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

Get the t-shirt

Order today :-)

Buy a T-Shirt to help get Patrick Moore to Australia.

Wear it to BBQ’s to spark some fun.

LAST CHANCE TO ORDER – $30.00 (includes postage)
Details here: http://ow.ly/AVgun
They need 30 more orders to reach the amount for cheaper printing

……..

———–

UPDATE: Responding to comments.  Messages on t-shirts do not have to be logical, grammatically correct, nor literally accurate. The more people who wear this the better.

Term “climate change” is a misnomer, but  the shirt is obviously satirical…   the “climate change” referred too is the propaganda term. Take it in that spirit. In public conversation and the media, 99% of the time when commentators say “climate change” it’s the coded form. When people at the shop read your shirt, they won’t be thinking of ice ages.

Climate Change kli-uh-mut cheenge (def): man made catastrophe caused by your SUV. Also used as a test of social worth. Good people know the correct answer. Only evil and unworthy people doubt that a tax changes the weather, or question whether a windmill could stop a flood.

UPDATE: The Galileo Movement have taken Kevin and Griss’s suggestion and added TM to the “Climate Change” in the shirts  which resolves any ambiguity. Still time to order one!

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.9/10 (57 votes cast)
Get the t-shirt, 7.9 out of 10 based on 57 ratings

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

195 comments to Get the t-shirt

  • #

    Santa Claus
    Tooth Fairy
    Easter Bunny
    Intelligent Selfless Leftards
    Climate Change

    193

    • #
      jon

      This is BS.
      Climate Change is real.
      It should be instead “Catastrophic Antroproghenic Global Warming” that is not happening.

      00

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Might be a little dangerous to wear around my hometown.

    Does it come in bulletproof fabric?

    KK

    173

    • #
      bemused

      It’d be somewhat dangerous in my neck of the woods as well. T-shirts with a photo of Tim Flannery would receive many admiring glances.

      150

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      My experience is that it’s always a good idea to avoid poking a finger in someone’s eye. On the other hand, that is sometimes exactly what’s required.

      KK,

      If you order one, bulletproof your ego and emotions and brace yourself for the criticism or ridicule, whichever comes. Then have good counter arguments ready. :-)

      90

  • #
    Mattb

    Where’s “God”?

    417

    • #
    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Look up Mattb.

      71

    • #
      Heywood

      Well done Matt.

      I’m glad you mentioned that you would like to see ‘God’ next to ‘Climate Change’ on the shirt.

      Both are worshipped by zealots who refuse to accept any suggestion that they may not exist despite evidence to the contrary.

      111

    • #
      Winston

      MattB,

      Climate Change: Religion for Atheists.

      Marxism: Religion for Narcissists.

      150

    • #
      ExWarmist

      MattB.

      In the beginning man lived in balance with nature, and there was no death (except from old age), all was a paradise of love and justice, and everyone was free of all disease and malformation of body, thought or spirit. All lived in natural harmony with all, and the lamb did lay down next to the lion, and man did not know the ways of fire.

      But alas, man became greedy and hateful, and sought technological advances to master nature, and soon paradise was lost, and man lived in sin against nature, and sought to master nature. Nature responded to this greed and hatred by spilling forth disease, famine, and early death. War became normal and hate scaled great heights and evil swept the depths of this world for nature had been broken by Man.

      Only by giving up the ways of fire and technology, can man hope to return to the innocence of blissful union with the natural world.

      let us all return to the bliss – give up fire and it’s nasty, brutish CO2 emissions.

      For this is the way of all greens – and Luddites, and human haters and mad men….

      131

    • #
      Paul Evans

      Written in black at the top?

      60

    • #
      rah

      What have you got against God?

      20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Where’s “God”?

      Where’s Mattb? Same question I think.

      The debate is worthless because neither side can point to a proof of its thesis. It’s like debating whether Darwin was right or wrong. You can never prove the point and win the debate.

      40

      • #
        The Backslider

        The debate is worthless because neither side can point to a proof of its thesis.

        Quite the contrary. The pure science of mathematics easily disproves evolution.

        02

        • #
          Mattb

          Lol. of course it does.

          02

          • #
            The Backslider

            Not surprised that you find real science funny…. because you are too damn scared to take a good, unbiased and skeptical look at things.

            20

            • #
              Mattb

              yeah yeah the truth I can’t handle the truth. if only I had an ideology like yours to guide me to teh troof.

              04

              • #
                the Griss

                True Mattb, Your ideology will NEVER guide you to the troooth. !

                20

              • #
                The Backslider

                You have no idea what my ideology is… I have indicated for you to look at the math, but of course you will not.

                Whatever I believe is based purely on observation and science. Nothing more, nothing less.

                00

              • #
                Mattb

                of course I’ve looked at the math… not that there is much. it’s just a bunch of poorly concocted and convoluted internet arguments. There is NO mathematical dis-proof of evolution. It’s an absurd thing to claim.

