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

Climate change believers are using ‘medieval’ tactics to silence debate says George Brandis

How loaded and vitriolic the conversation is about the weather. Too loaded.

George Brandis describes how the left have stopped arguing for free speech and instead do everything to silence different views. He was shocked, he said, at the deplorable attitudes in two particularly white-hot topics: climate change and racial discrimination. Australian Senator Brandis is the Attorney General of Australia, and at the center of the debate about the noxious 18C legislation on hate-speech and whether we Australians have to make sure we don’t say anything to offend anyone. Curiously, this interview has got The Guardian and Sydney Morning Herald talking. Commenters at The Guardian are doing their best to say why Brandis is wrong (“he is a lunatic”), while at the same time proving nearly everything he says about their tactics is true. Brandis, after all, explains that he agrees with the climate consensus, but doesn’t see why asking questions about the science should evoke a shocking form of authoritarianism and anti-intellectualism. He speaks of the emergence of a habit of denying the legitimacy of any other point of view.

Commenter “scuzzlebutt” says: “I’m starting to believe that Brandis may just be one of the most dangerous people in Australia.” Later he or she added: “The worst part is that he claims to be in agreement that climate change is real, yet turns such a matter in to a political football that he and his nasty party can exploit.” (And so it goes: saying you “believe” is not enough, you must also shout down the heretics too.) Meanwhile Jim Lakely at The Heartland Institute is already being deleted from The Guardian comments for the sin of posting links to NIPCC. There is no Gospel but the IPCC!

Brendan O’Neill writes up this excellent interview at Spiked Online It’s packed with quotable quotes. It should spread, and rampantly. The home truths are very well said.

Brandis says… “there were two recent, specific things that made him realise just what a mortal threat freedom of speech faces in the modern era and that he would have to dust down his Mill, reread his Voltaire, and up the ante in his war of words against, as he puts it, the transformation of the state into ‘the arbiter of what might be thought’. The first thing was the climate-change debate; and the second is what is known down here as The Andrew Bolt Case.”

“…rather than winning the argument [they] exclude their antagonists from the argument.”

He describes the climate-change debate – or non-debate, or anti-debate, to be really pedantic but also accurate – as one of the ‘great catalysing moments’ in his views about the importance of free speech.

He isn’t a climate-change denier; he says he was ‘on the side of those who believed in anthropogenic global warming and who believed something ought to be done about it’. But he has nonetheless found himself ‘really shocked by the sheer authoritarianism of those who would have excluded from the debate the point of view of people who were climate-change deniers’. He describes as ‘deplorable’ the way climate change has become a gospel truth that you deny or mock at your peril, ‘where one side [has] the orthodoxy on its side and delegitimises the views of those who disagree, rather than engaging with them intellectually and showing them why they are wrong’.

“The science is settled?”… It was ignorant, it was medieval”

He describes how Penny Wong, the Labor Party senator for South Australia and minister for climate change in the Julia Gillard government, would ‘stand up in the Senate and say “The science is settled”. In other words, “I am not even going to engage in a debate with you”. It was ignorant, it was medieval, the approach of these true believers in climate change.’ Wong, whom Brandis tells me is ‘Australia’s high priestess of political correctness’, is far from alone in suffering from what the American journalist Joel Kotkin recently described as ‘The Debate Is Over’ Syndrome. Throughout eco-circles, and among the political and media elites more broadly, the idea that the time for debating climate change is over, and now we just need action, action, action, is widespread. And to Brandis, this speaks to a new and illiberal climate of anti-intellectualism, to the emergence of ‘a habit of mind and mode of discourse which would deny the legitimacy of an alternative point of view, where rather than winning the argument [they] exclude their antagonists from the argument’.

“the eco-correct think of themselves as enlightened and their critics as ‘throwbacks’, when actually ‘they themselves are the throwbacks, because they adopt this almost theological view…”

The great irony to this new ‘habit of mind’, he says, is that the eco-correct think of themselves as enlightened and their critics as ‘throwbacks’, when actually ‘they themselves are the throwbacks, because they adopt this almost theological view, this cosmology that eliminates from consideration the possibility of an alternative opinion’. The moral straitjacketing of anyone who raises a critical peep about eco-orthodoxies is part of a growing ‘new secular public morality’, he says, ‘which seeks to impose its views on others, even at the cost of political censorship’.

“the best way… for wicked opinions to be exposed…, is to get them out in the cold light of day”

John Stuart Mill, particularly in chapter 2 of On Liberty, made the case better than anyone has made it before or since that the best way for the public to be enlightened, for wicked opinions to be exposed for what they are, is to get them out in the cold light of day and let there be a contest of ideas. Let people judge, having heard the contest of ideas, what views are right and supportable, and what views are wrong.

Indeed, in a recent TV discussion here about Section 18C, one firebrand leftist described free speech as something that only serves ‘old white rich men’.

this kind of new secular public morality, which seeks to impose its views on others…

… this is something new, …the left’s turn against freedom of speech is a pretty recent thing: ‘It’s a complete inversion. The right, until maybe the 1970s or 80s, used to be on the side of censorship, and the left used to be on the side of liberation. That has inverted in the last 20 or 30 years. Now it is the left, in the name of political correctness, in the name of this kind of new secular public morality, which seeks to impose its views on others, even at the cost of political censorship. And it is the right, traditionally more authoritarian than the left, which has become the custodian of classical liberalism.

The test of free speech are the people you profoundly disagree with:

 ‘…if you are going to defend freedom of speech, you have to defend the right of people to say things you would devote your political life to opposing. Your good faith is tested by whether or not you would defend the right to free speech of people with whom you profoundly disagree. That’s the test.’

Read the whole interview there is much more.

Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked and currently scholar-in-residence for the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney.

The  Sydney Morning Herald quoted Brandis talking about climate change, though strangely said nothing at all about Andrew Bolt (which is one of the two main topics Brandis refers too).
The Guardian has picked up large sections of the interview. Enjoy those comments.
Can you get deleted at The Guardian? If so, please cut and paste those polite informative comments here …
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (148 votes cast)
Climate change believers are using 'medieval' tactics to silence debate says George Brandis, 9.4 out of 10 based on 148 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/mqe8w6m

192 comments to Climate change believers are using ‘medieval’ tactics to silence debate says George Brandis

  • #
    hunter

    It is really good that Australia is blessed with leaders willing to stand up in the face of this move towards populist dictatorship.

    692

    • #
      cohenite

      There is nothing populist about the left; they are the antithesis of populist: elitist, vanity driven and scornful of those who they perceive as their inferiors, particularly moral inferiors. After all they are saving the Earth in combating AGW!

      70

      • #
        Former Atmospheric Scientist

        This is so true. I’ve been drummed out of the profession by the arrogant elitists who think they’re smarter than I am because I believe AGW is a big steaming pile of nonsense. The difference is that I understand both statistics and atmospheric dynamics. Climatologists and climate modelers understand neither. All they have to defend themselves is their self-righteous religious devotion to their failed theory.

        Please look out for an an email I’ve sent to you – Jo

        30

    • #
      Lawrie Ayres

      I think Brandis will do us some good. I am surprised that someone who is alarmed by the way in which the left dodge debate on Climate Change isn’t suspicious of it’s motives. People with right and data on their side don’t need to stifle debate because they are being proven correct. The reason the left try and prevent exposure of facts is they would be proved wrong. Even a dim witted lawyer should understand that.

      40

  • #
    Ted O'Brien.

    Well, at least he has started the fight that must be fought. But he has a way to go yet on the science.

    The science is not hard to see. Superimpose the temperature data chart for the last 25 years on the CO2 level chart, and, if CO2 is doing what we believed for the last 100+ years that it does, its effect is lost in the noise.

    Clearly, there are much bigger factors than CO2 levels driving climate change. Making reliable prediction impossible.

    This speech will stir the hornets. It’s only the beginning, the fight is on.

    Now to dump the coalition’s outdated climate change policy.

    583

    • #

      True Ted, but we have to win the free speech debate before we can start explaining the science.

      There is a long way to go. But stirring this hornets nest is an excellent start.

      674

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        I agree. We should not make “best” the enemy of “better”.
        Never mind Brandis is still saying in public that he’s with the consensus of the climate commissars. There may be room for his opinion to be shifted in private and in the meantime he’s urging warmists to chill out a bit and to try listening to the other sides in a more civil discourse, which is far better than the recent state of affairs.

        Of course if this does “become a thing”, instead of being ignored, it will create a window of opportunity in which climate skeptics will have to put their best evidence forward.

        181

        • #

          I don’t think there’s much point in trying to second guess whether Brandis is, could be, was, or might become a skeptic. (Are you now, or have you ever been … a skeptic!) If he was one right now, pretty clearly, he knows he couldn’t say it. If is isn’t right now, obviously he has noticed that the team with overwhelming evidence are the ones calling everyone else names. What matters here is the point about how powerful the cultural pain is for anyone who says they are not a 100% total believer. Notice in his situation, even if someone is a believer, the crime is to suggest that unbelievers be treated with any respect.

          Public figures not only have to “believe” they have to actively quash dissent.

          Figure whether the SMH or the Guardian would even bother publishing a “denier” who talks about the need for free speech.

          505

          • #
            Bulldust

            Given the loose definition of race, I wonder if skeptics can identify as a racial grouping and take people to court under 18C for being offended by the denier tag. I would not support such a move, but one would find it amusing to see the luvvies hoisted on their own petard.

            323

          • #
            scaper...

            Medieval?

            It reads ‘mediaeval’.

            Don’t like the game he’s playing. At best his so called belief are weasel words, lies in reality.

            Brandis not a sceptic? The sun rises in the west!

            418

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              scaper…
              The sun rises in the west ??? So that is what is causing AGW. Or is it a pre-condition of believing in AGW?

              121

            • #
              Gordon Cheyne

              “The sun rises in the west!”
              I’ve actually seen this happen:
              We took off from Tullamarine just after the sun had set. The pilot asked us to look out of the west-facing windows, and we would see the sun rise in the west. Sure enough, it did.
              Nothing surprises me anymore.

              110

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            If [he] isn’t right now, obviously he has noticed that the team with overwhelming evidence are the ones calling everyone else names.
            … Figure whether the SMH or the Guardian would even bother publishing a “denier” who talks about the need for free speech.

            By contrast there are definitely authors at the Guardian and the SMH and many more besides who are only too keen to exercise their right to offensive speech.

            The ‘M’ section of the phone book is the only other list likely to contain both Robert Manne and Sir Paul McCartney.

            10

          • #
            Ted O'Brien.

            Roll up your sleeves, Jo. The ball is rolling, it can’t be stopped. OUr hopes are riding with you and your fellow toilers.

            in recent weeks the alarmists have returned to their lies at square one. They have put their faith in the adage that it doesn’t matter how big a lie you tell, if you tell it loud enough and often enough half the people will believe it. Their method is there to see.

            82

      • #
        Steve

        Jo, what rattled me when I read Brendan Oneills comments is that the hard left(communists)
        Have a tendency to murder anyone who disagree with them- ask the Russian Tsars that or
        Pol Pot who used to murder anyone that they didn’t like.
        Ironically the same imperialist attitude they rail against is what they are
        Displaying. It troubles me that the hard left seems “possessed” now with a nasty
        Spirit of a Bared teeth snarling bear……

        The trouble is that I suspect is the mask is now off and we are seeing the true inner heart of the
        Hard left

        I hope I’m wrong but I don’t think I am……

        40

        • #
          James Bradley

          Shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone really – one our former Labor Governemnts recognised the legitimacy of the Pol Pot regime and allowed East Timor to fall to Indonesia.

          Our previous Labor Government has many members dedicated to the advancement of the socialist ideals of Fabian Society.

          History is there to teach, and sadly it seems that only those that crave totalitarian and authoritarian domination are learning from it.

          20

    • #
      Robert JM

      Well played george.
      It appears the abbott government is using the same tactic on global warming that they used to win the federal election.
      It’s called bait for bile!
      The liberals have realised the public have grown tired of political correctness. With the lefts progressive decline into totalitarianism it is really easy to engender a response from simply speaking against their cause.

      Rather than fight CAGW on the science, the libs are instead trying to paint its supporters with mad dog syndrome!
      Arguable a more effective tactic!
      If the APS review comes out against CAGW then that give them a legitimate platform to attack the science!

      140

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        “Bait for bile?” A new term for me. But apt in this case.

        The return to knighthoods is more than bizarre. Four a year? Seriously?

        That, surely, must also be “bait for bile”.

        Is there, will there be, more of this?

        10

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Today’s headlines tell us Clive Palmer will not pass the “Direct Action” policy.

      Surely the Liberals would not be dopey enough to try to bypass him on this issue. I don’t believe the Nationals would support it. It should be dead as of today. Good riddance.

      00

  • #
    Colin Henderson

    The irony is that rabid warmists can’t understand why Taliban extremists want to kill everyone who does not agree with their point of view.

    611

    • #
      Ursus Augustus

      I think there are some of them who are unhinged enough to probably be not that far away from morphing into an eco-taliban who would justify killing. First they will kill the deniers then, once they have their preferred methods, hit lists and hit squads up and running, any who dare remain even skeptical.

      293

      • #
        Peter Carabot

        I wonder what type of weapons they would be using, definately no gun powder, to much CO2 produced during the explosion, diesel and fertilizers are out of the question. Exploding water melons maybe?

        130

      • #
        jorgekafkazar

        The hideous 10-10 video revealed extreme violence just beneath the thin skin of Warmist ideology. Of the dozens who participated in the video’s creation, not one found it sick and spoke out. Consider the implications. Forget Marxism. Forget Leninism. The AGW/IPCC movement has gone directly to Stalinism.

        240

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          They thought it was a humorous video, and would attract attention because it was funny. They demonstrated their thoughts and beliefs. It wouldn’t be much of a stretch to take the next step.

          Thin skinned is exactly what they are. I’ll add shallow, superficial and hypocritical.

