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

Pat Michaels IPA Australian Tour sells out in Perth, Melbourne. Tickets available for Sydney Brisbane

Pat Michaels has been a skeptic in the climate change debate since the beginning, speaking his mind for 25 years and writing six books. He has been a research professor  for 30 years. He was The State Climatologist of Virginia, and a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and has published hundreds of papers.

Controversially, in 2007 the Governor of Virginia told Michaels his views were not welcome, and Michaels resigned saying it was ” because I was told that I could not speak in public on my area of expertise, global warming, as state climatologist.” Lubos Motl lamented that “Prof Patrick Michaels was effectively stripped of his title”, in another act of “blatant ideological cleansing.” He was replaced with someone who had published hardly any papers but evidently had the “right” views. Newsbusters notes the hypocrisy over the reporting of the incident. Where NASA asked James Hansen not to speak about policy but to stick to science, a huge fuss was made. When the Governor of Virginia tried to stop a skeptical scientist talking about science, where was the outrage?

These events are booking out fast! -   Jo

Dr Patrick Michaels in Perth, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane

The IPA is delighted to be welcoming internationally renowned scientist Dr Patrick Michaels for a tour of Australia in April and May. Patrick is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington D.C., and formerly a professor at the University of Virginia. He’s the author of many important books on climate change, including Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media and Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know which he co-authored.

Patrick’s visit to Australia will come at a vital time in the debate about climate change, as the parliament prepares to repeal the carbon tax, reviews the Renewable Energy Target and considers other expensive measures to supposedly tackle global warming, like direct action.

 —————————–

Perth      BOOKING IS CLOSED

Tuesday 29 April 2014, 5.00pm for 5.30pm,  Hyatt Regency, 99 Adelaide Terrace, Perth

Melbourne   BOOKING IS CLOSED

Thursday 1 May 2014 5.00pm for 5.30pm,  CQ Functions, 113-123 Queen Street, Melbourne

Sydney    Click here to book 

Monday 5 May 2014m 4.30pm for 5.00pm,  Radisson Blu Hotel, 27 O’Connell Street, Sydney

This event is $10 for IPA members and $30 for non-members. Bookings are essential as places are limited.

Alternatively call Sarah Wilson on 03 9600 474403 9600 4744 or email swilson@ipa.org.au.

Brisbane    Click here to book 

Tuesday 6 May 2014, 5.00pm for 5.30pm,  Hilton   190 Elizabeth Street, Brisbane

This event is complimentary for IPA members and $15 for non-members. Bookings are essential as places are limited.

Alternatively call Sarah Wilson on 03 9600 474403 9600 4744 or email swilson@ipa.org.au.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (56 votes cast)
Pat Michaels IPA Australian Tour sells out in Perth, Melbourne. Tickets available for Sydney Brisbane, 9.2 out of 10 based on 56 ratings

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

74 comments to Pat Michaels IPA Australian Tour sells out in Perth, Melbourne. Tickets available for Sydney Brisbane

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    IPA stands for India Pale Ale, to us confirmed brewed beverage aficionados. And, of that club, I am a life member.

    Do I have to bring a bottle, or two, along to prove my case?

    90

  • #
    Turtle of WA

    Lucky I got in early. See you there, Jo.

    20

  • #

    There’s something in this I find really difficult to understand, and I hope you don’t mind if I wax a little philosophical here, because it has a direct relationship with how Dr. Michaels has been treated since he came out against this scare campaign, so what I’m saying here is in the form of an analogy, because it’s not about me.

    Why is it that people who take the opposite position to the (supposed) mainstream are vilified and driven away from official positions where they can make contrary arguments?

    When it came to the Science, I am a rank beginner, so there’s no way I can make informed comment from a Scientific point, so I assiduously stay away from that sort of comment, even though I have my belief on this matter. I just learn from what I read on the matter.

    Actually starting to write about what I did was the hardest thing I had ever done, because, even though at a Blog site, there it was, in perpetuity, always able to be seen, and the date noticed, right from day one in March of 2008.

    So, while I had my opinion on the Science, I had no background where I could effectively back it up.

    So, rather than do that, my idea was to point to what the end result might be ….. if we were to actually believe that CAGW was in fact the truth, and CO2 was causing the so called coming catastrophe.

    To that end, I attempted to find out what it would mean if we were to actually close down the source of the greatest CO2 emissions, the generation of electrical power, and because of that, to find new methods of power generation to replace all that power

    Even then, it was an immensely difficult thing to do, to write it down and Post it.

    The more I looked, the more I didn’t believe that it could be done with renewables, of any sort really, but especially Wind Power and Solar Power. The years of doing it have given me confidence, because right from Day One, I was swimming against the tide, even though my background in the Trade gave me knowledge on the subject.

    The part I fail to understand is this.

    I know I am right, so I can see where people who oppose me are wrong, and that same applies here with Dr. Michaels. He also KNOWS he is right.