                00

              • #
                Mattb

                observation and science? Or Maths? they are different.

                00

              • #
                The Backslider

                it’s just a bunch of poorly concocted and convoluted internet arguments.

                Ha ha ha. You really are funny. I did not learn it from the internet, but rather a professor of molecular biology.

                So Mattb, please show to us all the mathematical formula for evolution…. all good science has a formula.

                00

              • #
              • #
                Mattb

                Wo is this professor I may as well go to the source and read up what he says.

                00

              • #

                I forgot about the professor in my rant about Backslider elsewhere in this thread.

                Yes the professor of molecular biology who exposed to BS the conspiracy among evolutionary biologists. Because BS talked to this professor he has acquired all the knowledge he needs (obviously being scetical in this case is not needed) and has no need to read anything else and why should he anyway since it is all a concocted fraud – like the books by the professors that I suggested he reads.

                10

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Quite the contrary. The pure science of mathematics easily disproves evolution.

          Backslider,

          I’m dubious about that. Can you provide some support? :-)

          Roy

          00

          • #
            The Backslider

            I’m sure that you can find plenty on the topic quite easily with Google… lots of junk, but also some clear, logical thought.

            But really, it only takes a tiny little bit of thought. Consider just three things:

            1. DNA naturally repairs itself – it is not designed did not randomly mutate to “evolve”

            2. What are the chances of random mutations, which generally are harmful to an organism (and don’t forget the above), leading to the complexity of life on this planet?

            3. There is zero empirical evidence of a species changing into another – again contrary to genetics. One the rare occasions where species a close enough to mate, eg. the horse and donkey, the offspring are infertile.

            00

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              OK. You’re pushing the research off on me. Considering that you stated that mathematics could prove or disprove something I do think the burden of providing support for that statement is yours, not mine. :-)

              But you’ve given me 3 points I can address.

              On point 1:
              Yes DNA does repair itself or rather is repaired. That’s what RNA does in the cell. And given the destructiveness of the radiation we receive from space, especially the UV from the sun, it’s doubtful that anything could survive without this self repair capability. But every now and then a repair goes wrong or there’s an event, something RNA can’t overcome. There’s your mutation, including the root cause of cancer — a good cell gone bad. And certainly most of the mutations that occur are not viable and lead nowhere. But suppose that in a world full of nocturnal predators a mutation happens in a species with poor night vision, one that has to hide at night, that gives that species better night vision, that mutation turns out to be dominant and is passed on to offspring. Suddenly you have a group that instead of hiding in fear after dark, can both fight and hunt at night. Voila, they simply replace their brethren with poor night vision. This is just one example I can think of. Did it happen this way? I have no way of knowing.

              On point 2:
              I don’t know and neither do you. So dismissing evolution out of hand seems reckless since the verdict is far from in yet. And it may never be.

              On point 3:
              I agree and this supports the creationists. But the fact that species living in isolation from the rest of the world tend to resemble each other and may be widely different from the rest of the world tends to support evolution. How many marsupial species are in Oz compared with anywhere else? How many species are in Oz that exist nowhere else on Earth?

              And none of this can be proven by experiment or even demonstrated by dumb luck.

              The creationist asks what is the chance that random mutations led from the first primitive life to the world we see today? And no one knows.

              The evolutionist asks what is the chance that there is a God who created it all according some plan. And no one knows.

              But I see a plan, a world in which you and I or others like us were destined to appear. But of what underpins that plan I don’t have the slightest bit of evidence to give you. Hence my position about the pointlessness of the debate.

              Perhaps if we really understood the inner workings of a living cell, how DNA does its job, what causes completely identical cells of a developing child to start to differentiate themselves into all the systems that child will need before it’s born, how those different systems all know exactly where they belong in the developing body and maybe a lot of other things, then we might answer the question: evolution or creation?

              And the work on those questions will eventually be done. It looks like a daunting task to say the least and I expect you and I will not live to see the answer.

              00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                And perhaps a far more important question should occupy our time — what caused that first life to appear in the first place?

                No one has an answer to that either. But nevertheless maybe the answer to all the rest hangs on that answer.

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                I do find the discussion of things like this to be a compelling challenge and I don’t want to imply that it’s somehow wrong to be curious about the origin of species or of life itself.

                Roy

                10

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                That the plan for constructing a complete human being can be contained within a single cell which, at fertilization cannot tell if it will be part of the umbilical cord that will finally be discarded or part of the brain of another Albert Einstein is simply astounding to me.

                Whether it’s evolution or creation, I have marveled at that since I first knew about it. With all our sophistication and accumulated knowledge we cannot create so much as one living cell, not even one that can only sit around and do nothing. Yet from one cell a whole human being is built in only 9 months.

                Whatever is responsible for that, it’s more powerful than I am.