          20

      • #
        cohenite

        Eco-terrorism is not new and incitement to violence is regularly made by prominent alarmists.

        30

    • #
      Leo G

      Self-appointed spokesman for the Climate Consensus 97% “Ninety-seven cents in the dollar” Nuccitelli could teach the Taliban something about ad hom. His recent article in the Guardian is a gem, and a good example of the mindset criticised by Brandis.
      Says Nuccitelli:

      “contrarian climate research blaming global warming on Anything But Carbon (ABC) tends to receive disproportionate media attention.”

      BTW, what exactly is a superseeded (sic) data source?

      10

    • #
      James Bradley

      Hmmm Climate Deniers vs Climate Talibani…

      20

  • #
    Bulldust

    It’s a shame the news blogs are so popular, because they take it upon themselves to be censors, often for the crime of having an ‘incorrect view.’ Despite the many pointless antagonistic commenter’s here, at least this blog supports free speech. The ABC, SkS, Real Climate and others could learn a lot from this simple lesson.

    340

    • #
      Mark D.

      Right Bulldust, though the difference is that Jo STANDS UP for free speech. The others you mention stand for their agendas and their missions. People exercising free speech stand in their way.

      Scary times may be upon us when a human right like free speech is no longer supported as a basic principle.

      260

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        “Free speech” is such a nebulous term, that is often confuses “freedom of speech”, with “freedom to speak”.

        Branis definitely has the third of these, because of his position as a Senator. But note that he had to be circumspect in what he said, so he did not have true freedom of speech.

        In my view, true “free speech” requires both, in order to be realised.

        Freedom of speech is actually curtailed by the laws of libel, when it comes to comments about a person. I have often wondered if I could take a case of slander against anybody who called me a “Climate Change Denier”, given that the phrase is now used as an insult.

        I don’t think Jo stands up for totally free speech. She would not allow me to use the term [Snip], on this blog, and quite rightly so. :-)

        But she does stand up for science as being, “truth and rationality in describing the physical and conceptual world in which we live”. To do that, she gives all of us freedom to speak, as long as we remain polite, and engage in honest and sincere debate, and avoid personal attacks.

        380

    • #
      Raven

      It’s a shame the news blogs are so popular, because they take it upon themselves to be censors, often for the crime of having an ‘incorrect view.’

      Yes, and interestingly, over at The Conversation, Paul Matthews has suggested that he (Paul):

      . . . could write an article setting the record straight, but the control-freaks and activists behind the so-called “conversation” would not publish it.

      Akshat Rathi (Science and Data Editor at The Conversation) has replied to Paul Matthews:

      We welcome you sending us a pitch here: https://theconversation.com/pitches/new

      Should we be taking bets on this happening?

      30

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        The Conversation has locked my latest account, so I’m not bothering to set up another and go through the rigmarole.
        I’ve read enough to know that TC has a mutual admiration society, some of them pumping out several posts a day, some more than ten, each day every day on average. This supine band is now supported by a moderator of the climate change sector who is now old enough to shave but who has a simple approach to moderation – if it disagrees with the cheer squad, lock the account of the miscreant. Permanently. Don’t communicate.
        It would be disappointing if TC reveals a true cross section of contemporary University/CSIRO/BOM type thought and life, because it is juvenile, shallow, illogical and often downright rude. Potty joke standards, even for serious topics.
        Pseudo intellectual poseurs are many, pity some can’t spell even some easy words. Like your & you’re. Like their and there.
        I can’t write on TC. Why don’t you others stir them up with a campaign? Have a contest to see how many reasoned, reasonable but dissenting posts you are allowed before you are snipped or locked out. I’d guess nobody from here can make it to 10 posts without being deliberately misleading for the fun of it & to show me wrong.
        Of course, there is the question of whether a person in public employment such as at a University can censor a taxpayer. I don’t think it’s possible, but them M Mann seems to have persuaded some US judges that his taxpayer funded work is immune from scrutiny. It’s a strange world. Mostly the cause is people too keen to insert themselves unwanted into the lives of others.

        91

        • #
          Ted O'Brien.

          I haven’t used TC much. I got removed once, but it was a provocative comment. Just wish that I had been watching to see the half dozen responses as they went up before getting removed.

          These “Pseudo intellectual poseurs” are almost exclusively on the public teat. Surely something can be done about that.

          52

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            When I see things this throughout my life. I remeind myself that it is their personality style. Like dole bludgers, lazey people, users and abusers.

            They do it this way because it’s in their nature to be this way.

            Personally I try to avoid contact with these types of people as much as I can. I don’t want to pick up any of their habits or beliefs.

            20

        • #
          cohenite

          I agree with your sentiments Geoff but not your method; I took a similar approach to TC but have been banned there; also at Open Mind [oxymoron of the year] and Deltoid, well you don’t get banned but you have to wash after you go there.

          I think a preferable approach is to bother the Minister in charge of the ABC [Turnbull] which is a major funder of TC and get action that way.

          10

  • #
    Reed Coray

    Between the first and second world wars, didn’t someone in Germany comment that “If you prohibit dissent, who will speak up when they come for you?” I’m extremely doubtful that AGW will destroy or even harm the Earth and mankind. I’m damn sure the suppression of free speech will.

    290

    • #
      Radical Rodent

      Reed Coray: I think the person you are thinking about was Pastor Neimoller. Let’s amend his words to a more modern context:

      First they came for the smokers,
      and I didn’t speak out because I don’t smoke.

      Then they came for the drinkers,
      and I didn’t speak out because I don’t drink.

      Then they came for the fatties,
      and I didn’t speak out because I am not fat.

      Then they came for sceptics,
      and there was no one left to speak for me.

      340

  • #
    Jaymez

    Even supposing everyone was pretty much in agreement that most of the global warming since 1950 was anthropogenic the debate still wouldn’t be over. There are very important issues to be determined such as:

    - will the warming continue and by how much?
    - has the warming been overall positive or negative for humans, crops, biodiversity?
    - what should be done about it and how much will that cost?
    - is mitigation a better approach? Or a combination of mitigation and avoidance?
    - will natural climate variability overwhelm anything humans do any way?

    But the left want to shut debate in all of these areas. They have already decided, without proof, without scientific evidence and without cost justification, which approach society must take, which also happens to exclude ‘climate friendly’ options which do not happen to suite the left wing ideology such as nuclear power, fracking and replacing coal with gas, GM crops and so on.

    The likes of Brandis, O’Neill and Steyn in this brilliant piece at The Spectator on the same subject are correct, The Left are deliberately trying to shut down discussion.

    I’m not convinced it is being done out of a feeling of moral and intellectual superiority though. If you felt you were on solid ground, why wouldn’t you feel comfortable debating your position? That’s what has been happening in democratic politics forever.

    No I think Mark Steyn got closer to the truth in portraying the new left political correctness, their shutting down of free speech, to something more sinister, it’s become a religion, in these quotes from his article:

    ” it is not merely that, as the Big Climate enforcers say, ‘the science is settled’, but so is everything else, from abortion to gay marriage. So what’s to talk about? Universities are no longer institutions of inquiry but ‘safe spaces’ where delicate flowers of diversity of race, sex, orientation, ‘gender fluidity’ and everything else except diversity of thought have to be protected from exposure to any unsafe ideas.

    “As it happens, the biggest ‘safe space’ on the planet is the Muslim world. For a millennium, Islamic scholars have insisted, as firmly as a climate scientist or an American sophomore, that there’s nothing to debate.

    And what happened? As the United Nations Human Development Programme’s famous 2002 report blandly noted, more books are translated in Spain in a single year than have been translated into Arabic in the last 1,000 years. Free speech and a dynamic, innovative society are intimately connected: a culture that can’t bear a dissenting word on race or religion or gender fluidity or carbon offsets is a society that will cease to innovate, and then stagnate, and then decline, very fast.”

    520

  • #
    Al in Cranbrook

    In medieval times they were called “inquisitors”, and at their direction heretics were hunted down, prosecuted and regularly burned at the stake.

    Arguably, today the only difference is that heretics are burned at the stake of public opinion.

    Pretty much same unowhat, different pile.

    The more things change, the more they stay the same old, same old.

    190

  • #
    Ursus Augustus

    What I find interesting and mildly amusing is that this more recent harumpphing about the debate being over by the likes of Penny Wong and other true believers/committed apparatchiks. I cannot really tell a lot of the time if say Senator Wong does believe something or she is just a loyal member of some political einzatsgruppen, if you understand the reference, obeying orders and blasting away at a designated enemy. That said it seems strangely weak and cowardly for an advocate to refuse an opportunity to articulate the actual case and I think Joe and Jo Public instantly pick up on that.

    The real weakness in the tactic is that as every new bit of contrarian reality manifests (dams filling during drought breaking rains, record snowfalls and rainfalls occur where children were feared to never see or know such phenomena again etc) then the huffy tone and cross armed intransigence of these political 5 year olds is just a very counter productive look (perhaps they just need to do a poo). On the other hand a sober, mature, factual and respectful articulate of a more realistic view about the climate will slowly and steadily win hearts and minds.

    I think there are some parallels to the republic debate which, similarly to the climate issue, is actually two debates in one. Regarding the republic, there is the emotive issue of an Australian being head of state (well put in a debating sense by the recently departed GG) vs the pragmatic one, where all the real uncertainty lies and which is the far more substantive matter that the debate has to address, of how to identify and appoint such a person and what would be their powers. Regarding the climate debate there is the issue of the quantum of anthropogenic influence on substantive, permanent change in global temperature and macro aspects of the climate (which has considerable uncertainty thanks to the poor performance of the models) and then the issue of what, if anything, we should try and do to mitigate/negate such effects. Actually there is a third aspect which is whether there actually is any real prospect of getting a world wide and effective action and then a fourth one of whether that action will include nuclear power.

    All that said, good on George Brandis for characterising the intolerant alarmists at the gates as mediaeval. I don’t use with the mediaeval epithet, I just think they are inner city hillbillies ( Clifton Hillbillies, Surry Hillbillies for example) so perhaps that is a more effective term to use when referring to them. In many ways it is actually more accurate too. After all, defining features of their behaviour are their incestuous intellectual habits, their expressed visceral hatred of those skeptical about their claims and their viciousness in pack attacking any outsider or opponent of The Cause. The constant reference to “carbon pollution” is also a signature of a truly hick understanding of biochemistry and just makes their ravings completely laughable it is so bizarre.

    Thank the Gods they are only on Twitter instead of toting guns.

    230

  • #
    Radical Rodent

    As I have stated on the Bishop Hill site, the whole Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate “Weirding” scam is not, not, NOT, NOT about science – it is about control. “Science” is merely part of the smoke and mirrors. The desired control is not of climate but of the people – it is about Government controlling every aspect of our individual lives; what we eat, what we wear, who we meet, where we go. It started with DDT, has moved onto CFC propellants and smoking, and is now circling alcohol, and the salt, sugar and other components of our diets. With AGW, we can be scared into accepting yet more taxation and yet more restrictions on our liberties; we see ever-increasing costs with little increasing benefits. Presently, our only defenders are – oh, such irony! – the corporations who fund government, as they seek to thwart the regulations that they inspire (fuel prices rise – make more efficient engines!).

    290

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Yes. For the Marxist politicians, AGW is just a tool. Like a dog harrassing sheep through a gate.

      140

    • #
      Robert JM

      Being part of a society gives you both individual right and responsibilities. You don’t have the right to do as you please if those actions harm other individuals.
      It is also clear that society on a whole benefits from universal access to health care. Preventing that system from collapsing due to the burden of preventable diseases is a responsibility we all share. Many of the things you defend such as alcohol, sugar and salt have been promoted to excess though brainwashing advertising by profit seeking large corporations. We need to fight against the brainwashing of rent seekers as much as the brainwashing of the left.
      Just remember that the “enemy of your enemy is your friend” is often falsified by “two wrongs don’t make a right”

      114

      • #
        bobl

        In reality Rob, if it were not for the Politically correct Nanny state we live in, the community would not be expected to pay for the exesses of others. You should be responsible for yourself. For example diseases caused by smoking alcoholism and obesity should not be funded by the government – some things like lung cancer are tricky since like Climate Change it’s hard to say that a particular cancer was or wasn’t caused by a particular thing.

        Consider the pension. If I p..s all my earnings up against a wall on alcohol, fags (That’s Australian for cigarette) and illicit drugs, and haven’t got a penny to my name because of that, at age 60 the government will give me a pension. If I’m Gina Rhineheart, employ 20,000 people, pay a few billion in taxes, then when I get to 60 I get NOTHING, in fact the government will try to take more off me! —Talk about unjust, those that do the heaviest lifting get the least and those that do the least get the most.

        The reason we have this crappy PC eco-loon “economy” is exactly this – we reward this behaviour, while the Gina Rhineheart’s and the Koch’s that actually do something to make life better for thousands of people are derided and victimised. Unless we fix this our society is doomed the age of entitlement must die and a new age of earnign must arise…. Can’t see it happening any time soon though.

        241

      • #
        Angry

        I’m sure you would be much happier in North Korea “Robert JM”…

        60

      • #
        Radical Rodent

        You are right, Robert JM: with rights do come responsibilities. You have the right to live your life as you wish; you have the responsibility to ensure that you inconvenience the fewest number of people as you pursue your dream. Ideally, of course, you should try to benefit the maximum number of people that you can, but I would never force that idea onto anyone; it is their own choice. Benefitting others is what a lot of people do – by providing a service that others may be unable or unwilling to perform themselves; by providing an item or commodity that others may be unable or unwilling to make for themselves; by providing an income that others may be unable or unwilling to create for themselves. This is what people like the Koch brothers, Murdoch, Branson, et el do, and are so often vilified for (alas, being human, they will make mistakes; and, note: there are many whom I do not like, but I do respect their efforts).

