 25….


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Eddie Sharpe

        If the Universe is expanding and at an ever accelerating rate , where does that leave us in relation to the Sun in 20 years time ? Or doesn’t Dark Energy get to come between us & our Sun ?
        Can Dark Energy give off heat, hide in the Oceans and get trapped by the mighty molecules of CO2 ?


        Report this

        10

  • #
    george

    I wonder if these UNLOADING proponents will volunteer their OWN homes/cars/pc’s whatever, as as a starting point for their MADNESS.I wouldn’t think so.<:o)


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Joe V.

      Lets all buy new & more efficient Cars, TV’s, PCs , Smart phones, Pads & Tablets to save the planet. So efficient we can all have at least one, of each.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    ROM

    Warmists Are Never Wrong,

    Definition of “irrationality” = “Absurdity”
    or alternatively ;
    “How to shoot yourself between the eyes and expect others to believe that it is good for you”.

    UN climate chief: Communism is best to fight global warming

    United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.

    China may be the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggling with major pollution problems of their own, but the country is “doing it right” when it comes to fighting global warming says Figueres.

    “They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said. “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.”

    &

    Environmentalists often hail China as a model for fighting global warming, since they are a “leader” in renewable energy. The country set a goal of getting 15 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2020. In 2012, China got 9 percent of its power from renewables — the U.S. by contrast got 11 percent in 2012.

    However, the country still gets 90 percent of its power from fossil fuels, mostly from coal. In fact, Chinese coal demand is expected to explode as the country continues to develop. China has approved 100 million metric tons of new coal production capacity in 2013 as part of the government’s plan to bring 860 million metric tons of coal production online by 2015.


    Report this

    40

    • #

      I know this is off the topic here, but every time I see something like this, it’s so frustrating that people who should know these things don’t even bother to get their facts straight, and this is from the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, and she says here:

      Environmentalists often hail China as a model for fighting global warming, since they are a “leader” in renewable energy. The country set a goal of getting 15 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2020. In 2012, China got 9 percent of its power from renewables — the U.S. by contrast got 11 percent in 2012.

      They bandy around the word renewables, and most of the world think that is wind and solar.

      However, the bulk of those totals are from Hydroelectric power, and I’ll just mention China here.

      Where she says China got 9% of its power from renewables, the truth is that is closer to 14%, and all but 1.5% of that is Hydro. Wind in China currently supplies around all of that remainder because solar power is still well below 0.1% of supplied power.

      This is for power which is actually being generated and delivered for consumption, because when it is expressed in Nameplate Capacity, that Chinese total for Hydro power comes in at 23% of the total Chinese Nameplate Capacity.

      The ONLY reason the World total power delivered from renewables is so high is because of Hydro, and they have China to thank for that, because just a tad more than one quarter of the whole World’s total hydro Nameplate Capacity is in China alone, around 200,000MW of it. On top of that China has 55,000MW of Hydro power still under construction. That total power delivered from Hydro will only rise, and rise pretty considerably, as China currently has only a 40% Capacity Factor for Hydro, because what they actually do is bring on their units at each dam as they are finished, and not waiting until the whole project is completed before bringing them all on line.

      World total for wind (and this is actual power generated) is closer to only 1.6% and Solar power is under 0.1%.

      So whenever you see really high percentages of power coming from renewables, be fully aware that nearly all of it is from Hydro power, and mostly thanks to China.

      Also, keep in mind when you read other articles saying we need to reduce CO2 emissions, be fully aware that those coal fired power plants in China have a life span of 50 years, and China is still powering ahead with construction of new coal fired power plants, so not only will emissions NOT be reducing, they will in fact increase each year ….. for 50 years plus.

      So unless these umm, environmentalists have a powerful influence over China, then they can rabbit on all they like about CO2 emissions reduction, because it’s not going to happen.

      This is just China. India is just starting out on their coal fired power plant construction phase, as are many other Countries as well.