                20

              • #
                The Backslider

                The ability of DNA to repair itself upon replication is a very strong argument against evolution – it is completely contrary to it. Evolution relies entirely upon mistakes and a failure of this repair process.

                Perhaps we should all irradiate ourselves so we can progress further?

                00

              • #

                you really don’t understand evolution do you?

                00

              • #
                The Backslider

                No Gee Aye, it is you who does not understand biology. We now study it at the molecular level and the more we find the more complex it becomes. The more we find that simply laughs at the notion of “evolution”.

                You believe in the impossible.

                00

              • #
                The Backslider

                Oh.. and gee….. aye…. I know that you believe that natural selection leads to evolution. The thing about this that you do not understand is that natural selection can only work with what is already present in the DNA of living things. It does not lead to more complexity (which would defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics anyway).

                00

              • #
                The Backslider

                On point 2. It is very simple mathematics and this is what underpins my statement that mathematics disproves evolution. Quite simply the numbers (chance) are too big.

                00

              • #
                Gee Aye

                No problems bsder

                Who is the “we” that you refer to. I do study molecular evolution so I am happy to have a discourse on this.

                Cheers GA

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                The ability of DNA to repair itself upon replication is a very strong argument against evolution – it is completely contrary to it. Evolution relies entirely upon mistakes and a failure of this repair process.

                Perhaps we should all irradiate ourselves so we can progress further?

                Backslider,

                What then do you believe is responsible for the very divergent kinds of species we see now and those we can tell were once here and are now gone. Or more accurately, what does microbiology tell us about the matter?

                PS:

                I’m not claiming you’re wrong, I’m claiming you can’t prove your position. Personally I’m stuck in the middle and simply don’t know the answer.

                00

              • #

                Roy,

                on point 1. You need to have a look at RNAs role. DNA replication and repair does not require reverse transcriptase. Unless one is a virus. Otherwise well stated

                2. While neither of you know the answer there is heaps of research out there so you can both find out the answer without having to wait.

                3. There is heaps of empirical evidence, direct observation that confirms this. Evolution is an observation not a theory.

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Gee Aye,

                Evolution is an observation not a theory.

                I’m puzzled. That there are tortoises on the Galapagos that exist nowhere else in the world is an observation. It makes no statement as to how they got there. Evolution clearly tries to explain how they got there. That is a theory, based on Darwin’s observations to be sure, but a theory nevertheless.

                So I’m, as I said, puzzled by your statement.

                ———————-

                On point 1:

                I’m far from an expert and it’s been a long time since I studied biology. I don’t even recognize “reverse transcriptase”.

                Anything I’ve done since college is strictly from curiosity and I’m curious about far too many things to be an expert in all but one of them, software engineering.

                I suspect I could find enough research to occupy an entire lifetime but I don’t get so intensely into things as I used to. So I probably would only read some paper to which you provide me a link.

                In the meantime, I’m still not moved to the point where I can believe the answer is really known, not by any argument you or Backslider have presented. The one clear thing is that the two of you disagree. And that’s the way things get discussed and new ideas are tried…and so-on…until maybe we finally really know what the truth is.

                My amazement at it all is the only certain thing to me.

                10

        • #
          shortie of greenbank

          Quite the contrary. The pure science of mathematics easily disproves evolution.

          ‘Pure’ science never easily proves anything as it should always be open to reinterpretation based on new information. What was pure before may be a convenient fallacy in the light of new data.

          Also later you mentioned the horse and donkey interbreeding to make infertile offspring as proof that evolution fails. It only shows that those animals can produce offspring. Other examples exist where the same species of magpie in australia are unable to breed if geographically different by large distances but different ones closer can interbreed (I think in this case it was victorian could breed with the NSW variety but not the queensland one but the queensland one could breed with the NSW one). This was part of my year 11 biology discussion in the 80s….. such a very long time ago.

          00

          • #
            The Backslider

            As I said to Roy, the numbers (chance) are simply too big. This is very easy to show.

            00

            • #
              shortie of greenbank

              It doesn’t matter how large the numbers are, the chance still only has to exist for the possibility of time x number of chances to create a positive result. (Note to self this does NOT apply to gold lotto…. there isn’t enough money to validate it!).

              Due to this discussion though I spent some part of the morning reading about the Y chromozome and its lack of repair. In that way the Y is like most blokes (like myself), full of rubbish, doesn’t look after itself and will seem to be useless (even more so) in the future ;) .

              00

              • #
                The Backslider

                It doesn’t matter how large the numbers are, the chance still only has to exist for the possibility of time x number of chances to create a positive result.

                Nonsense. Talk with any mathematician and they will tell you that once the numbers get to a certain point the chances are essentially impossible.

                We are talking like chances of 1:the number of atoms in the universe.