        Advertising is not brainwashing; it is raising awareness of a product – no-one is being forced to buy that product, but we are being forced to buy the scam of AGW, just as we are being forced to provide the rather luxurious lifestyles of the politicians – people who do nothing whatsoever to provide a service, a commodity, or an income for anyone other than themselves.

        110

  • #
    Al in Cranbrook

    Here’s a link to a blog post that is likely going viral right about now…

    http://taxicabdepressions.com/?p=1193

    Kinda related, bit lengthy, but stick with it. Helluva commentary about the times we are in.

    120

    • #
      diogenese2

      thank you for the link. An outstanding and provoking commentary. Also a reminder about the difference that may be yet the salvation of the civilised world against evil forces who seek domination – the internet. Prior I new nothing of “Crispus Atticus”. It isn’t much but now I am better informed. Now I know the source “Atticus Finch” in “To kill a Mocking Bird ” came from. Not much, but illustrating the amount and power of the information that is out there.
      The best line “these people are playing with matches – the do not understand the scope and the scale of the wildfire they are flirting with “.
      That is the, paradoxically hopeful, message – that they don’t know what they are doing – and therefore must fail.

      70

    • #
      handjive


      Thanks for that great link.

      A couple of my fave quotes:

      “Our government is utterly lawless.

      This isn’t Democrat versus Repubican… it is US versus THEM… the everyday people versus the political class.
      These people don’t give a fuck about you… they just want your vote, and your money in taxes, regulatory fees, and donations.
      And once entrenched, they enrich themselves, their families, and their cronies, and they demand even more money and even more regulation and even more tribute and even more control over their serfs.”
      . . .
      And still, Brandis believes something must be done. More regulation. More entrenchment.

      He is placing another steel pole in the pig trap.

      Don’t be fooled!

      34

      • #
        markx

        Hi Handjive,

        I suspect you are of the school of thought that ‘the government IS the problem, and the whole system would just regulate itself if only we allowed it to’ (most often argued in relation to economics).

        Well, it ain’t so. What we have now is only because of the systems of laws and rules we have. For sure there may be too many of those, and we might have to change some systems, ditch some laws, and write some new ones. But those who tell you the system will regulate itself and then everyone will have an equal chance are surely lying to you, and surely setting themselves up to reap the benefits.

        If you read the Spikes article, Brandis argues his case well. I disagree with him on some things, but he may be correct here.

        20

        • #
          handjive

          Greetings markx.

          FWiW, the most economical way with words to describe my thoughts are summed up in this quote from here:

          “As for any politicians who have ever believed in global warming, or supported the carbon tax, or a carbon-constrained economy, there is no hope for them. They are either too stupid or incompetent to be taken seriously.”

          My comment is also related to the pig trap, as described above in Al’s link.
          Brandis might say ‘skeptics’ deserve to be heard, but, he is just building the next fence for the trap.

          Cheers.

          10

          • #
            GreggB

            “When mores are sufficient, laws are unnecessary; when mores are insufficient, laws are unenforceable.”

            ― Émile Durkheim

            10

      • #
        Steve

        It occurs to me that John Howard is socialist, after all he brought in the socialist dream of gun control in Australia after a mass shooting

        10

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      Thanks, Al.
      A very interesting read.
      Very much in keeping with my own concerns.

      30

    • #
      Radical Rodent

      The guy has hit the nail well and truly on the head – and the pig trap analogy is so apposite!

      It is happening not only in America, but also (Ha! “Not only… but also…”; a phrase that will irk only the older Ozzies!) all other “Western” countries. The UK is purportedly the most “surveilled” (does that word actually exist?) country in the world, with the greatest number of CCTV cameras per head than any other country – but, that’s okay – it is for our own good, don’cha know? It is when the police start to more blatantly work for the government rather than for the people that reality might – just might – start to dawn on the sheeple.

      40

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        If I was paranoid, I would believe they government wanted to keep an eye on me, just in case I started to resist their attempts to control me.

        What do you call it when those in power are the paranoid?

        20

      • #
        Greebo

        Pop down and read “Stop being black”. The guy is wasted as a cabbie.

        10

    • #
      Greebo

      Thank you for that link. Why is this guy a cabbie? He should be President.

      10

  • #
    Mangus Colorado

    Start thinking outside the E=GREEN BOX . . here is one solution . .for the US and it would work in Australia also = lots of desert land vacant . . trees and grasses [food plants] all capture CO2 so the warmists will believe it is a good concept to save the world.

    A BOLD NEW ENERGY POLICY TO SAVE THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE!!!

    We put millions of skilled workers on manufacturing jobs building 500 to 1,000 Nuclear power plant of a low cost standard design. This will provide all the energy to accomplish a full restoration of our industrial base. How will this happen you ask?

    First we “MINE” the oceans for gold, silver, copper, uranium, methane, manganese and other valuable minerals and metals. It has been estimated that it will be profitable to mine gold from the seas at around $ 3,000 per ounce. Second we use cheap nuclear power to extract these metals which could make a profit to pay off the national debt. Third we use the byproduct “WATER” to farm the huge vacant dry south west feeding the entire planet with low cost food.

    Finally we use the cheap nuclear power to build factories to manufacture everything the entire planet needs and we return to zero unemployment and can pay good wages because we have free energy that makes a profit in it’s creation.The money generated can payoff all debts, build nuclear reprocessing plants, research and develop a system to render nuclear waste harmless.

    Just think, full employment, no energy crisis ever, gold to make money valuable, make the dollar the strongest currency on earth, end inflation, end government debt. Just imagine “AMERICA REBORN AND THE DREAM FULFILLED!!!

    03

    • #
      bobl

      Sorry, but you’d have to change the complete economic fabric of the world to do that – IE a starfleet economy where money is done away with and we captain starships for the relief of boredom. Otherwise what happens is that gold becomes worthless from oversupply – you see the problem is that such commodities are only as good as we perceive them. For example when the Golgafrinchams crashed on earth they quickly adopted the leaf as currency, as spring arived they had a rather large problem with inflation, as leaves in oversupply are essentially worthless carbon credits and as it would be with limitles gold. Gold is only as expensive as it is rare – Carbon Dioxide credits are the Golgafrincham leaf currency of the 21st century.

      For those that don’t know who the Golgafrinchams are you need to brush up on your Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy.

      90

      • #
        tom0mason

        To paraphrase Marvin (the paranoid android) -
        “Carbon!? Don’t talk to me about carbon!
        It gives me a pain in all the diodes down my left side!”

        10

  • #
    Dagfinn

    On the parallel with the Inquisition, I can recommend Cullen Murphy’s God’s Jury: The Inquisition and the Making of the Modern World

    Cullen has a somewhat explicit definition of an inqusition as a general concept independent of the specific history:

    Inquisitions have a tangible component and a notional component. On the one hand, there are the laws, the bureaucracies, the data-gathering, the ways of meting out punishment and applying force…On the other hand, there is the idea that some single course is right, that we can ascertain what it is, and that we should take all necessary measures to compel everyone in that direction.

    In the climate controversy, at least the notional component seems fully developed and widely embraced.

    70

    • #
      Al in Cranbrook

      Reading the reviews on Amazon, just added this one to my list of must read books.

      From what I can gather, the parallel with modern day eco-fanaticism is more appropriate than I’d originally thought.

      Thanks!

      40

  • #
    aussiebear

    ‘Australia’s high priestess of political correctness’

    No kidding! Penny Wong is the triple whammy of political correctness.
    (1) Female => Gender
    (2) Asian => Race
    (3) Gay => Sexuality

    Like other “progressive” Left leaning women of the ALP, (who is heavily dependent on the 30% to 40% gender quota), she is eager to use PC to her advantage! However, like all those who depend on preferential treatment of affirmative action programs like gender quotas, she is incompetent beyond belief! (This is what happens when one thinks they can get by on shortcuts and not develop character and competence by slogging it out!)

    Under Gillard Govt, she was Minister for Finance. Alongside former Treasurer Wayne Swan (Rudd/Gillard) and Chris Bowen (Rudd 2.0), she made her contribution to Australia’s debt/deficit. If I recall correctly, Janet Albrechtsen at The Australian did an article on “Penny, the Minister for Finance” and dug into how she never got a single budget estimate right. She was way off. It totalled to something like over AUD$100 billion!


    *Does a search*



    Here it is! (You can skip the quoted article and go to my summary)

    Penny Wong the $106bn woman
    JANET ALBRECHTSEN THE AUSTRALIAN AUGUST 14, 2013 12:00AM
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/penny-wong-the-106bn-woman/story-e6frg7bo-1226696601848#

    Since Wong became Finance Minister in September 2010, Australia has had four budgets: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and the most recent one in May for 2013-14. Let’s add the economic statement Wong delivered with Bowen on the Friday before the election was called. Wong has lent her name and her reputation to a set of numbers that tell a story of mind-boggling incompetence. To be extra cautious and extra fair to Wong, let’s exclude the 2010-11 budget as she was not finance minister when that was delivered in May 2010.

    Starting with that first budget – 2011-12 – when Wong was Finance Minister, she and Labor predicted a budget deficit of $22.6 billion in 2011-12. She was out by more than $20bn. The most recent budget in May revealed a deficit for 2011-12 of $43.3bn. It gets worse. In that first budget, Wong predicted a surplus of $3.5bn for 2012-13. She was out by $22.9bn with the actual result being a deficit of $19.4bn.

    And, yes, it gets even worse. In that first 2011-12 budget, Wong predicted a surplus of $3.7bn for 2013-14. By July this year, Wong was already out by $33.8bn this time. Her economic statement revealed a deficit of $30.1bn.

    Back in 2011-12, Wong promised a surplus of $5.8bn for 2014-15. Now Wong tells us it will be a $24bn deficit, putting her out by another $29.8bn.

    Cumulatively that makes Wong the $106 Billion Woman. That’s not an accounting error. That’s record incompetence.



    Basic gist:
    2011-12
    What they (Wong/Swan) predicted: AUD$22.6 billion deficit
    What the numbers were in reality: AUD$43.3 billion deficit
    2012-13
    What they (Wong/Swan) predicted: AUD$3.5 billion surplus
    What the numbers were in reality: AUD$19.4 billion deficit
    2013-14
    What they (Wong/Swan) predicted: AUD$3.7 billion surplus
    What the numbers were in reality: AUD$30.1 billion deficit
    2014-15
    What they (Wong/Swan) predicted: AUD$5.8 billion surplus
    What the numbers were in reality: AUD$24 billion deficit

    Its no wonder Joe Hockey says our current path is unsustainable! This so-called “High Priestess of Political Correctness” is a bloody financial moron! (Alongside that silly goose named Swan!)

    Being Chinese, I find much embarrassment! We Asians are supposed to be soundly competent in mathematics! We’ve worked so hard to establish that generalisation! Penny Wong is giving us a bad name! She didn’t get a single estimate right!

    Like those Climate Change models, they aren’t “just off by a bit”, they are woefully off the mark!

    I see why the Left suppresses opposing speech. Its to cover their lies, narratives, and incompetence. Anyone notice the distinct arrogance about them? They need to prevent open and honest discussion because they know they will lose the debate!

    211

    • #
      Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia

      Great post. She was not just a non-mainstream crank, she was also crap at her job.

      132

  • #
    Dagfinn

    I’m wondering about this:

    The right, until maybe the 1970s or 80s, used to be on the side of censorship, and the left used to be on the side of liberation. That has inverted in the last 20 or 30 years. Now it is the left, in the name of political correctness, in the name of this kind of new secular public morality, which seeks to impose its views on others, even at the cost of political censorship.

    It seems at least ambiguous to me. The left was certainly on on the side of “liberation” in the 1970s, but a lot of that was orwellian newspeak. In general, the European left may have been against censorship at home while accepting Communist censorship in third world countries.

    80

    • #
      Al in Cranbrook

      “Political correctness” is ingenious in that it invokes some sort of reasonableness upon censorship. It is the means by which so-called “progressives”…meaning the Liberal Left…now shut down all manner of opinion, ideological or otherwise, that is contrary to theirs. More to the point, it implies “conservatism” (the antithesis of liberalism) is, by whatever criteria one wants to measure it, therefore wrong, if not in the minimum outright immoral. And thus so, something that proper, decent and polite people do neither partake in nor even discuss.

      Check this article by Charles Krauthammer…

      http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/04/11/charles-krauthammer-thought-police-on-patrol/

      Two months ago, a petition bearing more than 110,000 signatures was delivered to The Washington Post demanding a ban on any article questioning global warming. The petition arrived the day before publication of my column, which consisted of precisely that heresy.

      The column ran as usual. But I was gratified by the show of intolerance because it perfectly illustrated my argument that the left is entering a new phase of ideological agitation — no longer trying to win the debate but stopping debate altogether, banishing from public discourse any and all opposition.

      It’s unfathomable to a sane and rational mind that crap like this still goes on in 21st century western democracies.

      200

      • #
        diogenese2

        The weakness of the “alarmist” position is the shallowness of the public response. Although the CAGW narrative is accepted as a “given” – the “destruction of the world” ranks very low in the polled priorities! This indicates that opinion may change very quickly with little stimulus. Climate science requires expertise in a multitude of arcane (literally – look it up) specialities beyond the capabilities of any polyglot to encompass. Hence the size and (deliberate) obscurity of an IPCC WG report and the facile SPMs. The original selling point was the correlation of emissions and temperature and the potent image of the hockey stick as a persuader. The IPCC AR1 admitted it had no proof of the narrative and even unto AR5 admits that the GCMs are crap.
        Still the circus rolls on but as emissions & temperature diverge, credibility bleeds away. The canny political players are seeking exit strategies ahead of the crunch in Paris next year when the failure of “mitigation” becomes manifest and a new “concensus” around “adaption” must emerge. The current hysteria of the committed is a symptom of impending defeat.

        150

      • #
        Robert JM

        Welcome to the post logic age.
        At this point I suspect any visiting vulcans would nuke us to stop our insanity from spreading!