    Everyone in the majority of the general public has been taken in by the Alarmism, without checking it out, just religiously believing ….. the ONE side of the argument only. I mean, people like Dr. Michaels know what they are talking about, and yet what they do have to say is sniped at from every other point. Now I can understand the media going along with the alarmism, because that’s all journalists know, journalism. It’s easier for them to sensationalise the drama, the apocalypse, the scare, because that gets them more media space (as a journalist) than the ‘hold on a minute’ approach, which, as journalists, they perceive that is what no one wants to read, preferring the doom of what they are told will happen, so when there is this opposing argument that goes against what they are writing, then it’s also easier to snipe away at him rather than go and find out the truth of the matter.

    The same applies with the area where I think I have some expertise. No one will believe what I say, because they read what journalists write, reporters with no knowledge on the subject of power generation, so again, they religiously believe it can be done, when it patently cannot. They don’t check, and even if they do, they don’t have the knowledge to understand what they are researching.

    Now I don’t care. I’m a nobody, so no one is going to come after me, and even if they did, I have the confidence now to look after myself.

    But when I see people like Dr. Michaels getting it in the neck, not for his belief, but for what he knows, HIS field of expertise, just because it is not the Established point of view, then that makes me angry. There’s nothing I can do about but add ….. Hear hear! just one small voice surrounded by the chorus of CAGW believers who not only shout my voice down, but shout his down as well. I don’t care that I get shouted down, but someone who KNOWS what they are on about should be given a fair go, should be heard, and should be believed.

    Just an opinion here I know.

    Tony.

    530

    • #

      Not even NASA’s James Hansen believes in renewables anymore. Its a sore point with local greens that 3 of their high priests have joined the nuclear camp.

      http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/

      160

    • #
      Keith L

      Firstly very few journos these days have a clue. They most probably studied ‘journalism’ at uni which is a joke because it is nothing but lefty propaganda and absolutely discourages independent thought.
      You may notice that all the best journalists now or in the past are people who have studied classics like history or literature and then taken their talent to journalism.
      Doing a course in journalism, to me at least, seems a bit like doing a course in ‘How to attract women’ – if you have to do the course you are not up to the job.
      People who have studied classics and done well have a vast reservior of history and precedent to draw on and are able to put stuff into perspective.
      People who have done science (quantitative science, not the ones where the essay question gets you through) have a logical mind and the ability to be sceptical.
      Journos of today really are just good at taking dictation and doing data entry.
      They are obliged to go with the flow and try and sell stories. They are discouraged from thinking for themselves and that is where their uni training is invaluable!
      At the moment the narrative is that the sceptics are a bunch of flat earth nutters and so there is no need to dig any deeper.
      There bright side is that in a while that narrative will get old and a new one will be needed. The new one will be a rehash of an old favourite but one which will actually be closer to the truth. It will be something along the lines – How have those climate con men lied to us and taken our money!!!!
      They will then go after them like The Sun goes after a politician who has over-dredged his moat. That will be fun.

      230

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I have never taken a course in “How to attract women”. And I am still not up to the job.

        120

        • #
          James Bradley

          You don’t need a course for that – just notice their shoes.

          40

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Their shoes? Most of the women I know, wear safety boots … ;-)

            50

            • #
              James Bradley

              And you still can’t attract them…

              40

            • #
              Safetyguy66

              Safety boots are a bigger turn on than heels if you ask me. I met my partner on a construction site and I still get a thrill when she comes home in her work clobber. Something very attractive about a woman in high vis who can operate a 350T excavator.

              50

        • #
          Jon

          Mostly they choose and hunt down their men. You just have to know and get what really attracts them?

          00

      • #
        Bob Malloy

        Journos of today really are just good at taking dictation and doing data entry.

        Journos of today really are just good at cutting and pasting press releases from green groups, CSIRO, BoM, the Climate Institutes John Conner, etc, etc, etc…. there fixed.

        30

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          The thing you need to understand about Journos, is that they are working to a tight deadline.

          This deadline varies from place to place, depending on the local licencing hours.

          80

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Tony

      You may no0t be up on “the science” but sure as hell you area UP on the relative costings of conventional power (coal fired power) , solar and wind power, collectively known as renewables.

      This is an enormous contribution to our understanding of the “Energy” problem’ as it exists in 2014.

      KK :)

      200

    • #
      ROM

      Tony
      Maybe I am wrong but writing your post and baring your soul in doing so I suspect was a very difficult thing for you to do as it would be for most committed skeptics.
      I am a practicing Christian born into a practicing christian family who had a liberal view of Christianity as it should be practiced as my siblings and their spouses still do. 
      Fundamentalists of any religion are those who believe their religion’s written holy word is exactly as it was and must be practiced exactly as it is written which it never is despite all the verbiage and exhortations that are a part of fundamentalism.
      Consequently you see a very high incidence of fakery and hypocrisy within the fundamentalist based religions, sects and cults.

      When I personally come across a full on fundamentalist Christian or those of any other religion or sect or cult I make sure I am just at the point of heading off to somewhere else.
      There is no debating with a fundamentalist.
      There is only black and white, no shades of grey and no “admitted” sense of doubt about their beliefs, Just a rigid inflexible I am right and you are wrong if you do not believe exactly as I believe and as the high priests of my religion have instructed us to believe.

      At 76 years old I have seen much of men and when I started to take an interest in the the global warming catastrophe beliefs in the early 2000′s it was only after a few years that I began to realise that underlying the unshakeable beliefs in a future climate catastrophe was a very religious type experience for many believers.