                00

              • #
                The Backslider

                Due to this discussion though I spent some part of the morning reading about the Y chromozome and its lack of repair. In that way the Y is like most blokes (like myself), full of rubbish, doesn’t look after itself and will seem to be useless (even more so) in the future

                Which again works against the theory of evolution. As per The Second Law of Thermodynamics, we are all degrading, not getting more complex and better.

                00

              • #

                the second law of thermodynamics allows for complexity if energy is introduced into the system. now where do you think that energy comes from?

                10

              • #
                Mattb

                Bs that is an inaccurate interpretation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

                00

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Backslider,

              I once asked on this blog why there should be anything at all. Why should there be so much as one of the most fundamental subatomic particles, much less an atom, much less the unimaginable number of atoms in the universe we can see, much less atoms capable of forming compounds, much less atoms capable of grouping themselves so they are alive?

              What is the chance of that? I don’t know. I can’t even come near answering that. But here we are in the middle of it nonetheless. What are the odds against life even getting started at all? What are the odds against humans ever appearing? The number appears astronomical to me, yet here we are. I agree with the supposition that huge odds against is justification for assuming it will not happen. But it did happen.

              So there is some plan afoot, whatever it is. And it has led from very primitive life to very complex and sophisticated life in steps we have a lot of evidence for. So if evolution isn’t responsible for that, what is? What does microbiology tell us about that and how does it say what it says?

              I know evolution is full of problems and so is creationism. So what’s really going on? I think we don’t know, are not even close to knowing and maybe we need a new theory. And I don’t know what that new theory should be either.

              00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                By the way, Gee Aye’s current page links to some sensible discussion of what evolution may well be all about. Here it is for your reference.

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                I remember reading some stuff recently about how supposedly hard and fast genetically determined traits and behavior trends are actually modifiable by environmental factors, stress being one.

                The example used to illustrate this was differences between adult identical twins who were separated at birth and never knew they had a twin until adulthood. The DNA of identical twins is identical at birth and throughout life. The differences were sometimes quite surprising according to the research. It appears that environment can turn certain genes on or off regardless of whether the trait is dominant and should show up in both siblings or is recessive and should not show up in either.

                Without going into all the details, what has microbiology to say about this?

                Sorry but I no longer have the hard copy, read it in doctor’s waiting room and no link either.

                Roy

                00

              • #

                Backslider has engaged in this sort of discussion before and each time I’ve asked him to critique real research and pointed him to a bunch of detailed post grad texts that directly cite the vast research of the last hundred years. I want him to look at these so he first of all understands the thing he is arguing against and secondly to see whether his objections are already researched before embarking on debating me.

                This is where the real denial kicks in. Apparently, all the evolution research (yes all of it) is done by paid hacks who just come up with the answers their employees want to hear. It is a grand conspiracy. At this point the argument can go no where, and then it is just a matter of time before BS raises the whole thing again at a later date.

                I am raising this now as this is BSers next step. I just thought I would get in first.

                00

              • #

                “employers” I mean

                00

              • #

                and I’d like to see backslider make his mathematical and thermodynamic arguments here

                https://theconversation.com/life-on-earth-still-favours-evolution-over-creationism-23419

                note that I endorse Mike Swinbourne’s critique in his first post in the comments

                00

              • #
                The Backslider

                This is where the real denial kicks in. Apparently, all the evolution research (yes all of it) is done by paid hacks who just come up with the answers their employees want to hear.

                Stop implying that I have ever said anything like that.

                You have only ever pointed me to your own blog, nowhere else.

                Thank you.

                00

              • #
                The Backslider

                I remember reading some stuff recently

                Again Roy, we are only talking about what is already in the genome. Nothing more.

                Natural selection (which is very real) does not lead to “evolution”.

                00

              • #

                OK BS, I point you to books by these authors…

                “Futuyma” or “Ridley, Stearns and Hoekstra” for evolution and throw in a good evolutionary genetics book like Hartl and Clark or Graur and Li.

                See how you can deny what is in them.

                00

              • #
                The Backslider

                I’d like to see backslider make his mathematical and thermodynamic arguments here

                Why? That article does not espouse anything remarkable. It is simply an exposé of somebody’s assumptions about what they see. It is far from the only way to look at what we can see.

                It does not present any hard science whatsoever.

                00

              • #
                The Backslider

                OK BS

                Gee…. aye…..

                Ok Gee Aye, please show us all the mathematical formula for evolution.

                00

              • #
                The Backslider

                Ok Gee, open your blog up for comments and I’ll take you on.

                00

              • #

                Umm… the mathematical formula? Meaning what? Like the mathematical formula for the existence of the earth? The formula that proves you exist maybe?

                If you are about to start some sort of train of thought about something is not scientific or provable if there is not a mathematical formula attached to it then I will have to ask you to read some other more simple texts.

                My blog (a grandiose term for it) is open as far as I know?

                10

              • #
                The Backslider

                Umm… the mathematical formula?

                Oh come now. There have been a number put forward. I was curious to know which one you adhere to.