        31

  • #
    David S

    I think the reality is that the overwhelming probability is that if the science is truly debated then the traffic would be one way. Uncommitted warmists would become sceptics not vice versa. Even with debate avoided this is the trend. With the help of nature the tide is turning. The refusal to debate is the only thing that is preventing the collapse of the warmists cause.
    Even so when was the last time a sceptic public professed that he now sees the light and we are all going to fry. The refusal to debate is the one barrier holding the warmists cause together. If just one other major global political force (ie US,UK, China,Germany) would engage serious debate on the subject it would be all over.
    I do wish the Australian government takes the next step and have a proper enquiry into the science. A royal commission into climate change.

    70

  • #
    Bruce

    If you can’t offer a scientific argument to support your case then of course you say the science is settled. That way the argument is closed down and one can hide behind the mythical majority to support your argument.

    As I have said before here, it is pretty clear that many Australians have trouble with the idea of free speech. Brandis may get his legislation, but it will be a struggle.

    O’Farrell was recently railroaded out office, so now there is one less politician opposed to free speech. But they still thick on the ground.

    70

  • #
    Peter Miller

    I am always amazed at the unreasoning venom and hatred the climate faithful reserve for sceptics.

    It is almost psychotic, or a phobia.

    We all know there is no one more dangerous than a new convert to an extreme cause or religion and that seems to be the way it is with the Climate Establishment’s leaders. Totally intolerant of opposing views, while simultaneously being scared to debate the subject with anyone of supposedly heretical views.

    “Of course, we are right, look at who we are and how important we are; how could we possibly be wrong?” Such is the mantra of the climate faithful today.

    Leaving aside dodgy inaccurate models and the hugely manipulated land based temperature data, where is the evidence for global warming, other than from a typical climate cycle, which began just over 150 years ago?

    Answer: There is none.

    171

  • #
    Martin

    Cogent remarks from a government official which are long overdue.

    One, however, is off base – “this is something new”. In fact, it’s anything but new (inclusive of the soviet movement, even for the left). History has shown repeatedly that curtailment of free speech is the final gate to tyranny.

    90

  • #

    This was a really good posting, Jo. Putting these two matters which are the two sides of the same coin together is most illuminating. The Warmistas will not debate Climate as they now realize that the science is not on their side and offers no support. Religious ad hominems, intolerance and hatred are their only weapons at hand, Mediaeval intolerance is an intellectual dead end for them, and they are beginning to realize that. The ABC is an intellectual wasteland on both subjects these days.

    130

  • #
    Gary Luke

    Lenny Bruce please come home. We need you again.

    20

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Just doing a Google search for a story on Australian Government wanting to regulate Blogs and Commenters came up with a lot of links to censoring/blocking Climate Change Skeptics (deniers) and the usual justified abuse/threats.
    AGW might be just a vehicle for Agenda 21 but the internet has proven to be the roadblock that may have been predicted but still poses a real threat for success in implementation, the battle ground is here and now and victory hangs on the ability of the side that can win the hearts and minds of the general population as they become the numbers for either side.
    At least we have knowledge of our enemies plans/tactics and weapons for the fight unlike many poor souls 75 years ago.

    80

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      At least we have knowledge of our enemies plans/tactics and weapons for the fight …

      Great, so what are the sceptics plans/tactics and weapons for the fight … somebody? … anybody? …

      20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Ain’t that the $64,000 question? Tony Abbott is the only fight going on that can make a difference at the moment as far as I can see. And is he really a global warming skeptic? And who else is both fighting and in a position to accomplish any change?

        Jo can’t make or change legislation. Neither can any of us.

        So the job looks like electing more honest skeptics. Now…how do we do that?

        20

      • #
        Yonniestone

        As I stated “At least” we have this knowledge and power for the fight which is quite an asset in a war, you are correct in questioning how we implement this asset and so far I have seen the slow civilized method of debate and political posturing, if this process is unacceptable to either side then then actions will get more physical and thus the cycle of violence continues for mankind.

        A point will come where the everyday skeptic will have a choice to go with or against the flow of corrupted public opinion and whether we like it or not people will look to us for answers, personally I’m tired of people asking for my alternate view on AGW, UN etc then shrugging their shoulders or fearfully hiding their head in the sand again, I have seen how stupid and weak people can be and it makes me question my ideals on having a good society.
        Above all this I dislike underhanded evil bastards and this alone is my drive to persevere against any tyranny, this and a persistent refusal to just lay down and die, so I ask any skeptic why do you bother?

        30

  • #

    The causation in climate alarmism is the opposite to that proclaimed.
    The public face is of the climate models revealing a potential catastrophe that can only be averted by mitigation policies. We have to accept the policies, to save us all.
    The actual causation is a worldview where everything that happens, for good or ill, being the result of conscious efforts and actions. There is no randomness or chaotic structures in the world. In “climate science” the revealed truth through models is only to available to the experts, who then pass the revelations onto others. That is why Lewandowsky can claim that lack of knowledge means greater uncertainty and cause for alarm. In “ordinary” science lack of evidence for a hypothesis would suggest it is wrong.
    In a similar vein, failure to perceive the revealed truth – being in denial – must be due to some deficiency. Possible reasons for denial.
    - Being paid to lie by some evil conspiratorial interests, such as big oil.
    - Being blinded by some evil and subversive ideology, particularly libertarianism.
    - Being psychologically incompetent, for instance due to “conspiracist ideation“.

    The faith in “climate science” is further indicated by
    - Opinion polls taking precedence over actual evidence. Imagine if the criminal courts took the same view. “Expert” opinion would take precedence over forensic evidence.
    - The diagnosis automatically indicating the remedy. If only that were true in the medical field.
    - Language, techniques, morality and methodology unique to the subject.
    - Lack of boundaries to the subject, especially the science/policy/morality boundaries. An expert climate scientist, like Dana1981, has greater expertise in economic planning than the greatest economists of all time.
    - Lack of any sense of proportion, whether on magnitudes or probabilities.

    150

  • #
    BilB

    Brandis in my opinion is an outright liar.

    If he believes that Climate Change is a threat then he gets on with doing what is necessary to protect the Australian nation.

    Instead what he is doing is attempting to look like a person concerned about the environment, while doing absolutely nothing about it. That makes him a liar.

    The light is either on or it is off, which is it. Brandis is arguing that the people claiming that it is off should be listened to patiently. The fact is that the denialist claims have been discussed at great length and the fallacies have demonstrated in every way possible manner,…empirically, quantitatively, logically, statistically, and many times over. The light is on, we know this because we can see the denialists in the light that it emits, there is no shade of grey here. The tactic is a delaying one, a subversive attempt to avoid admitting failure in the face of reality.

    Whereas it is unavoidable that some people will spend endless amounts of time exploring counter arguments in blogs, it is not acceptable for a government to ignore the nation’s scientists and put the future well being of the nation at risk.

    122

    • #

      For starters there are zero people who deny we have a climate. There are no “denialist” claims.
      Your repetitive abuse of English is a bore. You have never been able to list a single observation supporting your case that skeptics deny. You still refuse to apologize for childish name-calling instead of posting scientific arguments.

      The “debate” such as there has been, has amounted to skeptics asking for evidence to support the assumptions of upper tropospheric water vapor increases and believers saying we are liars or criminals who deny “The Science” (and deny the evidence that the gullible believers can’t name).

      What is not acceptable is that you should demand money with boorish ill-mannered insults, no evidence and expect us to take you seriously.

      The future well-being of the nation depends on getting our understanding of the climate right, so why do you try to hard to make rational polite discussion between scientists impossible?

      281

      • #
        BilB

        Jo,

        It is my experience with you that you only read the science that suits you preconceptions. I have not seen you once mount a balanced or properly researched scientific argument. Your main response to argument is rhetorical putdowns which have no connection what ever with the subject matter.

        What is this

        “What is not acceptable is that you should demand money with boorish ill-mannered insults, no evidence and expect us to take you seriously”

        supposed to mean, and how does that relate to my comments?

        05

        • #

          Bilb says:

          It is my experience with you that you only read the science that suits you preconceptions.

          But what Bilb can’t do, yet again, for the 20th time, is actually name the “Science” that I supposedly won’t read. That’s because it doesn’t exist.

          I have not seen you once mount a balanced or properly researched scientific argument.

          Bil, could that be because you would not recognize a proper scientific argument if you saw one? Since you always fail to back up these sweeping statements, I can only say “looks like”.

          What is this: “What is not acceptable is that you should demand money with boorish ill-mannered insults, no evidence and expect us to take you seriously” supposed to mean, and how does that relate to my comments?

          See that’s the thing. Why do I even have to explain why denialist is a boorish ill mannered insult? How about I just start calling you BilB-the-denier — the man who blindly declares he has evidence, and never backs it up, who denies he can’t provide what is obvious to anyone honestly reading his insults. Bilb you denialist, does that help you understand why you are working so hard to stop us having a polite conversation.
          We have manners and we ask nothing of you but honesty. You call us names and demand our money. You use cheap rhetorical tricks like name-calling to hide the fact that you can’t back up your faith or sweeping claims.

          60

          • #
            BilB

            Jo,

            Warmist, Alarmist, Denialist, Skeptic. They are all the same. But the real hub of all of this crap argument that goes on here is money. You resent paying tax. It must really burn a whole in your sole that for 40,000 years Australia has been a tax free zone, and then, whamo, during your time on the planet you have to pay taxation. Worse yet you have to pay a tax to find a repkacement for fossil fuels. I’m curious though why you don’t pick issue with taxation on food, or taxtion on fuel, or taxation on using roads, or taxation on buying a house, or taxation on buying just about everything else. I think that you are being very specific with your pickiness, Jo.

            02

            • #

              Your hatred is complete Bilb. Beware the dark side ;- ) It makes you say things which are arrant nonsense like “Warmist, Alarmist, Denialist, Skeptic. They are all the same.”

              Call me a skeptic, I’m proud to be one (You like being gullible?). The fact that you think skeptic is an insult says a lot about you.

              As for tax? I’m a proud contributor to public programs that are essential and useful. I object to being forced to pay for things that are self-evidently stupid.

              30

    • #
      the Griss

      And who give one hoot for your opinion.

      No-one here, that’s for sure !

      ITS WORTHLESS.

      91

    • #
      Dave

      BilB,

      You said

      Instead what he is doing is attempting to look like a person concerned about the environment

      The CAGW have some of the biggest polluters we have. Or do you only count CO2 as pollution?
      What about a certain man receiving GREEN funds to dump over 5,000 tonnes scrap, concrete, metal, plastic, oil and rubbish just off Australian coastlines?
      There’s a lot more if you want.

      80

      • #
        the Griss

        Not to mention the avian destruction wrought by both wind turbine and solar plant.

        ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING, but the Greens and other pseudo-environmentalists do and say NOTHING.

        Because THEY DON’T CARE !!!!

        111

        • #
          BilB

          As usual, Griss, you are wrong

          08

        • #
          BilB

          As usual, Griss, you are COMPLETELY wrong

          http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm

          The bulk of wind turbine avian deaths occurred with the early small diameter high speed wind turbines where the spinning blades were relatively invisible. Birds have no problem judging and navigating around moving objects up to 90 kph. The bulk of energy producing turbines now have power levels in the megawatts and their blades sweep at speeds slow enough for birds to avoid.

          06

          • #

            The bird and bat killing is a relatively minor, albeit somewhat important thing.

            It’s just that they don’t generate any significant power, are hopelessly inefficient, and will never replace traditional methods of power generation.

            If anything else was put into the market with the lack of efficiency of wind turbines, they would be laughed out of existence.

            Tony.

            30

      • #
        BilB

        Are we talking about the Mafia here, Dave? Where people are acting illegally they should be prosecuted. If you have information about improper dealings you have a responsibility to take it to the police.

        09

    • #
      tom0mason

      “…it is not acceptable for a government to ignore the nation’s scientists and put the future well being of the nation at risk.”

      With all respect to your view but taking heed of what ‘the nation’s scientists’ say must be tempered with a good deal skepticism, and some properly rigorous cost/benefit analysis. Often scientists say and do what is good for themselves and not necessarily good for anyone else!
      Scientist thankfully are not tasked with running the country.

      70

      • #
        BilB

        Instead of scientists running the country,tom0, we have lawyers, a professions which by definition has no basis in fact or reality. When a lawyer says “we need to create more jobs”, he has not got the foggiest clue as to what that really means or how to go about it, other than to expand the typing pool.

        Skepticism and cost benefit analysis? Most definitely, but “scientists propose only what is good for themselves”?, this is absolute garbage.

        02

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        tomomason,

        “Scientist thankfully are not tasked with running the country.”

        Beg to differ. There are some scientists in our Parliaments.
        At the peak of my science career, I was deeply involved in federal government policy setting.
        In hindsight, I feel strongly that the nation can be better off when the problem solving capabilities of the so-called scientific method are applied to the problems of running a country.

        I’d prefer scientists to unionists any day to run this fair country.

        30

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      … the [denialist fallacies have demonstrated in every way possible manner,…empirically, quantitatively, logically, statistically, and many times over …

      If that is all true, then why do climate scientists refuse to release their data? Why is it that they do not release the computer algorithms (that are at the heart of all of the models) to external review? Why is it that all requests for such things are met with utter refusal. Why is it, that scientists threatened to delete the data, and code, rather than release them under the respective Freedom of Information statutes?

      Could it be that they have something to hide? And when you think about it, why do they always talk in terms of effect or impact, or outcome, but never about the actual geophysical and chemical processes involved. And on that subject why do they keep changing their mind about the heat being held in the troposphere, or is it in the deep ocean, no but it might be in the circulating air currents, or …

      50

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Could it be that they have something to hide?

        Do you really need to ask? We all know they’re so open, honest and above board that we can trust them implicitly.

        We do know that? Don’t we? Don’t we know that? Please tell me we know that.