      And it was also then as I thought hard about why this was happening and had a good long look at my own inner being that I came to realise that every human being on this planet believes in some way or another, they have an inner fundamental desire to believe in somebody or something, a higher almost indefinable being or power that will always be beyond their physical reach and abilities to contact and see directly but which exerts a moral authority which it is their beholden duty to obey, practice and proclaim and preach.

      Many, both CAGW believers and skeptics will say directly that they do not believe in any such romantic religious type authority. But even atheists believe that they do not believe in a higher moral authority, a contrary belief that believes they do not believe.

      All put to rest by that WW2 old soldier’s saying; “There are no atheists in fox holes”.

      If we accept my proposition above of every human needing to believe in a higher cause or authority then the often main underlying theme of nearly every single religion and even more so in the cults and sects is the theme that ” We have sinned against that higher being and it’s moral authority as proclaimed by it’s priests.
      In this current and specific case, the priests are the climate warming, alarmist advocating climate scientists and the indefinable authority is Nature and the planet and the mystical and deep attachment we all have today knowing that this, our planet, the third rock from the sun is our home, THE only home of our species and race in all of the Universe.

      Therefore we a deeply guilty of trying to destroy our home by releasing all of this terrible gas as the high priests, the climate alarmist scientists keep telling us and we must attempt, knowing that we will never succeed in assuaging our guilt as our actions and even our thoughts are so deeply wrong and so against the firmly laid out wishes of that higher authority, Nature and Earth that we can never make amends for our guilt even by by offering sacrifices of our personal possessions that we have worked so hard to collect.
      We will also try and make amends for our deep sin by devoting of our precious time to the causes of that higher and unattainable to mere mortals, moral authority.

      When viewed in this light the cause of a human created global catastrophe through the very simple to understand , simple tom understand as is the basis for with most cults and sects, for even the most uneducated, the release of a well known gas from burning an acknowledged dirty coal as fuel, the amounts of gas don’t really matter to the convinced believer, and the consequent result as proclaimed by the high priests, the climate alarmist scientists , are very good grounds for a deep down within their psyche seeker of a higher cause to follow such a quasi religious belief system that raises the Earth and Nature to the status of god like entities never to be challenged or doubted.

      It satisfies a deep down emptiness of the soul and human psyche that often asks why are we even here ?
      .
      It satisfies their guilt complex at the life style they are living. which they know is far superior to the life style of countless other humans

      It satisfies their seeking of a higher moral authority to turn to when they doubt after reading perhaps a skeptics denunciation of some aspect of climate science..

      It gives them a feeling of belonging to a select group who because they are large in number must be right in what they believe.

      It gives them a feeling of being dedicated to saving something which they also think, when they think, if they ever really do think about it, is very important to them and their families and their descendants.

      It gives them a deeply satisfying sense of belonging to a big group of like minded people who reinforced by the proclamations of the alarmist climate scientists , the proclamations of the high priest’s that what they now believe is right and that there is no argument anymore as the scientists/ high priests who they desperately turn to to get confirmation that what they believe now is the only truth and an absolute confirmation that what they now believe is that the science is indisputable and absolutely correct. Just as the priests of any other religion, cult or sect also constantly claim and repeat.

      The believers then will no longer accept that there is any other road or alternative to what they now believe.
      There can’t be as what they now believe is indisputable, not open to challenge in any way and all other sayings or even thoughts from unbelievers must be destroyed forthwith for the very doubting of that great unattainable higher authority as proclaimed by it’s high priests, the climate scientists must never again be allowed to be doubted or disparaged by the unbelievers.

      Therefore any whom dare to doubt the real truth as proclaimed by the religious leaders on the part of that higher moral authority must be destroyed before it pollutes, creates doubts and slanders the great cause in which they now fervently and so earnestly believe.

      Tony. we are having and witnessing a unique experience , the birth of a new extremely fundamentalist religion. a fundamentalist cult and all it’s various sects.

      And it is just as vindictive and vicious and vengeance seeking against unbelievers and doubters as all such new cults usually are.

      Like nearly every single one of such vindictive and vicious cults in past history, the climate alarmist cult will surely disappear as the initial enthusiasm and religious type high slowly deflates and then dissipates and doubt sets in for every single one of it’s current believers.

      All that will be left as this generation winds down is a few believers still spouting their empty rhetoric without any real feeling or sense that even they still really believe in what they are proclaiming and preaching.

      141

      • #
         DC  

        I can’t find any “shades of grey” in what Jesus taught, can you? “No one comes to the Father but by Me.” Pretty black and white I would suggest.

        So it is with physics. The trillion dollar question is: “What thermal gradient, if any, would existing in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium in a planet’s troposphere?”

        It’s quite black and white, you know … there’s either a non-zero gradient or a zero gradient, meaning there’s either no greenhouse effect or no greenhouse effect anyway.

        [I'll take this opportunity to suggest that all correspondents cease to conflate religious beliefs and science. We have had to moderate some comments because they suggested a person with strong religious beliefs could not be credible in the field of science.