                11

              • #

                thanks but, apart from “adhere to” being an assumption, I don’t know what you are talking about. An example might help.

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Gee Aye,

                Whether Backslider appreciates it or not, I do. So thanks for the article you pointed out.

                If the truth be known, I have always favored evolution to some degree. Your link is the most detailed exposition I’ve had time to read and it presents a strong argument. I’ve held this position not only because there is evidence for evolution that’s very hard to dismiss but because the creationist position completely lacks convincing evidence as far as I can see. Theology makes a bad scientific argument and the fact that there is some bacterium with a tail that rotates is hardly sufficient — the world never ceases to amaze but a rotating tail proves nothing except that one bacterium is very clever. ;-)

                The problem is a very complex one and I remain unconvinced that we know all the answers. In the meantime, I’ve learned a lot and you confirmed what I’ve thought all along, so thanks for the discussion.

                Roy

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Gee Aye,

                After looking into the role of RNA for just a short time I must confess that my head is spinning. It would take me weeks or months to catch up with all I would need to know before I could fully understand it. Ouch! :-(

                As I said, I no longer get so into things as I once did, some artifact of retirement I suspect. But I have learned a new and even greater respect for living things. The complexity of a single cell has always blown me away, much less the complexity of billions of them cooperating to make you or me.

                Thanks for the ride.

                00

  • #
    Anthony Rogers

    Only issue here is that it puts up a too easy to eviscerate straw man. Climate change is an absolute reality. Anthropogenic apocalyptic climate change is the myth. I guess that doesn’t read so well on a T-shirt though.

    130

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    Im wondering if it couldn’t be a bit more specific though? like “Humans changing the climate”

    Advertising your disbelief in “climate change” could be misconstrued by anyone wishing to throw the “denier” tag.

    Just my devils advocate 2c. But I get the idea and hope Patrick does come.

    60

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      Agreed. As one of our tenets is that the climate is always changing, it’s a bit of an own goal. “CAGW”, would have been more accurate. Still, the Galileo Movement know what they’re doing.

      JO. As the T-shirts are all for pygmies, can I donate towards Patrick’s trip through your tip-jar?

      70

      • #
        Paul Evans

        Hi Kevin,
        The T-shirts can be supplied in the following sizes if that helps.

        S, M, L, XL, 2XL, 3XL, 4XL, 5XL

        Paul

        50

    • #

      Yep, the Shirt will help our enemies who falsely call us climate change deniers. Perhaps the last line should read man made global warming.

      60

      • #
        ExWarmist

        You know what – text is so last century.

        How about a picture of all the IPCC predictions over the last 30 years, and then the row of dots for consolidated Satellite and radiosonde data running below the model predictions.

        Add two big arrows – one in Red pointing at model runs with a caption “What Alarmists Predicted”, and one in Blue with a caption “What Actually Happened”.

        71

      • #
        Leigh

        My thoughts as well Geoff.
        When in argument (never conversation) with these catostropheric anthropological global warmists.
        I flatly refuse to refer to their cult as climate change.
        Sticking with millstone thats hung around their collective necks by themselves.
        With the words permanently chiseled into it, “global warming”.
        Refusing to aknowledge their name change illicits a hand wringing abusive response.
        Try it.

        30

  • #
    Dan

    Good idea.
    Time we did something positive besides talking.
    I enjoy spreading the message whilst I shop.

    100

  • #

    A POLL.

    Thumbs up to my post means that you think that the climate changes.

    Thumbs down you think it doesn’t.

    224

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      Don’t be silly. I conclude from the evidence available that the main driver of change in the climate is natural variation. You believe that “Climate Change (TM)” is the result primarily of evil man-made CO2 emissions. We’re talking of two different things.

      190

    • #
      Heywood

      Thumbs up from me Gee.

      Of course the climate changes. Has done for millions of years.

      I suspect, though, that you miss the satirical nature of the shirt.

      110

      • #

        Of course I don’t, but the satire is so simplified that the wearer is open to the obvious criticism that my poll highlights. Also, there will be a few numbskulls out there who actually interpret the issue in the way I am satirising, and therefore subvert a good amount of what the t-shirt hoped to achieve.

        Anyway – all this comment is detracting from the poll.

        on the other hand it is giving everyone the freedom to vote with a thumbs up but not feel too bad about it since they can down thumb me here.

        17

        • #
          rah

          “Of course I don’t, but the satire is so simplified that the wearer is open to the obvious criticism”

          You mean just like those that promote CAGW?

          40

      • #
        Neville

        OF COURSE the climate changes, Gee Aye! What sort of damn fool question is THAT??!! The ONLY question is whether proper science is applied to the issue, or pseudo-science. What’s the deal here – is it that you really really LIKE trolling, or that you’re bored?