        20

      • #
        BilB

        Rereke,

        I don’t believe a word you have said there other than perhaps a researcher said “the program code I developed is my intellectual property and not not for public use”. The rest is all false impressions conflated to include all scientists based on(most likely missrepresented) isolated cases.

        The huge bulk of climate science is the product of intensive empirical research, totally contrary to Jo N’s continuous claims to the contrary. There is nothing being hidden, the issue is that the body of information is so huge, it is difficult for lazy people to access and interpret. Those who want you to believe that there is some kind of conspiracy pray on difficulty to support their dishonest claims.

        As for describing the forces at work in the environment, all scientific papers require the reader to have a primary degree of knowledge in order to understand the results being reported. If you feel left out then you neef to do some research before entering. This not specfic to science. Try reading a legal document some day.

        09

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          BilB,

          It matters not to me, what you might or might not believe.

          The Climate-gate emails revealed conversations between the principle researchers where Phil Jones said he would rather erase the temperature data, held by UEA on Trust, than release it to anybody outside of the team. The sceptical questions are: “Why would he take that position, when the sharing of data is normal within areas of research?” and, “Why would he threaten to delete data held on trust — something that may well be illegal, under UK law?” In fact, to directly quote Prof Phil Jones, in response to a request from a Canadian statistician, “Why would I release my research to you, just so you can find fault with it?”

          As for your mythical researcher who might claim intellectual property rights for his or her code, that does not in any way stand up under scrutiny. I have worked as a modeler on research projects in universities and research establishments in the UK, and there was no way that the code I wrote, or the algorithms I developed, could possibly belong to anybody other than the UK Government as part of the public good. Even in the USA, where I have also worked, the code did not even belong to the University, but rather to the sponsoring Government Agency, and hence the American public. In fact, even in the private sector, algorithms, and the code that supports them, normally vests with the employer, and not with the employee.

          And it was Prof Trenberth who could not account for some “missing” heat, which he postulated was in they upper Troposphere, but invisible to satellite measurement or detection by weather balloons. He then postulated that the heat was being held in the ocean depths, but could not explain how the heat got there without being detected by the radiosondes.

          The mention of circulating air currents was, I admit, my little whimsy, although no more far-fetched than the other explanations for “Trenberth’s missing heat,” that Jo has mentioned here on multiple occasions.

          So, you when you say, “There is nothing being hidden, the issue is that the body of information is so huge, it is difficult for lazy people to access and interpret.”, I say that it shows that you have not been following this saga from the very beginning, as we have. It also shows that you fail to understand that we are not lazy, but rather people who are quite capable of interpreting the information, if only it was available to public scrutiny, which it is not, contrary to normal scientific practice.

          80

          • #
            Geoff Sherrington

            Rereke,
            Correction, it was Australian geologist Warwick Hughes to whom those rude words were sent from Phil Jones.

            40

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      BilB,

      Still here I see. Too bad.

      You say,

      …it is not acceptable for a government to ignore the nation’s scientists and put the future well being of the nation at risk.

      But I would say they’re ignoring the nation’s fraud artists who’re trying to get a wedge issue into politics far enough to take control of Australia. They nearly made it and may yet succeed. If I were you I’d be afraid, very afraid because these people will have no particular use for you once they consolidate their power and will discard you along with the rest.

      Good luck if you should get your way. I think you’ll need it.

      50

      • #
        BilB

        You really are a long way down that rabbit hole, aren’t you, Roy.

        09

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          BilB,

          You are pathetic. You never have a rebuttal or an argument for your cause, just garbage statements reminiscent of the kind of stuff I see on the walls of public restrooms only modified a bit to remove the foul language and make it more presentable.

          00

    • #
      Lord Jim

      The light is either on or it is off, which is it.

      False dilemma. The truth/falsity of anthropogenic global warming (or ‘climate change’) is not analogous to the binary opposition of a light switch being on or off. e.g. AGW can be real, but non-catastrophic – in which case, why should one ‘do’ anything at all?

      Brandis is arguing that the people claiming that it is off should be listened to patiently.

      No, Brandis is arguing that people like Wong are /not/ the oracles of God sending down scripture from Mt Sinai.

      The fact is that the denialist claims have been discussed at great length and the fallacies have demonstrated in every way possible manner,…empirically, quantitatively, logically, statistically, and many times over.

      If (as the theory goes) rises in co2 cause catastrophic warming we should expect an exponential increase in co2 to cause an increase in temperature. And yet /empirically/ we have exponential increase in co2 and no corresponding increase in temperature. i.e. a massive FAIL for climate science.

      The light is on, we know this because we can see the denialists in the light that it emits, there is no shade of grey here. The tactic is a delaying one, a subversive attempt to avoid admitting failure in the face of reality.

      What has failed ‘in the face of reality’ are predictions of CAGW.

      Whereas it is unavoidable that some people will spend endless amounts of time exploring counter arguments in blogs, it is not acceptable for a government to ignore the nation’s scientists and put the future well being of the nation at risk.

      Citizens in a democracy are entitled to question their governments policies, especially when those policies – hugely expensive – appear to be grounded on logical falsehoods (non-consensus based arguments from authority; etc.)

      10

  • #
    Greg House

    Meanwhile Jim Lakely at The Heartland Institute is already being deleted from The Guardian comments for the sin of posting links to NIPCC. There is no Gospel but the IPCC!

    I do not understand why they did that. As far as I remember the NIPCC reports, they fully support the main fiction the IPCC climate alarm is based on, the “greenhouse effect”. The NIPCC do not dispute the manipulation with some local temperature measurements called “global temperature” either. Maybe The Guardian’s guardian simply did not read the NIPCC reports.

    70

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Perhaps the Guardian’s guardian, needs advice from somebody who has read Juvenal’s Satires, especially in conjunction with the political philosophy of Plato and the problems of political corruption.

      10

  • #
    Turtle of WA

    Don’t miss Brendan on Q&A on Monday night. If his last performance is anything to go by, he will cut through the lefty groupthink like a chainsaw through fairy-floss.

    100

    • #
      scaper...

      Why would one waste time on watching the ABC when Brendan will be on The Bolt Report tomorrow?

      Seriously, if people stopped watching the ABC to get their outrage fix then a case could be made to defund the leftist network due to a low audience.

      40

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Brandis does not have emough people of like thought to carry a parliamentary vote.
    Time will tell whether or not he is just positioning himself so that he can say “well I tried to repeal 18C”.

    22

  • #
    Trev

    I just giggle now when I hear the latest expert on RN pontificate about the ‘settled science’ or the ‘overwhelming evidence’ like they are referencing some oracle or fount of some everlasting truth or goodness. There is almost a moment of will the ediface fall, looking down the glasses moment, every time. The day for me will be when one journalist steps out of line and says can you remind of that evidence again, or maybe for the first time. Recently I’ve been reading some sites whose purpose is to set Jo Nova and A Watts right with the Facts re AGW (you are famous Jo). Funny this is they complain the sceptical sites just want to bog one down with science n stuff (which is settled so there is no need to revisit it – you know all those guys in universities with titles and postnomials). Oookkay – I think I got it now, but I think I like the ancient greek (hollywood) version of oracles with vestal virgins in white dresses much better than the current one of beards, tweed jackets and elbow patches.

    50

  • #
    pat

    Brandis is, of course, entitled to his opinions. he says he believes in AGW – maybe he does, maybe it’s just political rhetoric (lots at stake, for lots of stake-holders worldwide in this particular scam).

    however, Brendan quote Brandis:

    “He (Brandis) describes as ‘deplorable’ the way climate change has become a gospel truth that you deny or mock at your peril, ‘where one side [has] the orthodoxy on its side and delegitimises the views of those who disagree, rather than engaging with them intellectually and showing them why they are wrong’.”

    the “showing them why they are wrong” bit jars. Brandis would have better made his argument by recognising that what he “believes” doesn’t make it so, perhaps by saying: “while i believe in AGW, that does not mean the debate is settled.

    i’ve been visiting SpikedOnline for well over a decade. sometimes i agree with Brendan’s views, sometimes i don’t (naturally). Brendan’s Wikipedia page states (correctly or not): “O’Neill has criticised the notion of tackling global warming by solely reducing carbon emissions, and instead advocates technological progress as a method of overcoming any side-effects of climate change”. a little ambiguous, a little out-of-date(?). when Brendan wrote the following in 2007, pre-Climategate, i was still an AGW believer of sorts, BUT, recognising my lack of scientific/climatic knowledge, i was more of a whether-it’s-true-or-not-let’s-clean-up-the-planet type:

    9 March 2007: SpikedOnline: Brendan O’Neill: ‘Apocalypse my arse’
    Martin Durkin, director of The Great Global Warming Swindle, on green intolerance, soft censorship and his ‘dodgy’ Marxist background.
    Durkin laughs about the fact that many environmentalists fancy themselves as leftists, yet ‘they are always exposing me…as a leftist!’…
    http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/2948

    whether or not Brendan still considers himself a Marxist, I don’t know or care. political labels seem so meaningless these days:

    24 March: CBS: AP: Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton Continue To Cross Paths Amid 2016 Speculation
    Rivals in 1992, Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush have developed a bond during their post-presidency; they’ve become so close that former first lady Barbara Bush said in a 2012 interview that her sons call Bill Clinton their “brother by another mother.”…
    http://houston.cbslocal.com/2014/03/24/jeb-bush-hillary-clinton-continue-to-cross-paths-amid-2016-speculation/

    20

  • #
    TdeF

    Brendan O’Neill’s “And it is the right, traditionally more authoritarian than the left, which has become the custodian of classical liberalism” and quite amazing for a Marxist.

    This blatant censorship of dissent has flavored the Climate ‘debate’ or complete lack of it. Since it all started, I have yet to hear two qualified scientists, ‘climate’ scientsts or not, debate AGW. Worse, it is really annoying to have the debate run by economists and politicians. If the world was threatened by a meteor, the last people you would want to talk to would be economists and politicians. Economists in particular have failed and failed massively to predict the future and have debatable explanations for the past. Where were they before the GFC?

    Possibly the only group who have a greater penchant for being wrong are meteorologists, but together they tell us the world is doomed, unless we pay more taxes to their favorite people. The debate is over? What debate?

    70

  • #
    ROM

    The whole Catastrophic Global Warming meme is in a state of collapse.

    That can be seen by the increasing shot gun type approach being taken by the climate catastrophe ideologists that is now hitting many other targets apart from the climate catastrophe claims without doing any real damage so far to any of them.

    Along with the proposals for draconian censoring of any anti-climate warming opinion and expression it is being argued by the radical left of the climate activists that a whole range of other causes which the radical and extreme left espouse should also be the subject of wide ranging censorship and immune from being exposed to openly stated critical and opposing opinions and expressions of any calibre.

    The whole climate change argument is being seen to be morphing into another meme, that of the severe censoring of any critical commentary on the radical leftist espoused causes as can be seen through the increasingly and ever more extreme claims, opinions and expressions and terminology being used by an increasingly leftist orientated, radicalised, extremist language use of the proponents and advocates of the CAGW meme along with the greater and greater intrusion of other agenda’s such as censorship of anti-warmist opinion and expression into the whole climate warming debate /conflict.

    Along with proposals for draconian censorship, the word “morphed” is being used by more and more skeptics to explain the changes in the activists warmist targets they are seeing where the emphasis is shifting from the catastrophic climate meme towards the the proposing of the implementation of the censoring of any expression and comment that is critical of the claims of the climate activists and advocates.

    Thats the first and initial step.

    If the radical leftists who are in the process of taking over the CAGW cause along with the rather stupid innocents who are now being used as the foot soldiers and shock troops to push the leftist agenda with the climate threat to the planet still being used as a cover for leftist intentions, at least for the present, ever get their way with shutting down of skeptical commentary on the climate then the way is wide open for the radical activists of the far extreme left to start extending that censoring of comment and opinion right across the board to every aspect of our lives.

    And that spells the end of real democracy and something resembling the Deutsche Demokratische Republik, the east German Democratic Republic police state and it’s all powerful Stasi [ Ministerium für Staatssicherheit, MfS)] the Ministry for State security type organisation or the Stalin era Soviet Union and it’s CHEKA and then NKVD to enforce the most dictatorial draconian and rigid leftist ideology onto all of the populace and then calling it a Democracy.

    Censorship as applied in the political past can run both ways and it would be very wise for the radicals of the extreme left to remember that.
    Not that they will ever admit that as they, as with all radical extremeists from whatever part of the political and social spectrum find it impossible to admit even within themselves that they may just possibly be wrong.

    Censorship under Joseph Goebbels in Hitler’s Nazi Germany,
    Under the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy the real powers in the prewar Imperial Japanese Empire, in the various very nasty and deadly far right Latin American dictatorships pre and post WW2.

    Censorship of an extreme type was also a characteristic of the control of the populace in the various leftist communistic controlled countries of Asia and still is to a lesser extent in almost most cases

    Censorship on a grand scale was also the main means of a whole gamut of very nasty, highly kleptocratic African and North African Arab and African dictatorships maintaining power for over a half a century right across the whole of the african continent

    Censorship, wide ranging , completely non exclusive censorship , except for the very peak of the ruling group / family , ie North Korea and the Kims ;, is the first and fundamental characteristic of a full blown rigid in ideology and total in control, full blown dictatorship regardless of it is from the extreme left or the extreme right.

    I am a firm believer that in politics as in physics, Newton’s Third Law applies; For Every Action there is an Opposite and Equal Reaction

    It might take time, perhaps a generation of even two as happened in Soviet Russia with the WW2 extending the time lines by a generation, [ Russian Communism lasted a bit over 90 years from 1917 to 2001 ] but sooner or later under a savage dictatorship of either left or right where the lid on free expression is kept and held down hard by draconian censorship then the pressures build until there is a mass revolt and the lid gets blown off with catastrophic consequences for so many in those former both leftists and rightists dictatorships as we are witnessing right now.