        Vilifying or trying to discredit someone for their religious views is not accepted in public and will not be accepted at this site. It is false to claim a person's science must be wrong because they have certain religious views. We all know that religious views are a matter of FAITH, not scientific evidence, and no one argues that point.

        Even the Nazis who despised the Jews and their religious beliefs were quite happy to force Jewish scientists to work for them. There are of course many science Nobel Laureates who believed in God.

        So whether positive or negative can we keep comments on topic and off conflating religious FAITH versus scientific approach. They are not mutually exclusive. - Mod]

        20

      • #
        Manfred

        …the climate alarmist cult will surely disappear as the initial enthusiasm and religious type high slowly deflates…

        ROM, the ‘disappearance’ you refer to, will I think be far from a ‘slow deflation’.

        Instead, turbo charged by a cooling climate, increasing storm activity and the encroaching Green pecuniary penalties for merely being alive, desertion in the ranks will be legion. Couple this with the rapidly evolving political landscape in Europe — Russia flexing its geopolitical muscles courtesy of European energy dependency — and the latest urging by William Hague in the UK, that Britain is ‘willing to pay the price‘ for further sanctions, although it is studiously unclear what exactly that price is.

        The price could be exorbitant energy prices and ‘shortages’ that ‘renewable’ wood chips from Canada for Drax will not come close to addressing.

        Cold, miserable, impoverished citizens make very, very poor Greens acolytes.

        On the other hand, this could be the god-sent ‘excuse’ that the saner members of European governments need to finally expunge the bilious Green corrupted group-think in favour of rational energy policies that favour economic security, development and prosperity.

        The unpleasant proximity of war has a way of sorting the wheat from the chaff.

        60

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          See NoTricksZone:
          “In a stunning admission by Germany’s Economics Minister and Vice Chancellor to Angela Merkel, Sigmar Gabriel announced in a recent speech that the country’s once highly ballyhooed transformation to renewable energy, a model that has been adopted by a number of countries worldwide, is “on the verge of failure“.

          Speaking at an event at SMA Solar, Germany’s leading manufacturer of solar technology; Gabriel is also head of Germany’s socialist SPD party, which is now the coalition partner in Angela Merkel’s CDU/SPD grand coalition government. Moreover Gabriel was once the country’s environment minister and a devout believer in global warming”

          It could be the up-coming European ‘elections’ but more likely the twin threats of gas supply disruptions and the annoyance of voters finding out that they are paying $A368 PER HEAD for nothing.

          The wheels are coming off the juggernaut!

          40

        • #
          the Griss

          “Cold, miserable, impoverished citizens make very, very poor Greens acolytes. ”

          Gees Manfred, I’m sceptical about that statement.

          You just described many the so-called Greens that inhabit my local area.

          00

    • #
      diogenese2

      Tony, your work has served to expose and quantify a weakness in the CAGW position as bad as the “pause”. It is that the “renewables” theme is a deceit to obfuscate the social & economic consequences of reducing emissions. You know you are right and so does every person who has read your posts – even the trolls, I cannot recall any of them ever disputing your contributions.
      The EU “renewables” directive classes biofuels as “renewable” and has precipitated the decision to convert the Drax coal burners to imported woodchip. No one disputes that this will produce larger emissions per Mw than using the coal on which the station stands. Our hapless Sec of State for the environment has now announced three more such projects to move towards the impossible target of 30% generation from “renewables”. Half that will probably destroy the grid.
      You are too soft on journalists – lies and deceits do not become “understandable” if committed from ignorance and incompetence rather than mendacity.
      Just keep on hitting – they will go down in the end.

      60

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      Try this for a theory
      The public has been so dumbed down, most people don’t understand that a logical fallacy is an argumentative sham.
      Many a time in conversation I have quoted Pat Michaels only to get the response “Oh but he has been discredited”.
      One gets the same response when quoting, Ian Plimer, Bob Carter, or Tim Ball.
      Just ask who has done this “discrediting” and I’ll guarantee the answer will be SKS!. SKS runs a sort of ‘rap sheet’ on everyone that disagrees with ‘cook the books’ or Dana Nutter.

      120

    • #
      PeterK

      TonyfromOz: Don’t sell yourself short, you are a resource and a good teacher even though I’m not the best at teckie stuff. I’ve learned a lot from your posts and would say that I’m a 10%er (you have 100% of the knowledge and I think I may have absorbed 10% of what I’ve read from your posts.

      Just today my wife and I visited with friends and I was surprised that my friends wife was a greenie and she challenged me on why we should not be building more of the big wind farms. I was able to quote the cost of producing a turbine (manufacturing process and transportation), I related name plate capacity to actual production and explained how coal fire plants still had to be on standby to keep the power going.

      After all was said and done, she had no comeback and just looked at me and then we changed topic. I did stress that she should do some independent research on the net regarding Global Warming / Climate Change.

      If it wasn’t for the information from your posts I would not have been able to stand my ground.

      Cheers to you!