        80

    • #
      the Griss

      They should have put the TM sign after the words Climate Change™. :-)

      That way GeeAye’s little poll would get a resounding thumbs down that it rightly deserves.

      I’m giving a thumbs down because of his intention to be deceitful.

      150

    • #
      ExWarmist

      That’s a bit like asking someone…

      “So have you stopped beating your wife yet?”

      40

    • #
      Peter C

      Gee Aye,

      I can’t decide how to answer your question, partly because I am not sure what climate means.
      Are we talking about a simple 30 average of weather conditions, or longer periods? Do we include or exclude likely 60 year cycles.

      For myself I think conditions here in Melbourne have been much the same since I was born. My wife however thinks that minimum temperatures might have increased since we don’t hear about chilblains anymore! Is that climate or better heating in homes?

      40

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Just wondering — how do you average weather conditions? :-)

        30

      • #

        google will help. It is actually a simple definition

        climate
        ˈklʌɪmət/
        noun
        noun: climate; plural noun: climates

        the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
        “our cold, wet climate”
        synonyms: weather pattern, weather conditions, weather, atmospheric conditions
        “the Channel Islands have an enviably mild climate”

        You are right that “average climate” and “global climate” are pretty meaningless (I suppose you could compare earth with other planets)
        a region with a particular climate.
        “he had grown up in a hot climate”

        00

        • #
          the Griss

          ““the Channel Islands have an enviably mild climate””

          So nothing has changed there.

          “he had grown up in a hot climate”

          And I bet that where he grew up is still a hot climate…

          .. nothing has changed.

          30

          • #

            err OK. You need to escape from your temporal confines.

            03

            • #
              the Griss

              ….and your need to escape from your cranial confines.

              30

            • #
              the Griss

              Please tell me one aspect of any world climate that is out of the ordinary for NATURAL variability.

              And you better not apply any “temporal confines”.

              40

              • #

                there are none that I know of.

                Now you tell me your evidence that the climate does not change?

                10

              • #
                the Griss

                “there are none that I know of.”

                THANK YOU for being honest for once. :-)

                Climate does change.. NATURALLY.

                But you know that under the AGW meme, “Climate Change™” means something a bit different.

                So stop being a deceitful little child and trying to worm your way around it.

                20

              • #

                I’m not. I agree with you. Where is the deceit in that?

                I don’t agree with your earlier statement that “nothing has changed” and from your later statement, neither do you.

                01

              • #
                the Griss

                Very little has actually changed over the last 60-70 years. Which is what all the fuss is meant to be about.

                Apart from a bit of temperature data fiddling.. not much at all.

                1940 was about the same temperature as now by all untampered data accounts.

                Arctic ice comes and goes (apparently was similar to the 2013 low around 1940), Antarctic ice seems to be on the ‘grow’ for a while

                We are having the usual droughts and floods around the world.. nothing unusual about that.

                Hurricanes and other so-called extreme weather.. pretty much down by a tiny amount.

                There probably was a slight temperature dip from 1940-1970, then back up again from 1970-2000.. now going nowhere

                So.. pretty much par for the course.

                General natural climate variability.

                ———————————————————

                What has changed is the BLUSTER from the AGW/socialist agenda cult.

                That is about all that has changed.

                10

              • #
                the Griss

                Y’see. I consider “natural climate variability” to be part of “the climate”

                So, so long as the minor changes are within the realms of “natural climate variability”….

                … then “the climate” isn’t actually changing.

                So. NO, climate change is NOT happening, because any minor changes have been well within the “natural climate variability”

                And certainly “Climate Change™ ” is a total hoax and a joke, maybe even a fr**d! It is non-existent !

                10

              • #
                Gee Aye

                Griss. That is why I commented on your temporal constraints. I hoped you realised that climate change is time dependant and did not need reminding. It is always changing. It might not be apparent or measurable on shorter time scales but it does not mean it is not happening all the time.

                02

              • #
                the Griss

                You poor thing..

                You really just don’t “get it” do you. !!

                10

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Gee Aye,

          That’s not much of an answer because you talked about

          Are we talking about a simple 30 [year] average of weather conditions, or longer periods?

          as though there is some way to average the the weather at a given location. I suppose you can average the yearly rain or snowfall, keep a running average of wind velocity or other things. But those are components of weather, not the weather itself. You have the same problem with climate science trying to figure out what the average climate is, much less whether it’s changing or not. Then never mind trying to assign the change to human activity.

          In both cases the goalposts move when you change the start or end points and therein lies the great credibility problem. Only an infinitely long history of daily weather will represent anything to do with climate. You can settle for very long period, say several thousand years ago until now and have something useful, especially since the supposed problem is temperature change as originally embodied in the name, “Global Warming.”. But when you do that the claim of current man made climate change looks like a joke. You don’t have temperature records that long over a reasonable cross section of the globe.

          And anyway, the climate changes and has done so since before humans were even here.