    And censorship on a draconian scale is exactly what the radical activists of the left and of the climate catastrophe meme propose as being used as the vehicle and means to implement a drastic censorship on skeptical of anthropogenic climate catastrophe / change opinion and commentary.

    By this they are now showing quite clearly that censorship and ultimately a dictatorship of the elitist and radical left and all that implies as to who and where, is where they want to take Australia and the rest of the western world.

    71

    • #
      Len

      Mention of Newton’s third law “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In the spiritual realm, this principle is known as the Law of Sowing and Reaping. If you sow evil, you will reap evil. If you sow goodness, you will reap goodness. However, the principle of reaping means if you sow one unit you will reap, 30, 60 or 100 times. In maize it is 300 times.

      10

      • #
        bobl

        But with the increase in CO2 it’s soon to approach 400 times

        21

        • #
          BilB

          This a fallacy, bobl.

          Increased CO2 may or may not yield more seed it depends upon the plant type. CO2 increase the plant mass of both the root system andxthe plant stem, but it does not necessarilly result in more seed.

          Furthermore increased CO2 results in increased heat, dryness, and reduced availability of water. This is where Richard Toll was wrong in his claims that food production would continue to improve. It will in some areas, but reduce in most. His platform was one of hope and faith rather than probable outcomes. I have faith and hope that rooftop solar PV can reduce CO2 emissions sufficient to positively influence clinate change, but will it? I would not stake my life on it happening in time.

          05

          • #
            bobl

            Obviously you failed primary school science. There are numerous peer reviewed papers and a hundred years of agricultural practise against you here – as you say, the science is settled… Increasing CO2 increases photosythesis, which increases biomass, no other limitations being evident, especially in a warmer and wetter world. Or are you denying this science? Decreasing CO2 to preindustrial would trigger a famine, but that’s OK with you right?

            By the way Bilb, you still believe that it’s better to burn corn in cars than feed the poor, and it’s ok for grannies and babies to die so we can generate electricity with solar and wind? Stop burying your head in the sand while good people are dying because of this green driven economic disaster. There are much more important things to spend billions on and you know, I really don’t mean faster downloads of the latest pirated cooy of Game of Thrones…

            Tell ya what, when not one person on earth dies of malnutrition, and not one person dies of disease, and not one person dies on a poorly maintained and dangerous road, and everyone has access to clean water, reliable energy, hdalth care and food… then I’ll think about letting you and your mates waste money on imaginary appocolypses like CAGW.

            30

          • #
            bobl

            Oh, and you misplaced faith in rooftop solar… It has some effects, it reduces the income of the power company which forces up the cost of energy for those without rooftop solar causing the poor to stop using airconditioning – the old, poor and very young then die when it gets too hot or cold in winter and summer.

            It also destabilises the electricity network, causing overvoltages which damage sensitive equipment, above a very small percentage rooftop solar would decrease reliability of the electricity network to the point of becoming a danger to those on medical machines.

            Oh and of course they raise your CO2 footprint, as they rarely produce sufficient work, ( energy that it used ) to offset their energy cost of production.

            00

          • #
            the Griss

            “Furthermore increased CO2 results in increased heat, dryness, and reduced availability of water.”

            BULLS**T !!!!

            10

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Len,

        I keep waiting for them to reap what they’ve sown. But alas, the harvest season seems to be very late.

        20

  • #
    Neville

    Interesting post, but I don’t think the left have ever really been in favour of free speech.
    Sure in the 60s and 70s they opposed censorship in the west and wanted the right to read and watch whatever they chose.
    But some also supported Stalin, Mao etc and couldn’t have cared less about the people’s rights in those countries.
    But now they happily try and close down every argument they don’t agree with and promote PC nonsense at every opportunity. To them facts don’t count at all. Just consider the total fraud and con of CAGW mitigation.
    Their own reports agree we can’t change co2 levels for thousands of years yet they still try and close down the debate.

    71

  • #
    pat

    can’t recall anyone posting this previously.

    ***whose “growing concern”?

    1 March: Guardian: Leo Hickman: Climate sceptics ‘capture’ the Bloggies’ science category
    Founder Nikolai Nolan admits that climate sceptic bloggers have pushed out ‘legitimate’ science blogs from his awards
    However, over the past couple of years there has been ***growing concern about the reliability of the “Science or Technology” category, which was first created in 2011. (Before then, it was known as “Computer and Technology”.) Is it, some ask, being gamed by climate sceptics?
    There’s no doubt that some climate sceptic sites, such as Watts Up With That, openly tout for nominations and votes. Any blog with a taste for self-publicity can do the same, such are the awards’ rules. But how could it be the case that a niche interest such as climate scepticism has come to increasingly dominate the shortlist for such a hugely broad category? Are these niche blogs really the “best” – a subjective term, if ever there was one – across the vast spectrum of topics within “science or technology”?
    Given the strength, depth and range of science and technology blogs out there, how could these blogs – some of which are hardly known by participants in the online “climate debate”, let alone beyond – be picked in this way?…
    So I asked the Bloggies founder, Nikolai Nolan, to explain in more detail how the system works and what safeguards are in place. He began by explaining that 200 people who submitted nominations are randomly selected to then vote on which five blogs (from a longlist of 20 or so of the most nominated sites) should go through to each category’s shortlist.
    This much made sense, even though you could argue that you risk increasing any possible bias by using people who made the original nominations to select the shortlist. Then I asked Nolan if he was concerned that his awards were being gamed by climate sceptics. He said:

    “Unfortunately, I have no good solution for it, since they follow proper voting procedures and legitimate science blogs don’t want to make an effort to compete.”…

    But, I put to him, given the category’s fast-growing reputation for being gamed, why would the “legitimate” science blogs, as he described them, wish to participate? Why not, say, have an invited panel of various science bloggers, scientists, etc, to choose the shortlist before it then goes out to a popular online vote? That way you might be able to restrict the opportunity for a category to be captured by an interest group? He replied:

    “The problem is finding a qualified, unbiased panel that would work for free. Most categories aren’t the type that would have experts in their field.”…

    ***The absurdity is compounded further still. I probably follow the online climate debate closer than most, but I genuinely had never even heard of some of these climate sceptic blogs…

    (INSERT ALMOST EVERY KNOWN SCEPTICAL WEBSITE, INCLUDING WUWT)

    I have sympathy for Nolan, but I find it strange that, despite acknowledging the obvious problems, he seems reluctant to fix them. After all, the reputation of his long-running awards is at real risk. (Reflecting such concern, I have learned that Skeptical Science, who have never lobbied to be nominated and are the only non-climate sceptic blog on the Science shortlist, has now asked to be withdrawn from the shortlist due to its concerns about the legitimacy of the voting process.)…

    (IF HICKMAN DIDN’T KNOW WUWT TIL NOW, HE MUST HAVE JUST FOUND THIS ONLINE)
    (In 2010, the managing editor of Scientific American website said he was “horrified” by Watts Up With That’s efforts to “co-opt” of one of his site’s online polls.) So why not, for example, reward the “enthusiasm” of the climate sceptic bloggers and their readers by either giving them their very own category, or, perhaps, have a “Weblog with Most Fanatical Followers” category?

    And you know you have a real problem on your hands when one of the shortlisted bloggers lets the cat out of the bag by asking his readers – in a display of undemocratic pleading that would even shame election officials in North Korea – to ask his followers to “vote often”.

    (AD BELOW)
    “Sign up for the Green light email
    The most important environment stories each week including data, opinion pieces and guides.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/mar/01/climate-sceptics-capture-bloggies-science

    00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Why not, say, have an invited panel of various science bloggers, scientists, etc, to choose the shortlist before it then goes out to a popular online vote?

      yeah! This “democracy” thing is sooo antiquated, it’s from, like, ancient Greece or something. Much better for the people to be ruled by an unelected technocratic elite. /s

      The Bloggies are a people’s choice award, for Darwin’s sake. There’s already plenty of honours and medals handed out by various scientific institutions, universities, think tanks, and NGOs. There is no shortage of “proper” scientific clubs to bestow awards on carbophobics.
      What, one people’s choice award is one too many?

      The list of 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm.
      The 9,029 Ph.Ds of various types in the USA who doubt the catastrophic argument.
      The NIPCC’s response to the UK parliament‘s “Select Committee Announcement 31.”

      Scientific analysis is the rational basis of climate skepticism. Did it never occur to Nolan that a lot of people with scientific and technical qualifications may be voting for JN and WUWT instead of other “proper science” blogs in their own field because Global Warming has become so hyped up beyond the evidence?

      Presumably if it weren’t for the popularity of WUWT and JN the national categories would be swept by “proper” science blogs. This appears to be an admission by the global warmists that “blog science” can be “proper science”, oh the irony.

      70

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Somehow Andrew, I don’t think the weight of evidence supporting skeptics is being felt. I suspect it could literally crush them and they’d still deny its legitimacy and with their dying gasp declare, “The Earth is frying. The Earth is frying.”

        20

  • #

    [...] Climate change believers are using ‘medieval’ tactics to silence debate says George Brandis (JoAnn Nova) [...]

    10

  • #
    thingadonta

    I chuckle at the constant theme of AGW, ‘there is a consensus amongst those who agree with me’.

    It’s part of the same sort of issue as above. Only those who agree with you are allowed to debate and air their views.

    100

  • #
    handjive

    “(H)e (Brandis) says he was ‘on the side of those who believed in anthropogenic global warming and who believed something ought to be done about it.”

    For the record, here is the latest ‘science’ Brandis ‘believes’ in:

    realclimate, 17 April 2014:
    Mitigation of Climate Change – Part 3 of the new IPCC report

    For the first time, a detailed analysis was performed of how the 2-degree limit can be kept, based on over 1200 future projections (scenarios) by a variety of different energy-economy computer models.
    ~ ~ ~ ~
    The history of the 2° target:
    (A) group of German scientists, yielding to political pressure, invented an easily digestible message in the mid-1990s: the two-degree target.
    But this is scientific nonsense.
    “Two degrees is not a magical limit — it’s clearly a political goal,” says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).
    “The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant. The reality, of course, is much more complicated.”

    Schellnhuber ought to know.
    He is the father of the two-degree target.”

    “Yes, I plead guilty,” he says, smiling.

    Climategate 2.0: Jones says 2-degree C limit ‘plucked out of thin air’
    . . .
    Trust Brandis? No thanks.

    30

    • #
      scaper...

      “(H)e (Brandis) says he was ‘on the side of those who believed in anthropogenic global warming and who believed something ought to be done about it.”

      No believer and not impressed with the deceit. People believe his actions are a smart move?

      Trust Brandis? No thanks.

      Exactly!

      30

  • #
    Mattb

    It’s a funny argument to defend free speech by slamming those who are in favour of the AGW interpretation as being medieval. It’s one thing to defend free speech, it’s another to attack my right to say that your opinion is wrong.

    Brandis is a prick, in other words. He’ll probably be dragged in to the ICAC thing soon so hopefully see the back of this self-entitled git.

    223

    • #
      Mark D.

      There you go twisting the concept of free speech, no doubt from a strongly Left perspective.

      Mattb is just another prick behind a medieval codpiece.

      161

    • #
      Angry

      “Mattb” learned all the scientific knowledge he possesses from Animal Farm……

      112

      • #
        the Griss

        More likely from Wallace and Gromit. !

        61

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Hey! Wallace and Gromit would both understand the science involved in the global warming battle. So MattB couldn’t have learned what he knows from them. ;-)

          50

    • #
      the Griss

      Mattb calling someone else a self entitled git..

      That is hilarious.

      Tell me Mattb, how does it feel to know that even in the Green hierarchy, you are many rungs below the likes of Lodinum, SHY, Milne and Brat ?

      An insignificant little twerp.

      91

    • #
      StefanL

      George Brandis did not say that belief in AGW is medieval.
      He said that dogmatically asserting “the science is settled” is medieval.

      90

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Matt,

      You can say my opinion is wrong any time. Be my guest. But you can’t try to suppress my right to say I think you’re wrong without getting a fight.

      30

    • #
      bobl

      Wrong,
      Did Brandis say that pro AGW opinion should be suppressed? NO, Did the guardian say that anti CAGW opinion should be suppressed? YES – Therein lies the difference.

      Brandis has every right to say what he did, if you don’t like it, write in the the Spectator and express your opinion… That’s your free speech right.

      00

  • #
    pat

    i’ve had a comment in moderation #24 since 10.30am. not complaining, just mentioning it.

    another writer with whom i vehemently agree/disagree depending…

    however, i’m glad he gets the Cliven Bundy ranch story better than the entire MSM (who might get it, but are not reporting it) & much, but not all, of the blogosphere:

    14 April: Mark Steyn: The Pasture is Prologue
    I wrote on Wednesday about the “First Amendment Area” in Nevada to which twerp enforcers from something called the Bureau of Land Management have attempted to confine protesters in a dispute about grazing rights…
    Look at the picture John puts underneath that paragraph, or at (American) ABC’s video. These are low-level bureaucrats from a minor branch of the vast bottomless alphabet soup of federal agencies, and they’re running around pretending to be elite commandos. The county sheriff is supposed to be “the law”. But he had to broker a deal to get the BLM out of there because in America every jumped-up pen-pusher from the Bureau of Compliance has his own branch of “the law”, a personal SWAT team to act as judge, jury, executioner and, if necessary, as in Nevada, as army of occupation. In most parts of the developed world, there is “the police”, and that’s it. If a bureaucrat from the Ministry of Paperwork wants to have you seized, he has to persuade a judge to issue a warrant and then let the local coppers handle it as they see fit. There is an obvious conflict of interest when every tinpot regulatory agency has its own enforcement arm, and it imputes to even legitimate cases the whiff of something malodorous and, indeed, despotic…
    http://www.steynonline.com/6265/the-pasture-is-prologue

    70

    • #
      Bite Back

      If anyone thinks the Bundy affair is over and will be forgotten, think again. Unlike the great caravan to Canberra that turned around and went home again before actually changing anything, Bundy’s supporters are unlikely to leave with self satisfied smiles on their faces thinking they’ve accomplished something. They know they haven’t done the job yet. They even know they may never get what they want — the federal government to sell off that land in Nevada that has no use to the United States taxpayers and leave Nevada alone. But they will fight for the best outcome they can get. And you can take that word fight quite literally.