      20

  • #

    ” Controversy , in 2007 , Virginia Governor told Michaels his views were not welcome , and Michaels resigned saying it was ” because I was told that I could not speak in public in the area of expertise my , global warming , such as national climate . ” Lubos Motl lament that ” Professor Patrick Michaels has effectively deprived of his title ” , in an act of ” blatant ideological cleansing . “He has been replaced with a publisher who has virtually undocumented but apparently has no” right “views . Newsbusters noted the hypocrisy in the incident report . asked where NASA’s James Hansen does not talk about policy but to stick to science , a huge fuss was made . When Virginia Governor tried to stop a skeptic scientists talk about science , where is the outrage ? ”
    I do not like hypocrites at all and everyone is so honest and they do not harm others or lie .

    40

  • #
    scaper...

    Free wine, to boot.

    10

  • #
    ianl8888

    TonyOz and others

    The conflict we observe, and a very dirty war it is, is all about political power – who has it, who wants it, how to get it and keep it

    In order of decreasing use to this battle, physics, chemistry, biology, geology and statistics get passing and hypocritical reference as crutches to a pretend “high moral ground”. Actual engineering is completely ignored because this exposes CAGW advocates to acountability, which is to be avoided at all costs

    Most journos (and there are some honourable exceptions) regard themselves as (unelected) players; they enjoy the abuse of power in the real sense of attempting to control both the public information flow and which issues are on the public agenda. This attitude is compounded in many of these people with a very pernicious, spiteful and deeply-held envy – if you doubt that, simply observe the venomous spite reserved for anyone who takes a capital risk and is successful (this pattern is repeated ad nauseum) – my own brother-in-law insists that anyone, including 85yr old widows, living in a now expensive house is prima facie guilty of fraud somewhere along the line

    CAGW serves these power aims well enough, as large sections of the population share the underlying motives and “greenery” assumes some confected moral high ground without accountability

    Dismiss this as cynical if you wish, but the cynicism is actually in the force of the propaganda – ie. on the other side to me. Pursuit of political power is the root game – all else is simply a rubbery, hypocritical crutch. People like Pat Michaels (or Judith Curry, or Steve Mc) threaten this

    150

  • #
    Gbees

    60 minutes tonight has done it again. More climate change nonsense. Prof. Stephan Harrison is interviewed in the Pantagonian glacier field. Claims CO2 has never been higher. Glaciers are the “canary in the coal mine” regarding climate change. Just about everything is regarded as a canary in the coal mine by these people. According to Harrison glaciers are retreating and never to return unless we reverse CO2 emissions and actually extract CO2. He doesn’t want to debate sceptics because he thinks that’s “like wrestling pigs in mud”. Apparently sceptics enjoy that! Says sceptics need to write their own papers. So sceptics have to prove alarmists are wrong rather than alarmists have to prove they are right. Besides there have been hundreds of papers not supporting the AGW hypothesis published. Be nice if 60 minutes had a sceptic scientist interviewed. Sadly it was not to be.

    122

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘So sceptics have to prove alarmists are wrong rather than alarmists have to prove they are right.’

      This is an important point and that’s how they have run the propaganda so effectively. This is what we are up against and the whole MSM (except for the Murdocracy) has fallen into a trap of their own making. Science, media and politics have, through enlightened self interest and noble cause corruption, created a monstrous fraud.

      If the MSM fails to cover Pat Michaels tour, then our worst fears will be realised.

      121

    • #
      Bob Malloy

      Turned off after the experimental stroke therapy, climate change Armageddon story sounds like Liz Hayes, am I right?

      31

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Well he proved, at the very least, that canaries aren’t the only creatures with bird brains.

      41

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Dr Patrick Michaels, another victim of the Climate Inquisition.

    The insidious perversion of climate science is everywhere, see below for the disingenuous way in which Mann twists and distorts the truth in this interview with a sycophantic reporter from an obscure economics magazine.

    If you read this, remember that Briffa, co-researcher and fabricator of the original infamous and widely discredited Hockey Stick published a review last year of the Yamal data, where the Hockey Stick had completely disappeared!

    http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.villagemagazine.ie%2Findex.php%2F2014%2F04%2F5706%2F&ei=1OhcU7ClGuvgsASc5YKACQ&usg=AFQjCNG7i7jBea0-VMZaVmEIxxsc99LakQ&bvm=bv.65397613,d.cWc

    60

  • #
     DJCotton  

    I’ll be at the Sydney meeting. Perhaps I’ll give him a copy of my book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” currently appearing in WUWT ads (LOL) and I might have some spare copies.

    62

    • #
      Peter C

      Not sure why you got a red thumb Doug. Your comment seems fair to me. Perhaps red thumb giver will explain.

      I am currently reading your book.

      11

      • #
        Peter C

        Actually Doug’s comment about WUWT advertising his book caused me a moment of wry amusement. Funny if you know what Anthony thinks about Doug Cotton.

        00

        • #
            DC   

          Yes – hence the “LOL” in my comment. I presume Anthony has no control over the ads of course, but I kept a screen capture just for the laugh. I didn’t arrange the ad, by the way: the publishers did. I’ve had leads for media interviews from them also.

          Actually Anthony probably feels threatened by anyone with a better understanding of physics than himself (which sets the bar rather low of course) because his domain name is worth quite a bit now. I still comment on his blog, occasionally. You’ll recognise my comments when you’ve read the book.