          This whole climate change game is nuts. :-(

          00

          • #

            hopefully not infinitely long!

            00

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              And given the present ability of the human race to simply keep records honestly and stay committed to that over long periods of time we’ll never get even a shorter record of sufficient length to tell us what we want to know.

              And what’s new about that? Nothing! We fudge everything from our history to our vices to hide who we really are and make believe we’re something else. How can climate science be any different?

              00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    I would have had “Man Made Global Warming”

    91

    • #
      Alex

      I would have gone with ME CHANGING THE CLIMATE
      It then puts it back on the observer to think that well ,yeah ,that might be a bit far fetched.

      10

  • #
    Carbon500

    Since ‘dangerous heating of the planet caused by human-generated CO2′ is now referred to as ‘climate change’ by the propagandists, I think it’s reasonable to put ‘climate change’ on the T-shirt!

    51

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Could also add…

    “CFCs Deplete Ozone”
    “Ocean Acidification”
    “Over Population”
    “Nuclear Winter”

    Then there’s the big fantasy.

    “Hope and Change”

    Or

    “Putin Did It”

    80

  • #
    scaper...

    What’s written on the back of the T-shirts? I’m sure there would be some very good suggestions from the people here.

    Just keep it clean.

    50

  • #
    Peter Miller

    In recent times, alarmists have begrudgingly begun to admit there was once something called natural climate change or natural climate cycles.

    However, they are still unable to say there is something called natural climate change or natural climate cycles.

    For some reason, sometime around 1950, something is supposed to have happened and nature suddenly outlawed natural climate change and the natural climate cycles, which have been around for many hundreds of millions of years – or so alarmists would have us believe. From 1950 onwards, any climate change was supposedly 100% caused by man and absolutely no other reason was permitted.

    Anyhow, while I appreciate the sentiment of the T shirt, I think the use of the term ‘Global Warming’ would have been better, as it is a concept much better recognised than ‘Climate Change’ by the general public. Putting ‘Man Made Climate Change’ on the T shirt would perhaps be much appropriate, but might be too much of a mouthful and therefore lose impact.

    Alarmists love to say to sceptics, “So you deniers don’t believe in climate change?” The correct response, of course, is, “Yes we do, but not in the way you mean it.”

    I think this T shirt sends the message that sceptics don’t believe in climate change. Well we do, just not the man made one that alarmists like to fantasise about.

    Sorry, but I am not buying it, but I will send the $30 directly to Jo instead.

    70

    • #
      Paul Evans

      Hi Peter,
      There was much debate about what term to use on the T-shirts, the correct terminology were all to long and/or would not recognised by the general public.

      Climate Change (with capitals) was chosen because it is a political term created when the Earth stopped warming and alarmists wanted to change the debate to extreme weather.

      Global Warming was not chosen because no one denies that the Earth has not warmed.

      It was a tricky call and we were always going to get disagreement whatever we printed on the T-shirt.

      Please remember that this is a group of campaigns we are using to try and raise money for the Patrick Moore Tour.

      Thanks for your feedback

      Paul
      The Gaileo Movement

      50

      • #

        Actually Paul, as you and I have discussed before

        Climate Change (with capitals) was chosen because it is a political term created when the Earth stopped warming

        is not really correct. It was one of the definitions from the UNFCCC Rio conference in 1992.

        I have made this same mistake.

        40

    • #
      ExWarmist

      For many people, their basic world view requires that man be at the centre of the universe, that their lives be filled with deep and cosmic significance.

      The Renaissance was deeply troubling as it revealed a world where man was not at the centre of the universe.

      The meme of Man Made Global Warming reverses the momentum of the Renaissance – re-centres man as the one significant actor that holds all the power over the fate of the world.

      For many this is a comforting belief.

      Better to be powerful, and able to choose to harm or to heal, then to be a cosmically insignificant creature that exists for a brief moment of time enveloped in an eternity of dark oblivion.

      50

    • #
      scaper...

      I won’t be purchasing a T-shirt either. I’ll just donate to Patrick’s tour. Looking forward to the Brisbane event.

      50

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Peter,

      Global warming was the original complaint and using that term would force them to confront that original complaint, disastrous warming. I’m all for it. After all, everything since has come into being because the original complaint failed miserably.

      00

  • #

    Guys – the “climate change” referred too is obviously the propaganda term — fits with the theme. Take it in that spirit. In public conversation and the media 99% of the time it’s the coded form.

    Climate Change kli-uh-mut cheenge(def): man made catastrophe caused by your SUV. Also used as a test of social worth. Good people know the correct answer. Only evil and unworthy people doubt that a tax changes the weather, or question whether a windmill could stop a flood.

    The shirt is obviously satirical…

    messages on t-shirts do not have to be logical, grammatically correct, nor literally accurate. The more people who wear this the better.

    70

    • #

      UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION
      ON CLIMATE CHANGE 1992
      http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf

      30

    • #
      Peter C

      The discussion is more interesting than the T Shirt.