      The incident is now being inflamed by Senator Harry Reid’s loud mouthed rhetoric calling Bundy’s supporters domestic terrorists and claiming Bundy hasn’t paid his taxes (and Reid has no legal way to know whether there are back taxes owed or not). You can believe there will be as much of a fight against that as those ranchers and their supporters can mount. I have to hope they keep it up for the sake of the citizen’s right to be protected from the overreach of their government. Some are fearful of eventual violence. No one wants that but I do suspect that many of Bundy’s supporters will risk it, even fight back if the eventual showdown goes that far.

      Harry Reid is the big cheese in Nevada. He calls a lot of the political “shots” as he wants them to go. His son is entering politics looking to succeed his father. Reid has considerable financial stake in Nevada politics and a lot of raw power which he abuses and he’s desperate to preserve his influence. What more could you ask for if you want conflict?

      The citizenry is becoming angry. Bundy is but one catalyst provoking action. If you’re willing to bet, bet on trouble before it’s all over.

      20

  • #
    Neville

    The Bolter nails the extremists on all their dud predictions. And jumping in with both feet in his gob is that dingaling Adam Bandt.
    This fool and the greens actually believe that facts and the truth should be suppressed. And people vote for these nongs?

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

    81

  • #
  • #
    pat

    would Vicki want to debate the sceptics?

    18 April: Huffington Post: Vicki Cobb: Global Warming: Do We Have to Sit and Take It?
    (President and founder of iNK Think Tank, LLC /children’s nonfiction author)
    Do you know the difference between the terms “climate change” and “global warming? Which of these is more ominous? They are often used interchangeably, with “climate change” somehow seeming more politically correct…
    The distinction is now clear, thanks to author Sneed B. Collard III and his book Global Warming: A Personal Guide to Causes and Solutions…
    “The terms… do not mean the same thing… The two terms are closely related because it is global warming that is causing the climate changes we are so worried about. In fact, increasing temperatures alone are not our primary concern. It’s the many changes in weather and climate that those temperatures trigger.”…
    But it doesn’t have to be scary gloom and doom. If we read the handwriting on the wall, Collard says, “Global warming is spurring changes in society that will lead to better ways of doing things and a safer, healthier planet.” And he gives some wonderful examples of “green” changes from the generation of clean energy, to becoming less dependent on cars, to redesigning cities and making personal decisions about conserving energy and reigning in material consumption. (That last one is really tough!) For the people who have a vested interest in the status quo, the message is clear. Live long enough and you’ll find out. Throughout history people who refuse to believe what scientists have said, were proven wrong. We humans need to learn to be more proactive.
    Global Warming is written for teenagers but adults, who don’t want to read an enormous tome on the subject, will find it to be a succinct, illuminating and painless way to become informed on this most important subject.
    Here’s a stellar review reprinted from Booklist.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vicki-cobb/global-warming-do-we-have_b_5174723.html

    Smith is not easy to pigeon-hole politically, but he makes a lot of sense here:

    18 April: Discovery Institute: EvolutionNews: Wesley J. Smith: Global Warming Hysterics’ War on the Destitute
    The Green misanthropes that are corrupting environmentalism want to keep the world’s destitute in squalor to “save the Earth.” It’s so cruel. Rather than electrifying Africa, for example, we are told that has to wait until it can be done by solar or other renewable sources — decades away, if ever. Meanwhile, people live in misery.
    Then, as some kind of penance, the developed world is supposed to transfer hundreds of billions to the destitute, which would make us much poorer, while much of that wealth would go into private pockets, creating a culture of dependency that would be hard to escape. Like I said, it’s all very cruel.
    Support for my disgusted view comes now from a scientist with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). From the BBC story:
    But a lead author told BBC News that this focus on cutting CO2 was ignoring the development needs of the poor. “The narrative, the language, the views of the ‘IPCC still marginalises the developing country perspectives,” Dr Chukwumerije Okereke, from Reading University, told BBC News. Dr Okereke was a lead author on chapter four of the new report, dealing with sustainable development and equity. He believes that there has been a fundamental shift in the discussions because the issue of historical responsibility for carbon emissions has been watered down by richer nations who are more concerned with the future than the past.”‘…
    ‘In effect, this is shifting the burden onto the developing countries and is holding them down from developing; quite frankly this is reinforcing historical patterns of injustice and domination.’
    But Okereke is wrong too. His approach would require us to stifle our already shaky economies, which would be as foolish as throttling growth and preventing the exploitation of resources in the developing world. Both proposals are a radical call to self-flagellation in the name of a neo-Earth religion or imposition of “nature rights.”
    Even if one believes global warming is a crisis — count me as dubious, given virtually no warming in 18 years — Bjorn Lomborg’s approach is best. Prosperity is required to develop the technology to make the transition the warming believers claim we need.
    “De-growth,” Draconian Malthusianism, humans depicted as “maggots” or “cancer” on the Earth, throttling growth, etc., will just generate more misery and promote increased conflict. That’s known as a war on humans coming and going.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04/global_warming084611.html

    20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Just what we need, Pat, more clarification of a non problem. So many people are making money and fame off the global warming scare that I can’t count them. James Hansen and Al Gore must be very proud of their bastard child — two fathers and no mother. I wonder why science isn’t investigating that miracle.

      In fairness, these two aren’t the originators of this monster but they sure made it a front page item.

      20

  • #
    motvikten

    Climate Change is not mainly left vs right in politics.
    It is the developed world (USA EU …) keeping the poor in poverty.

    It is Informal Imperialism!

    “In a 2010 article, Gregory Barton and Brett Bennett defined informal empire as “a willing and successful attempt by commercial and political elites to control a foreign region, resource, or people. The means of control included the enforcement of extra-territorial privileges and the threat of economic and political sanctions, often coupled with the attempt to keep other would-be imperial powers at bay.
    /wikipedia

    Read documents from international organisations (IEA, WB,IMF ….)

    31

    • #
      Robert

      Well we here in the US, part of your “developed world”, have spent quite a bit of money on the poor. Unfortunately much of that money in the form of foreign aid, never makes it to the poor but rather enriches the leaders of those nations we are trying to help as they ignore their own people.

      Now if you would be so kind as to provide us with some actual evidence supporting your assertions rather than a quote from wikipedia and a suggestion that we read some documents from international organizations who need to justify their existence and maintain a cash flow for their own purposes I might take your comment more seriously.

      As you have presented it I not only can’t take it seriously but feel you have wasted some of my precious time by inserting it into the discourse here where someone such as myself would end up reading it by accident.

      20

      • #
        motvikten

        First, I have experienced it myself on EU R&D projects. I heard it for the first time 2000 behind closed doors in Paris.

        Read the IEA report on subsidies for fossil fuels. The say it must stop, but does not say where the subsidies take place. On other places I find subsidies in Russia, India and China.

        Read any paper the organisations produce and you will find they suggest the “climate change problem” should be solved outside the developed world.

        Why are countries in EU with conservative right wing governments like in Sweden, UK and Germany so aggressive on climate change? It is energy/industry policy , not environmental policy!

        Look at the left wing government in Denmark. They say coal and oil should stay in the ground, except in the Danish controlled part of the North See, because they need it for their economy. Then they suggest poor countries in SS Africa should buy expensive Vestas Wind turbines.

        If you start reading with my suggestion in mind, you will soon find the evidence yourself.

        10

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Add my demand for evidence to Robert’s.

      It’s easy to say anything is true. It’s not so easy to make it true.

      And if you want to know who is the oppressor you can start by looking at the United Nations.

      10

  • #
    tom0mason

    Educational systems that deemphasize critical thinking (over task completion), coupled with sociological norms that emphasize instant gratification (and many peoples’ demand for their 15 minutes of fame), has resulted in a vast number of people (sheeple) who do not think very deeply, if at all.
    Of the sheeple, the majority of whom are the true believers of climate change because they have not either the necessary training to understand the arguments and do not have the inclination to find out about this subject.

    That is why blogsites such as this are required to frame and explain the details of the debate, and where mainstream media outlets have failed the public.

    50

  • #
    Neville

    A new study has found that SLs are now the lowest for millions of years. The fact is we live at the cool end of one of the coolest interglacials for millions of years.
    How much longer can these stupid numbskulls get away with their lies and abuse?

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/new-paper-finds-sea-levels-were-much.html

    20

  • #
    cedarhill

    Climate change was never, ever about “science”. It is nothing more than a tree ring proxy the Left’s relentless drive into totalitarianism using their usual political tools. They even discovered its a truly great way to diverting vast sums of money to themselves. Their “models” are no better than using a “lucky” lottery generator to pick your numbers except the warmists models really do hit the jackpot – year after year.

    It’s a political campaign. The Left is using all the tactics they use that have proven successful. And they replay the entire playbook using different “focus group” research. Thus, for example, the morphing of AGW into the current phrase(s).

    When engaging in the political arena, one should consider leading with a “sound bite” retort before plowing through the data. It’s the phrase(s) people will remember. It’s difficult, but one should do as the Left does – keep trying until one finds a phrase that “resonates”. Remember, the Left never, ever wants to “engage” or “reach out” or “compromise”. For example, regarding the Guardian commentators one might say “The usual whiners are complaining that their Nazi socialism is not working.” Then continue with “The facts truly are …” and describe the facts and science. “Folks” will remember the “Nazi whiners” even if they don’t bother with the details. And it’s the “Folks” that go to the polls.

    One can win the “debate” but it’s a political one, not a science one.

    10

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    You have your battle to keep free speech. We have our IRS scandal. They both send a cold shiver up and down my spine. We have a long and dangerous battle ahead. It scares me to think about it and yet I can’t let myself be intimidated by it.

    00

  • #
    Ipsum Oleum

    This attempt at censorship seems to be co-ordinated. I frequently post comments on an Irish news site and here is a sample of the type of reply reply.

    The Roaring Green Tue 12:54 PM #
    0 4

    Jesus Ipsum enough with Cut & Paste of the same old shite, it was bullshit the first time you posted it and it is still bullshit. Damn climate deniers should be banned from commenting as they have been on other news sites.

    This was when I quoted NTZ and its just as bad when I quote from Jo :-)

    30

  • #
  • #
    Mangus Colorado

    http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/04/18/nuclear-power-plants-will-b
    The presented distortion of the dangers of radiation have been disproved by Chernobyl, Japan WW II bombing, South Pacific Nuclear bomb test range, 3 mile island, high voltage transmission lines.

    Like the global warming it is faked Grant Science funded by those that want to reduce world population by 2/3 so it can be sustainable. The same reason they fight energy production = population control and control over the elements of production. all of their papers that they created publications that would grant them peer review status so they could apply for GRANTS. Legitimate peer review publications deny 80% +- of all papers so the AGW were losing 80% of GRANT opportunity to fund Professors that agreed with them for money.

    The 100% failure of the hockey stick CO2 observation is proof that the numbers were gamed – in science 100% outcomes are unheard of – How about creating some JOBS and start to use American natural resources to restart our base value added manufacturing?

    http://thebabushkasofchernobyl.com/

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/opinion/morris-ted-chernobyl/

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/9646437/The-women-livi

    20

  • #
    Joe V.

    Free speech has had to be earned, fought & died for and was rarely ever free. What the Left are on about is ‘our speech’, and at the expense of anyone & everyone elses’s. Mark Steyn does a piece on. The slow death of free speech
    How the Left, here and abroad, is trying to shut down debate — from Islam and Israel to global warming and gay marriage in The Spectator this week, which Judith Curry picks up on In Defense of free speech over at her blog.

    10

  • #
    Lord Jim

    Interesting to read the Guardian article to see that so much of the debate is still predicated on a false logic.

    There is, of course, nothing wrong with using an argument from authority, but in order to be persuasive it has to be grounded in a /genuine/ consensus by experts in the field (Not just a head count: if someone as reputable as Lindzen is outside the consensus, you probably don’t have a consensus).

    There is a consensus that co2 will cause some warming (Lindzen and most other qualified sceptics agree with this proposition)

    There is no consensus as to how much warming anthropogenic co2 will actually cause (though based on the empirical evidence ‘not much’ seems a well justified inference).

    31

    • #
      Greg House

      There is, of course, nothing wrong with using an argument from authority, but in order to be persuasive it has to be grounded in a /genuine/ consensus by experts in the field … There is a consensus that co2 will cause some warming (Lindzen and most other qualified sceptics agree with this proposition)

      Although generally experts are mostly right, they are not always right, so the problem with an argument from authority is that you never know if experts are right in a particular case, until you look into it, therefore such an argumentation is considered a logical fallacy or demagogic trick.

      In the case of the so called “greenhouse effect” which is presented by the IPCC and Lindzen as “warming the source by back radiation” it is an absolutely impossible process. This is very easy to understand: even if all the body’s radiation is returned back to it by a perfect reflector, the situation is not different from 2 identical bodies at the same temperature facing each other, and we all know that 2 identical bodies at the same temperature facing each other do not warm each other.

      The IPCC presented their “greenhouse effect” in their 2nd and 4th reports (http://imgur.com/gDRQL15 and http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1.html) and Lindzen here: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/198_greenhouse.pdf.

      10

      • #
        Lord Jim

        Although generally experts are mostly right, they are not always right, so the problem with an argument from authority is that you never know if experts are right in a particular case, until you look into it, therefore such an argumentation is considered a logical fallacy or demagogic trick.

        No, it is not a fallacy as such; if improperly executed (if for instance, it is based on a false consensus) it /can/ be a fallacy. See in particular Douglas Walton’s /Appeal to Expert Opinion/.