      Keep in mind that for every ONE large scale (2000MW) coal fired plant which opens, you will need 6,000MW of new wind power to equal that power delivery, at wind’s 30% CF, and that comes in at around 2000 plus wind towers, or 10 to 15 new very large scale wind plants, and believe me, that is also not happening.

      They can waffle all they like about renewables, but it will always be boutique levels of power, with a short life span, and horrendously expensive for the actual power that they generate.

      Tony.


      Report this

      80

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        Tony Musselroe Windfarm opened today (officially)

        http://www.rechargenews.com/wind/asia_australia/article1349031.ece

        I couldn’t help thinking as I did every time we finished construction, what happens in 25 years? 350 Million down the gurgler? You get a portion of 168mw for 25 years at $350mil and then you have to pay to pull it all down?

        How does anyone think this is a good idea?

        See you and I know, being of a certain age as we are, that 25 years passes in about 40 minutes. Young folk, bless them, think 25 years is a long time and in their idealistic fervour for hugging echidnas, they don’t realise they are being sold a very expensive pup. My only consolation is that I got my share of the suckers money while it was good.


        Report this

        30

  • #
  • #
    crakar24

    Its doing it again, have a look at the airport temps it rises up to 40.7 at 10:30 and then half an hour later it drops 3C the wind hardly changes (no degrees data) it is a hot northerly here in Adeliade today. How can this be?

    http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDS60901/IDS60901.94672.shtml


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    ROM -

    not so different from Figueres! THIS PROGRAM SHAMELESSLY CONFLATES CARBON AND CARBON DIOXIDE FROM START TO FINISH. it’s the worst example of CAGW distortion i’ve ever heard:

    on BBC’s CAGW Central these days: BUSINESS, i repeat, BUSINESS Daily – with Justin Rowlatt. excerpts below begin about half-way through, with Chris Mottershead, Vice Principal for Research, Kings College, London, oil man, former head of Energy Security at BP:

    Rowlatt: can we successfully deal with climate change & CLOSE DOWN these OLD, DIRTY coal-fired power stations & find clean ways of producing energy?
    Mottershead: yes, there are more than enough solutions available. we could make serious inroads if we chose to: energy efficiency, renewables, nuclear, & of course you can use carbon capture, put the carbon back underground in a safe way… Kyoto tried, not the way to do it. China/US responsible for 42% of emissions, simple process, the two should sit down, agree & the world would follow their leadership.
    Rowlatt: it would be sensible, but there’s no sign of them wanting to do it, is there?
    Mottershead:i think there’s LOT OF SIGNS IN CHINA. China is going to build out an energy infrastructure. the cost of building one that’s a LOWER-CARBON infrastructure is a MARGINAL increase on what they were going to do…
    Rowlatt: additional cost on consumers, tough sell for politicians.
    Mottershead: yes, but if we don’t price the carbon emissions, we won’t make the necessary changes.

    Rowlatt: so, are democracies capable of getting to grip to the challenge? I spoke to another oil man, John Hofmeister, former chairman of Shell Oil Company until 2008. is the world ready to make the leap to a CARBON-FREE ECONOMY.
    Hofmeister: we’re going to use hydrocarbons into the future as far as we can see.
    Rowlatt: but if u look at the science, we’re going to suffer very serious climate effects, harder to for humans to live on the planet &, by the time people realise that, & they DEMAND CHANGE from their leaders, it will be too late.
    Hofmeister: and i agree with u. concern for the environment is now 22 out of 25 among priorities for the US public.
    Rowlatt: are you saying, this is a failure of democracy
    Hofmeister: it’s not the form, it’s the performance of govt that matters. democracy’s performance is TERRIBLE. largely because money influences the democratic outcomes.
    Rowlatt: inherently politicans think short-term.
    Hofmeister: i use the expression “political-time” meaning the time between elections trumps energy times or environmental time, all the time, ABSENT A CRISIS THAT PUSHES THE POPULAR WILL to do something very differently.
    Rowlatt: is your argument that, until the climate gets really bad, there’ll be no political leadership.
    Hofmeister: most of us alive today will be dead, but our children will suffer – we will have placed on our children & grandchildren a burden we were not willing to bear…
    if govt doesn’t lead, we will really COOK OURSELVES, ALMOST LITERALLY, before we deal with this issue. it’s sad, but it is the case today.
    education matters, information matters, grassroot conversation matters, but even that is hard to do sometimes because you have “THE DENIERS” ((LAUGHTER) & the deniers make the case every time there is a snowstorm in the United States.
    Rowlatt: i have to say, this analysis of yours is very depressing.
    Hofmeister: life’s hard & choices have to be made. the more people are aware of…the better choices can be made. any responsible person, parent, owes it to be children, owes it to employees to say what they think.
    22.20: R: if this week’s Element program has left you depressed, fear not. tune in next week, for PART TWO of CARBON, in which we explore the many amazing properties of CARBON MATERIAL, some of which could help us overcome our addiction to fossil fuels.