          Anyway, I’m glad to hear you’re reading it, and happy to answer any questions, here or by email to earth-climate@outlook.com, or in my Facebook group – and of course any good review on Amazon would be always appreciated.

          00

  • #

    The rapid sales of tickets for these events is very good news. Well done the organisers of this tour, and, above all, well done Pat Michaels for holding on to your integrity and staying calm and thoughtful in the face of the waves of panic coming in several directions about our impact on climate. The panic has been disgraceful and degrading for everyone and everything it has infected. Buffoons like Flannery achieved brief glory in Australia as a result. You seem to have had more than your fair share of such people gaining prominence down in your neck of the woods. I hope that is now coming to an end, and that soon your schoolchildren will learn to look and laugh at them for what they are. Buffoons.

    51

  • #
    mike Mckee

    Joanna
    I think you’ve given the governor a free pass here.
    For the record when a public figure attacks someone as he did by sacking him, you and ALL media should use their name in ALL your communications, not allow them to go hidden by your not doing so.
    you owe it to the bullied and to others who may read your prose (you are global and can attributed globally) and then decide on not supporting the offender (if you name them).
    my two cents.
    Mike

    30

  • #
    scaper...

    If any commenters here are attending the Brisbane gig I’d like you to meet you.

    How to identify me? I’ll be the guy with the stunning blonde, my wife.

    20

  • #
    handjive

    Barack Obama achievement:

    2008: Obama: I’ll make energy prices “skyrocket”

    2014: U.S. electricity prices may be going up for good

    “Experts warn of a growing fragility as coal-fired plants are shut down, nuclear power is reduced and consumers switch to renewable energy.”
    . . .
    Peak stupidity has been reached.
    Congratulations to Obama & America.

    20

  • #
    handjive

    Blasphemers-

    Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams:
    Dr Williams goes on to attack global warming sceptics and climate change deniers.
    The former Archbishop of Canterbury argues that Western lifestyles bear the responsibility for causing climate change in world’s poorest regions.
    ~ ~ ~
    Britain is a ‘post-Christian’ country says former Archbishop
    . . .
    God or Gaia?
    The Church has decided.
    Sustainability is the golden calf of the green movement.
    Environmentalism is the golden calf of christianity.

    10

    • #
      Peter C

      Dr Rowan Williams seems to have gone off his rocker.

      20

    • #
      the Griss

      Ahhh. Back to the “Earth-worship” days of the Celtic druid !

      but then, most of the green agenda is back to the dark ages ……

      or prehistoric. !

      01

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      So why doesn’t God just fix it then ?

      He is as Bob Dylan observed “at best an underachiever”

      00

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    Here is a cute little video about economics that needs to be absorbed by the masses. From the Catallaxy files.

    00

  • #
    pat

    28 April: Fairfax: Mandate on ethanol fuel costs drivers dearly: study
    New South Wales’s E10 unleaded fuel mandate is a ”debacle” and is costing the state’s motorists millions, according to an international study.
    The Texas Tech University research found motorists had a ”significant aversion” to the ethanol blended product.
    With the push for E10 reducing the availability of regular grade unleaded, motorists had instead flocked to the more expensive premium petrol because of concerns about E10′s potential engine damage as well as fuel efficiency…

    ***Greens MP John Kaye said the mandate was not working for consumers or the environment.
    ”Motorists who had been using regular unleaded have been faced with the choice of a fuel they don’t want and a fuel that is much more expensive,” Dr Kaye said.
    ”While per litre it [the E10 price] looks better, you have to burn more of it to cover the same distance, and you get more air pollution and more CO2 emissions.
    ”There’s no evidence that requiring motorists to use ethanol blended fuels has any net greenhouse gas gain or much in the way of air quality improvement.”

    http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/mandate-on-ethanol-fuel-costs-drivers-dearly-study-20140427-37c6j.html

    10

  • #
    Neville

    We are told that OZ is experiencing warmer conditions and heatwaves are getting worse. But a warm place like Adelaide has a higher death toll from hyperthermia than very cold Nth European Sweden. Adelaide 3.9 per 100,000 while Sweden has 3.3. Incredible but true, I guess all those super expensive solar and wind farms don’t help much at all.

    http://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news68322.html Adelaide numbers come from elderly widows living alone while Sweden’s numbers come from drunk much younger males dying in snow drifts.

    21

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    It would be nice if the good Dr could make it to the molten core of climate stupidity, Hobart. I think it would be great for the people of Tassy to hear a view other than those expressed (poorly) by Milne et. al. ad-infinitum.

    21

  • #
    pat

    for years, the MSM worldwide has successfully kept quiet from anti-nuclear CAGW followers (and pro-nuclear CAGW sceptics, it seems to me) -

    1) the fact advanced nuclear was included with renewables in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007

    2) that James Hansen was calling for a “nuclear renaissance” driven by the development of fourth-generation nuclear power plants in his book “Storms of my Grandchildren” published in 2009

    similarly, the MSM – with the exception of UK Daily Mail – DOWNPLAYED – or didn’t even mention – the IPCC’s endorsements of not only nuclear, but also fracking, in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, recently published.

    April 27 2014: NYT – in typical disinfo fashion – PRETENDS nuclear is only now being considered in the fight against carbon dioxide emissions to save the planet from CAGW….by destroying the coal industry, of course… & that nuclear has bipartisan political & environmentalist support(Pew- under-a-new-name)!