        Expert opinion can be wrong (and subject to abuse for political purposes), but the point of an argument from authority is to provide practical judgment on matters that are otherwise beyond the ken of non-experts.

        In the case of the so called “greenhouse effect” which is presented by the IPCC and Lindzen as “warming the source by back radiation” it is an absolutely impossible process.

        That may we be the case, one can easily extrapolate arguments from Kuhn and Quine (and etc.) to show that science is not (or not always) the bastion of rationality it is formally presented as (the irrefutably of ‘warmism’ seems a perfect exemplar of the ‘Quinean web’), but from a practical point of view arguments based on properly qualified consensuses are still generally good grounds for the making of (probable) judgments (even if it should turn out the consensus was mistaken).

        I suppose one could argue (otoh) that certain consensuses are no longer valid because they have been hopelessly politicized (but that doesn’t seem to be a necessary argument here).

        10

        • #
          Greg House

          No, it is not a fallacy as such; if improperly executed …

          My point is that it is objectively a fallacy because you can never know for sure until you look into the issue.

          On the other hand people are not always capable of looking into certain issues and therefore have no other choice and rely on experts, sometimes unfortunately.

          But, as I said, the physically impossible “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC, Lindzen etc. is in fact a very easy issue.

          10

          • #
            Lord Jim

            My point is that it is objectively a fallacy because you can never know for sure until you look into the issue.

            And my response would be that you can never really know anything for sure, even /after/ looking into it (this applies to experts and non-experts).

            On the other hand people are not always capable of looking into certain issues and therefore have no other choice and rely on experts, sometimes unfortunately.

            One of the problems the warmists face is that having authoritatively given an opinion that x ( the world will warm catastrophically) they are now in a position where x is not empirically true. They therefore resort to supplementary (Quinean web) hypotheses like: y (aerosols), z (warming is in the water) to prop up x. I don’t see how a failed hypothesis can be the basis of an argument from authority – they might say that the hypothesis hasn’t failed because of y, z, etc. but the required consensus is not there – they don’t know why their models have failed.

            30

            • #
              Greg House

              One of the problems the warmists face is that having authoritatively given an opinion that x ( the world will warm catastrophically) they are now in a position where x is not empirically true.

              Arguing by referring to “world temperature” is absolutely unnecessary and even counterproductive, because a)politicians and journalist are incapable of checking it by themselves and b)the “world temperature” is another fiction. Why deal with that, if the “greenhouse effect” is impossible for purely physical reasons and this is easily understandable, all you need is reading the source. Just imagine a dentist, trying to examine the patient’s mouth by pushing the mirror through his a** :) .

              10

  • #
    Mike of NQ

    To all the climate change deniers out there, since the IPCC’s first report in 1990, we have got it right on CO2 rising, right on each decade being warmer than the next, wrong on the arctic melting, wrong on the Antarctic, wrong on the hot spot, wrong on cyclones & hurricanes, wrong on dam filling rains, wrong on glaciers, wrong on droughts, wrong on polar bears, wrong on insect endemics, wrong on forcings (times 3), wrong on clouds, 95% of our models are wrong, wrong on glaciers, wrong on the heat urban effect, wrong on the tropical troposphere, wrong on climate sensitivity, wrong on the himalayas, wrong on climate refugees, wrong on surface models, wrong on sea level rise, wrong on all heat being contained within our atmosphere, wrong on consensus, wrong on coral bleaching, wrong on food shortages etc, etc. And that is why we are RIGHT.

    81

  • #
    hunter

    Mike,
    I accidentally clicked a thumbs down. Great post.
    Skeptics are being proven right, and the AGW believers pretend it were otherwise.

    30

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    At some stage of the process of unravelling what is actually happening to climate, there will be an investigation into the motives and qualifications of those who invented, promoted and profited from it. About 4 years ago I started on the trails of the Mr Bigs but it was too early in the process. Nonetheless some findings from then apply to now in the sense that the identified Mr Bigs are still there and mostly still active.
    It is optional for you to look on global warming as a scam. Personally, I do not. There are too many good people involved, too many people with sincerity and a concern for a danger expressed to them by experts. However, within that corpus there are some really bad eggs.
    In general terms, the main locus has been Germany. It continues to be. I do not know if some Germans are pissed off at losing 2 wars in a row and are going for the trifecta, but rather I suspect that the main motivation is personal greed. Much of the origin can be traced, perhaps not uniquely, to the Potsdam Institute. When funds have been needed, they have come from among others, Deutsche Bank, which on deep investigation could turn out to be one of the most amoral corporations of our time. Insurances & more cash from Munich Re, Windmills by Siemens, etc etc to complete a hugely profitable commercial money making machine, peddled with the help of a leftist German government or two to make money returns mandatory through robbing citizens by false taxes to give subsidies for windmills and so on.

    Of course, there are others. The Mafia has even been reported to be in huge global warming scams in Southern Italy.
    Some academic institutions that are in it up to their ears are University of East Anglia, parts of Sorbonne, parts of Oxford.
    I’m talking about the money-making side of the global warming matter, not about those who provide false information about science and so an, those now with a record of non-disclosure of data and hideous distortions of proper science.

    Britain seems to have a special place because some of those who have made a private $ killing are or have been politicians whose regard for conflict of interest has not been exemplary. Just read Bishop Hill blog regularly and you’ll pick up on the names. Rather worse than a bottle of Grange undeclared.

    This is not a conspiracy theory, but I see evidence for the training of a network, a core of people that has over a couple of decades infiltrated governments and other places of influence to reside in high places. Ross Garnaut could be one, I don’t have the evidence so I will not call it. Some of his actions are typical of what concerns me. So while the origins point to Germany, there is activity in Australia that needs more scrutiny.

    So, into the future, as you follow this global warming thingo, keep in mind that you collectively can start asking the hard questions that will force some of these profiteers into the spot light. Try actions like, for example, asking the Australian Research Council for its published policy on asking academics to return grants when they have papers retracted because of a poor quality or breach of ethics. Ask the greenhouse funding bodies of the ALP era what money has gone into Carbon Capture & Storage, and what the returns have been to the taxpayers who funded it. Ask your local Council if sends money to ICLEI, a UN derivative that seems intent on surreptitious theft of some of your rate payments, to fund green objectives. (Now “Local Governments for Sustainability” or similar.)

    Don’t just blog on this excellent site, go further and send a letter (better than an email) to those officials who can relieve you of whatever private concerns you might be harbouring – then again, who might ignore you in the way that George Brandis is being vocal about. So do it again and again.

    From TV’s “‘Allo ‘Allo” remember the advice to the Gestapo villain at breakfast. “Hit the end of the egg with your spoon.” “Why?”. “Because they always crack in the end.”

    50

    • #
      Leigh

      We have our own mafia operating in Australia under the guise of the BOM who are constantly “cooking the books” with zero official scrutiny.
      The BOM says cyclones are increasing.
      When your claiming them as “ours” 2500 klm’s of shore, I can see why.
      They say that “Jack”is number 10 for the season.
      Nearly all of them have been large rain depressions.
      Quite common during the monsoonal season but their claiming them as cyclones and nobody and I mean nobody is questioning.
      Here’s a little from the link.
      Have a look at exactly where it is according to the satellite.
      “The system is currently located 2500 klm’s from the western most part of the continent”.
      “Jack is not likely to impact western Australia, how ever as it dissipates into a deep low pressure trough some rain be carried over southern parts of WA towards the end of the week”.
      Australian cyclone my arse.
      You say there is no scam because there are to many good people.
      I say there are far more bad ones involved simply because of the money involved.
      There can be no other reason for the rediculous over the top predictions that just don’t eventuate.
      Those “good people” are prostituting themselves for nothing more than a dollar.
      Their judgment day is rapidly approaching.
      http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/jack-becomes-australias-tenth-cyclone/44447

      00

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Geoff:
      The suspects seem to be divided into 4 groups.
      The “scientists” who issue alarmist prophesies.
      The economists who make alarmist prophesies.
      A rabble of “green organisations” to provide cash, support for those who claim to believe and abuse of those who dismiss the hypothesis.
      The politicians and ‘businessmen who make money out of the scam.

      Groups 1,2 &3 combine to scare the public and get money. That is distributed amongst themselves. The apparent support sways politicians into throwing large amounts of tax receipts into the trough. This reinforces the cycle.

      I don’t know how much is deliberate and how much has other causes, although I suspect that you are probably right. But take James Hansen, now ex NASA, who certainly issued his share of alarmist predictions and (ab)used his position and in return collected hundreds of thousands of dollars annually from various non governmental organisations. Did he do it deliberately? I have long thought that he was sincere but insane, but what of his off-sider (whose name I forget) giving away NASA computers and operating a warmist blog during work time?

      The Potsdam Institute contains several ‘scientific’ mouthpieces whose prophesies sometimes made Hansen look moderate (and are still doing so). Is it just a case that their prestige and employment could disappear if the scam dies? As for other ‘scientists’ you must have noticed that blatant manipulation of data seems to occur all too often in close proximity to Graduates from the UEA.

      Is Al Gore part of an inner group, or merely an opportunist who seized on the idea as a way to get rich? By the same token are Garnaut and before him Stern merely saying what is wanted by the Government of the day and accepting the rewards as appropriate, or did they actively try to shore up the idea? Considering the ridicule of their reports that came from other economists it seems likely the latter applies. But their defence will be that they “believed the experts” (or possibly that they were just following orders).

      There is another organisation you’ve failed to single out, namely the UN. They jumped on the idea very quickly and have pushed it hard. Yet their belief seems not to extend to effective action. Little has been done to ‘save the planet’ and efforts have concentrated on non-solutions to electricity generation. For the money wasted on carbon permits most of Africa could have been supplied with small amounts of electricity. Wind turbines are a joke as far as reducing CO2 emissions yet they are treated as sacred icons. And I wouldn’t be the first to suggest that conferences in glamorous (often tropical) resorts attended by tens of thousands of celebrants disgorging from jet aeroplanes at vast expense don’t look like any attempt at serious emission reductions.

      As for your advice, it is good. The time has come for sceptics to start fighting back and try to cut the flow of funds into the scheme. We can’t do anything about donations by the gullible, but why should we allow Councils and governments to throw our money away, especially to the UN ? Cut that flow and the scam will wither.

      30

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        Thank you Graeme & Leigh,
        You both seem to be of a style inclined to write the said letters to officials. I hope that you do, often, and that you inspire many others to be active. Geoff.

        00

        • #
          Leigh

          Geoff, I proudly consider myself a serial pest to some of our elected “representatives” and left bent publications.
          Dads army had its fair share of insightful and particularly educational quotes when dealing with the “enemy” as well. A real favorite was the one about how they don’t like a “bit of cold steel stuck up em”. Maybe a tad over the top for some of these politicians and global warmists.
          But then again.

          00

  • #
    Mangus Colorado

    Interesting the AGW CO2 supporters never present any new facts or data – they just find another Alphabet agency using computer modeling programs that are based on the SAME GAMED information base of AU and Mann.
    Please explain how all of these organizations came to the same identical conclusions and they were all 100% wrong 100% of the time. 15 years in a row they have been wrong.
    It is not a conspiracy theory that was the problem, it is concept of your construct to help save what little respect the scientific community has for the E-GREEN political machine. The extreme left is so invested with the concept of a global tax on life itself [carbon] that the truth and facts evade their minds.
    Oh yes, the E=GREENS say with all that money we could social engineer the entire world to meet our failed premises on climate and population – explain to all what level your desired sustainable population for the entire planet has been set.
    All of your E=GREENs are not scientists in fact most of your invented Consensus of scientists were Ph.D in social sciences and other things like gender bias. Add to that you movement could not pass the real science peer review so you all formed your own peer review journals.
    This peer review was the only way the E+GREEN movement could secure some peer review so they could then apply to the Government and corporations for GRANTS – thus the first fake of the GRANT SCIENCE machine that funded so many University Professors – oh did they vote then? CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

    Science is not proven but a Democratic Vote – Majority of votes does not amount to a PROOF. No not one of the many faked papers has advanced in the world of real science to the theory Status.

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
    Rogueelement451

    All of the above is obviously very interesting.I spend a lot of time on alarmist blogs and I think I benefit from the science gleaned on those. I can also recognise a “cannarde” when I see one , thanks to the fabulous “pointman” who invades such sites and reaps a good harvest of alarmists who find themselves agreeing all the way until he suggests death sentences for deniers.Funny as.
    Is it possible Bilb is a reverse pointman ? Maybe, I just watched too many episodes of Monty Python , but the guy is either a comedy genius or a complete and utter …..difficult word choice here ,,,,, goon? Something with 4 letters anyway.
    Dissecting his beliefs is not difficult, getting him to understand where his thinking is skewered by upbringing,propaganda and social reinforcement is a tad harder.
    It is going to be very difficult to effect a paradigm shift from the 30/40 year program of enforced education for so many people who have never been asked to think about it at all and hence fall into the party line, my own children have no doubt, its global warming and it is man that caused it ( I suppose it replaces original sin, where good Catholics,yes I was an Alter boy, had to admit their guilt from birth).
    Only old buggers like me who were taught to doubt everything, disbelieve every word from a politicians mouth and if their lips move they are lying.
    The answer of course is in Education, Britain has taken a step to stop children being brainwashed from an early age and I think we are but a step away from rewriting the rule book. In years to come ,The IPCC will be looked upon as a horrendous attempt to counter globalisation of business with an equally voracious left wing ideology of global catastrophe to subdue the masses , the opium of the people .
    Where did the heat go? It’s the Troposphere stupid!

    00

  • #
    Rogueelement451

    Follow up for Mr Lewandowsky, why are most teachers tree hugging , leftie pinko ,alarmist, reactionary, non- descripts who could barely hold down a real job? NUTS. National Union of Teachers . Copyright UK

    00

  • #

    [...] australienska senatorn och tillika domaren, George Brandis, har uttryckt sin förfäran över den tendens som finns, och funnits, att försöka tysta alla [...]

    00