    (this is a longer version than at iPlayer)

    23 mins: 15 Jan: BBC Business Daily: Elemental Business – Carbon
    with Justin Rowlatt
    Wed, 15 Jan 14
    Carbon, the fundamental building block of life, source of virtually all our energy and a source of incredible world-wide wealth; but what happens when we hit a carbon crunch?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/bizdaily

    15 Jan: BBC iPlayer Version 17 mins: Elemental Business – Carbon
    In our series examining the world economy from the perspective of the chemical elements, we look at how the industrial revolution was really an energy revolution driven by carbon-based fossil fuels. Chemistry professor Andrea Sella of University College London and his geology colleague professor Mark Maslin explain the chemical wizardry that makes carbon the ultimate fuel. We hear from Dr Paul Warde an industrial historian at the University of East Anglia, about how the ‘C’ element has powered the longest and most sustained economic boom in the history of humanity. But how long can it last? Can we expect the mother of all crashes when the carbon crunch finally comes? Two former oil men, Chris Mottershead, former head of energy security at BP and now vice principal for research at King’s College in London and John Hofmeister, former president of Shell Oil, give us their perspectives on the whether the world is ready to tackle its addiction to fossil fuels, before the fuel runs out and in time to avert a looming climate change disaster.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p01pgpz3/Business_Daily_Elemental_Business_Carbon/


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    Justin Rowlatt’s two guests above:

    CAMAC ENERGY: John Hofmeister, Director
    The former president of Shell Oil Company and veteran of multiple industries for over 35 years, Mr. Hofmeister has held key leadership positions at General Electric, Nortel and AlliedSignal (now Honeywell International).
    He currently serves as Chairman of the National Urban League and is a member of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee.
    Upon retirement from Shell Oil, Mr. Hoifmeister founded the not-for-profit Citizens for Affordable Energy, a nationwide membership association, which promotes sound U.S. energy security solutions…
    OVERVIEW: CAMAC Energy Inc. (NYSE MKT: CAK) operates as an independent oil and gas exploration and production company focused on energy resources in Africa. Its asset portfolio consists of 8 licenses covering an area of 41,000 square kilometers, including production and other projects offshore Nigeria, as well as exploration licenses offshore and onshore Kenya, and offshore Gambia. CAMAC Energy is headquartered in Houston, Texas.
    http://www.camacenergy.com/john-hofmeister.php

    Chris Mottershead: King’s College: Vice-Principal (Research and Innovation)
    He joined King’s College London in 2009 after retiring from BP, where he worked for 30 years, most recently as their Global Advisor on Energy Security and Climate Change.
    Prior to this he was Technology Vice President for the Global Gas, Power and Renewables businesses, and was also the technical manager for its North Sea exploration and production activities…
    As well as his College accountabilities, he is a non-Executive Director of the Carbon Trust, Francis Crick Institute and Imanova, a Governor of King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and a member of the Scientific Advisory Group of the Department of Energy and Climate Change in the UK as well as the Advisory Board of the National Center of Atmospheric Research in the US.
    http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/principal/centralteam/vpri.aspx