    27 April: NYT: Matthew L. Wald: Nuclear Industry Gains Carbon-Focused Allies in Push to Save Reactors
    Environmentalists and the nuclear industry are beginning a push to preserve old nuclear reactors whose economic viability is threatened by cheap natural gas and rising production of wind energy. They argue that while natural gas and wind are helpful as sources of electricity with little or no production of greenhouse gases, national climate goals will be unreachable if zero-carbon nuclear reactors are phased out.
    ***The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, an independent nonprofit group based in Washington that was formerly known as the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, plans to release on Monday a research paper that charts the decline of the industry.
    “The loss of nuclear plants from the electricity grid would likely lead to millions of tons of additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere each year,” because the substitute would be fossil fuels, the paper concludes. “This is a prospect the global climate cannot afford.”
    Carol M. Browner, the former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and a former climate adviser to President Obama, and Susan F. Tierney, another former energy aide to Mr. Obama, are among the prominent figures expected to be present when the paper is made public.
    The nuclear industry has started a new lobbying effort, hiring three former senators — Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat; Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican; and Spencer Abraham, a Michigan Republican and a former energy secretary — and William M. Daley, a former chief of staff to Mr. Obama. The group, called Nuclear Matters, has begun an advertising campaign in major newspapers…
    ***An antinuclear group based in Washington, the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, referred to both Nuclear Matters and the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions as “de facto nuclear industry front groups” and said the groups were trying to create a false impression that environmentalists were warming to nuclear power…
    Many reactors now fall into the category of “merchant generators,” which means their only income is whatever they can get by selling their electricity in markets depressed by the recession and cheap gas.
    ***So there are no clear options for preserving old reactors without a carbon tax or similar incentive for zero-carbon generation. But the paper’s co-author, Douglas Vine, said one option could be rules the E.P.A. is planning to issue that would force existing coal-fired plants to cut their carbon dioxide output.
    ***Mr. Vine said that with some new form of carbon trading, coal-fired power plants obliged to cut their output might comply by paying for new nuclear production, or continued production from a nuclear reactor that would otherwise have had to close…
    Those coal plants could take credit for zero-carbon electricity to blend in with their own high-carbon production. But the idea faces regulatory obstacles, he said, among them ensuring that any nuclear production that the coal plants might subsidize was not going to happen without such a deal.
    Mr. Vine said that closing reactors was a step back for climate stabilization…
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/business/energy-environment/nuclear-industry-gains-carbon-focused-allies-in-push-to-save-reactors.html?_r=0

    Wikipedia: 2007: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
    Key mitigation technologies and practices currently commercially available
    Improved supply and distribution efficiency; fuel switching from coal to gas; nuclear power; renewable heat and power (hydropower, solar, wind, geothermal
    and bioenergy
    Key mitigation technologies and practices projected to be commercialized before 2030
    Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) for gas, biomass and coal-fired electricity generating facilities; advanced nuclear power; advanced renewable energy, including tidal and waves energy, concentrating solar, and solar PV…
    In terms of electricity generation, the IPCC envisage that renewable energy can provide 30 to 35% of electricity by 2030 (up from 18% in 2005) at a carbon price of up to US$50/t, and that nuclear power can rise from 16% to 18%…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

    2009: Countercurrents: A Review of James Hansen’s Storms of My Grandchildren
    He does stress the importance of energy-efficiency gains and renewable-energy sources, but he finds it “extremely irresponsible” to depend entirely on these two strategies to combat global warming; instead, he writes favorably of the prospect of a “nuclear renaissance” driven by the development of fourth-generation nuclear power plants, which he seems to find to be the only viable means by which drastically to reduce carbon emissions in the near term…
    His questionable views on nuclear power aside, much of what Hansen proposes in Storms of My Grandchildren seems reasonable…
    http://www.countercurrents.org/sethness151209.htm

    given so many CAGW sceptics are pro-nuclear, & have spent years falsely accusing the IPCC & CAGW believers (which surely includes Hansen) as anti-nuclear, this is the ultimate test of who is really concerned about the validity of the CAGW science & who was simply being politically partisan.

    00

  • #
    KR

    From 1994 to 2013 Michaels ran New Hope Environmental Services, “an advocacy science consulting firm” or lobbying group, which refused to reveal its client list. He has stated that 40℅ of his monies come from oil interests.

    I believe that represented a severe conflict of interest with his position in Virginia, and it’s no great surprise that he was dismissed.

    23

    • #

      So KR — clearly you can’t point to any scientific flaws in his work since you would have mentioned them rather than scraping the barrel of the cheap ad hom fallacy.

      We look forward to your calls for other scientists who receive money from the renewables, green or gas industry to resign, all of which benefit from government forced imposts on their main competitor – coal. Not to mention people getting money from financial houses which benefit from carbon trading. Presumably you will ask for the East Anglia Unit to be shut down since they got funding from Shell for decades?

      Do CC us on all those comments you write exposing vested interests.