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    two Melbournians put the BBC straight (under two minutes):

    15 Jan: BBC: Australia heatwave prompts fire alerts
    (SCROLL DOWN) VIDEO: The BBC’s Russell Fuller discusses the high temperatures with tennis fans in Melbourne Park
    paraphrasing:
    Margaret: Melbourne’s like that in January, it can be extremely hot. but last week it was cool; next week it will be cooler.
    Russell: Eleanor, have u had problems with electricity running short, or fires?
    Eleanor: No, i live in the City. there have been some fires out further. i know there’s some people without aircon, which makes it hard.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25723867

    abc last nite made the HEATWAVE the issue of the day. one listener texted – r u really going to discuss this for a whole hour?
    it’s only about half-an-hour really, says the abc guy. it’s what everyone’s talking about. focuses on how the tennis players must feel. someone texts him – where’s the concern for the construction workers, etc etc.

    next abc host takes over…makes the HEAT the basic story of his entire program.

    who will put a stop to ABC’s madness?

    flannery & co’s latest insanities all over the media today, including the UK Financial – I repeat FINANCIAL – Times. i accidentally clicked on this twice, which means i can’t read any of it, tho i note Maurice Newman’s name in the summary, so could someone please excerpt a bit of it, please:

    15 Jan: UK Financial Times: Australian heatwave shows man-made climate change, scientists say
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/054961a8-7de5-11e3-95dd-00144feabdc0.html


    Report this

    10

  • #

    [...] few hours ago Jo Nova published Shollenberger’s initial findings, as “Warmists Are Never Wrong, Even When Supporting Genocide“. Using the same methodology that Lewandowsky et al (LOG12) “demonstrated” that [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Like with the Lewandowsky survey in Sept 2012, I have taken a quick look at the data, using pivot tables in Excel. Brandon Shollenberger has managed to replicate many of the problematic features in the Lewandowsky paper. In particular
    1. Analyzing the views of one group through (mostly) surveying the opposed group.
    2. The results being dependent on a small number of, clearly, scam responses.
    3. Having questions that every sensible person will support, so that the scam responses stand out.
    As well as debunking Lewandowsky’s methodology, Brandon Schollenberger has (possibly inadvertently) achieved something else. He has shown that the extreme belief in impending climate catastrophe that justifies policy is held by very few people. Take out the scam responses, and it is a very tiny number. Whilst Lewandowsky asked questions to polarize, the reality is much more nuanced.
    http://manicbeancounter.com/2014/01/16/observations-on-the-shollenberger-survey/


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Justin Jefferson

    Quite apart from any question of any intent of genocide, is the fact that mass deaths would be the effect of warmist policies, which are just a re-run of the socialisation of the means of production.

    Well-intentioned socialists must regard the starvation of tens of millions in [attempts at] socialism in the 20th century as some kind of strange coincidence – nothing to do with the project of putting productive resources under common ownership.

    Mises showed the scientific reasons why that belief is wrong. The fact of economic collapse under any attempt to socialise the means of production is not some kind of strange coincidence, even if it is not intended. It is a necessary and inevitable result of the abolition of the possibility of economic calculation in terms of money prices, which in turn is caused be the abolition of the market for capital goods, which is the defining economic characteristic of the purpose of all kinds of communism and socialism.

    It doesn’t matter how clever the central planners are or think they are – they can NEVER have the knowledge necessary to rationally do what they themselves claim is necessary – balance the competing values of all the relevant present and future humans – in units of a lowest common denominator. And even if they could know it, they still couldn’t calculate the more or less economical way of using resources. They would be stuck with trying to compare the physical quantities of all different possible goods for all different possible productive possibilities.

    While the resulting planned chaos depicts the economic order under full socialism, it is important to understand that exactly the same applies to partial socialism, to the extent of the governmental displacement of the private property order. (That’s why for example, the NSW government bus service runs the equivalent of 50 trips to the moon and back each year EMPTY.