      61

      • #
        KR

        Michaels work has multiple flaws in just about everything he’s presented, there’s a small history of them here. Lots more out there, too – including some clear examples of deleting inconvenient facts from others works to misrepresent them. And now he’s working for CATO, still as a lobbyist (in the US “right-wing think tank” is essentially equivalent to “lobbying group”). He has a sincere financial interest in _not_ presenting facts in an evenhanded fashion, but rather to color everything for pay.

        Do you seriously feel that an operating lobbyist, whose lobbying income largely comes from industrial interests, can ethically work for a state office whose positions directly impact those industries? His dismissal was hardly the outrage described in the opening post. And I would feel the same about the dismissal of active lobbyists paid by (as opposed to people who just belong/donate to) Green organisations, nuclear interests, GMOs, PETA, big pharma, etc., if their government job directly affects those. It’s the same principle as in judicial recusal due to conflicting interests.

        Regarding research funding, I would certainly consider that an issue if the funding was quid pro quo for specific results (such as seen in the case of the Tobacco Institute). But that is not the way grants are written, and there are some clear counterexamples such as recent events in Nebraska. I find claims that the vast majority of research on climate over the last 150 years, around the world, to have been distorted by greed – to be rather silly.

        [Pat Michaels has never questioned the warming effect of CO2 just the extent of that warming effect. But he raised the ire of the climate establishment for stating that the warming predictions being made were exaggerated and not supported by the data. He asked for the raw data from the CRU. As we know this was vigorously resisted. Eventually the CRU claimed the data was destroyed because of 'storage capacity problems'. We know Michaels so infuriated the Climate establishment he featured in the leaked 'Climategate' emails with threats of violence no less. Michaels has never hidden his connections to industry. He has been more accurate in his predictions than the IPCC has in theirs. If your claim of "multiple flaws in just about everything he's presented" is actually evidence of the worse work he's done, then his worst work ranks better than the IPCC's best work. - Mod]

        43

        • #
          KR

          Mod – If you look at the link I gave in my last post it’s clear that Michaels has a _terrible_ track record with predictions.

          And, as I noted above, he’s been employed as a paid lobbyist for decades, making his dismissal from Virgina entirely unsurprising, not (as claimed in the opening post) outrageous at all. A point which neither you nor Joanne (aside a call of “look, squirrel”) have addressed.

          33

    • #
      the Griss

      “I believe that represented a severe conflict of interest” (lol)

      Believe what you like..

      When you look at the conflict of interests of the climate alarmists in general there is no comparison.

      Anything from the realists, compared to the graft of most alarmists, is small bickies !!!

      MANY, many, many fingers in the green pie, government grant and the alternate energy market.

      Which teat are you sucking on ?

      43

  • #
    pat

    missed seeing this til now but, for once, Giles has a real point:

    12 March: RenewEconomyAustralia: Giles Parkinson: UK nuclear power plant builders want higher carbon tax
    Australian government members harbouring a not-so-secret fantasy to see nuclear generation in Australia can add another major offence to its principals that such projects would require.
    The Telegraph in the UK is reporting that EdF, the mostly French government owned nuclear giant that is proposing to build the $26 billion Hinkley Point C, is now pushing the UK government to increase its carbon tax so the financials for the first nuclear plant in the UK for nearly three decades adds up.
    As Centrica (formerly British Gas) chairman Sir Roger Carr noted last year when pulling his company and its 500 million investment out of the consortium: “Nuclear is not a cheap option.”
    It also requires massive subsidies. The Hinkley Point plant requires a guaranteed tariff of £92.50/MWH ($170/MWH), that is twice the wholesale price in the UK and about four times the price in Australia.
    And Hinkley also requires a massive loan guarantee (£10 billion) to cover the cost of building the plant. The European Commission is currently investigating the deal struck between EdF and the UK government to see if the subsidies are illegal. It noted in a 70-page interim report published in January that the total subsidies of £17 billion amount to more than the cost of the plant…
    This is interesting stuff for Tony Abbott’s conservative government. Many of his advisors favour nuclear, the nuclear option will be canvassed in the upcoming energy white paper, and some members, such as the climate-denying, would-be science minister Dennis Jensen, suggest that car workers could be retrained to run nuclear plants.
    Apart from the improbability of that last suggestion, it seems clear that if Abbott was ever to entertain nuclear as a serious option – it could only do so by abandoning the idea of a cheap fuel source, accepting the need for loan guarantees, and for a carbon price.
    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/uk-nuclear-power-plant-builders-want-higher-carbon-tax-28916

    00

  • #
    scaper...

    For the people that can’t make it to the venues to hear Patrick talk.

    LINK

    00

    • #
      scaper...

      Just listened to the link myself. Looking forward to the event as Patrick has a familiar wit to Mark Steyn.

      I note that Tom Switzer will also be in attendance. [snip]

      00

  • #
    blackadderthe4th

    ‘ The matter we observe in the Cosmos, must have been created somehow’ yip its called the ‘big bang’!

    01

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    That would have been Tim Kaine (governor) who set a new record for breaking a campaign promise. 6 hours after being inaugurated, he proposed a tax increase. It never passed TG.

    He is a useful idiot to the left. Not a brain in his head, but a reliable yes man who would (and has) said yes to slavery when asked in a circumspect manner.

    00