    [Note: this economic fact cannot be made to go away by bleating "Ideology!", or changing the name to democratic socialism, or social democracy, green economy, blue economy, or anything else.]

    Thus socialism is not an alternative possible economic system – it is the forcible abolition of the very possibility of rational economising above the level of barter. Since a barter economy can support a lot fewer lives than a money economy, all those above the level of barter are in effect slated for death.

    Only those who have understood Mises’ argument, and can demonstrate a rational disproof of it, are entitled to dispute this conclusion, which totally destroys all warmist arguments for policy action whatsoever, even if all their premises and conclusions as a matter of climatology were granted, which they aren’t.

    That’s why it’s so inane, and only shows the warmists’ invincible ignorance, for the debate to have been conducted so long and so much in terms of temperature measurements for gossake, as if that concluded their arguments for them. Real kindergarten stuff.

    “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth” by Ludwig von Mises:
    http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf

    Number of people who have refuted this argument so far: zero.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Geoff just the facts.

    Brain Schmidt in his opinion piece in the Australian places a bet that the global temperature will be warmer than today in 2033. “Oh how brave, sarc.
    Considering we have been in a warming trend for the past 300 years and with the added CO2 in the atmosphere which is know to cause “some” warming, the question I’d like to ask Brian is:

    Is he willing to place a bet that the temperature in 2033 will be 1.65 deg C warmer than today?

    Well after all this is the claim the CAGW congregation make. 5 deg C increase by 2100. Being that there has been no warming since 2000, they have a fair bit of catching up to do.

    I’d like to be on the other side of that bet, anyone else wants some of the action?

    GJTF


    Report this

    10

  • #
    handjive

    Meanwhile …

    In other Global warming-Hottest year ever news:

    It got so cold so quickly in this Norwegian bay that it froze a bunch of fish swimming in it

    More evidence that GreenLabour’s “settled science’ is correct.
    We need a carbon(sic) tax to STOP Global Warming


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Sunray

    Thank you, but will these totalitarian ideologues ever be constantly and ruthlessly exposed on Free TV? I have had a great deal of engagement with secular totalitarians of the Left, and followers of a barbarian, paedophile, false prophet, totalitarians. I will not say what needs to be done, because there is the squeamish factor to consider. However constant and ruthless exposure is an essential first step.


    Report this

    31

  • #
    crakar24

    The merchants of doubt suffered a body blow today, there was much talk last night that the BOM was predicting 48C today in Adelaide, apparently this was the highest “prediction” ever made by the BOM sensational stuff isnt it.

    Unfortunately it only reached 44.2, still high enough to maintain the rage but without that sweetener on top.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Graham of St Ives

    As if to confirm the claim that anthropogenic global warming is an apocalyptic threat, the media is in a frenzy announcing ad nauseum about record breaking heat here. I’m fed up to the back teeth with it. It’s not just the ABC, although it’s the prime culprit, of course. Just now, for example, on Channel 9 News I heard that Adelaide has the “dubious honour of being the hottest city on earth”.

    That brings me to a plea to Jo Nova. Our only official source of national temperatures is the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) using its land based temperature stations. As a manifestly alarmist propaganda institution, BOM is a disgrace. Yet we rely on them for the data? Excuse my cynicism, but to hear about “record heat” from BOM at the same time that 2013 was the 10th coldest year (out of 118 years) in the US and that 2013 here was the “hottest on record” when 1998, 2005, 2010 were in fact hotter, I’d like to see the integrity of BOM’s practices thoroughly scrutinised. You reported an independent inquiry last year that put BOM under a cloud, to to put it mildly. Any chance of initiating an expansion of that, hopefully with a view to a Royal Commission? May as well drag the equally lickspittle CSIRO along, too, while they’re at it.


    Report this

    30

  • #

    The main ideological basis of the Pol Pot genocide in Cambodia was a form of “unloading”.


    Report this

    20