      However the purpose of selling the T shirt is to raise money to bring Patrick Moore to Australia for talks and discussion with parliamentarians.

      I think that could refocus the debate to some extent. Therefore I am making a donation to Galileo Movement for the purpose.

      If you don’t think that you would actually wear this T shirt, maybe consider donating a similar amount to the Galileo Movement.

      40

  • #
    Diogenes

    Pity it doesn’t have a collar – I could imagine the fits in the HSIE staffroom if I did.

    30

  • #
    handjive

    Get the t-shirt OR

    Get to Bourke!

    “A climate change workshop and hypothetical being held in Broken Hill this Sunday will bring together health experts and economists for a discussion led by climate activist Tim Flannery.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-08/far-west-graziers-encouraged-to-join-climate-change-discussion/5727038
    . . .
    A scientific discussion on BoM data homogenisation and the impacts of the pause will ensue.

    Not.

    51

    • #
      Debbie

      I think the ABC using the term ‘climate activist’ to describe Tim Flannery is hilarious!

      :-)

      120

    • #
      Peter C

      Dr Greg Curran says the veterinary world is still coming to understand how climate variation can affect livestock but says many of the impacts are “hidden”.

      Of course they are. Otherwise we could see the effects!

      60

      • #
        Peter C

        Actually we do see the effects of “Climate Variation” on livestock all the time. Sometimes the cattle are fattening up and other times the farmers have to shoot the poor starving beasts in times of drought.

        80

  • #
    tooth fairy

    I don’t like you to infer that I have a relationship with that chimera “climate change!!!!

    20

  • #
    Matty

    “Climate Change” is a misnomer, but the shirt is obviously satirical… the “climate change” referred too is the propaganda term.

    True. Would the ‘Climate Change’ look better with or without inverted commas, indicating its special use & deflecting from any misunderstanding about the literal one, that happens naturally ?

    Not everyone in the wider population gets it yet, that ‘climate change’ is a political construct and surely the purpose if such a public statement is to spread the message beyond the cognoscenti.

    40

  • #
    Eddie

    I like the implied ‘What age were you when you woke up to … Climate Change’.

    91

  • #
    Mark Hladik

    Raising the issue which was brought up previously:

    What about the back of the shirt? The institution I work for uses a small logo on the front of staff T-shirts, with the larger logo or other message on the back. Our PR department has apparently determined that a message on the back is more likely to be read.

    At the risk of incurring the wrath of moderation, consider that a female personage wearing a T-shirt with the message on the front, uh, … well, just use your imagination.

    Mark H.

    20

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    The last time I ordered something from Australia it was a coffee mug with a price tag of about $15 or $20 (Aus) at the most. I don’t remember the exact number anymore but I still use that Climate Skeptic mug every morning.

    After shipping and currency conversion that $15 mug ended up costing me $57 (US). And the transit time from there to here was unbelievable. I think someone rowed it across the Pacific in a canoe. And my wife was aghast at the cost of a simple coffee mug.

    I was glad to support the Climate Skeptic Shop which helps support this blog. But now I wonder what this T-shirt will end up costing me if I order it. And from prior experience it would arrive after I’ve forgotten why I ordered it.

    I’d like to order a dozen for you, Jo. But the hit would be more than I can reasonably justify. I support Judicial Watch with everything I can because they’re exposing problems here — and I live here.

    50

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      It’s a matter of keeping priorities straight.

      40

    • #
      Paul Evans

      Roy,
      You have our word that the cost stated on our site is the price you pay and includes postage. No more to pay.

      The current exchange rate is good for a purchase from the US at the moment.

      I have done a currency conversion on travelex.com.au and prices in US $ would be approximately:

      PRICES
      $US40.00 (includes postage)

      $US50.00 (includes postage and $10.00 donation to PM tour) Would be much appreciated

      Happy to discuss further sales@galileomovement.com.au

      30

    • #
      Len

      Best to pay by Credit card. Also be careful of what postal method you use. Can be done cheaper.

      00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I used my credit card and the shipping was certainly, as evidenced by the speed, the cheapest available, a ship across the Pacific by way of China or Japan maybe.

        Just kidding. But judging by the time from when they told me it had been shipped it was the slowest and therefore reasonably assumable to be cheapest. Air would have taken a couple of days or so instead of the weeks it actually took.

        00

  • #
    Eliza Doodle

    Doing one in French, for the Paris Summit next year ?

    The best T-shirts have the punch line on the back. The pause seems to give it a bigger hit (no not 17 year Pause).

    60

  • #
    Ed P

    But…Climate does change, so why lump it with the other, imaginary titles? It’s an own goal, just asking for attack and I could not defend it as it stands.

    I’d have put, “AGW” or “Human influence on climate” or some such. A missed opportunity.

    30

  • #
    Jeff

    keep it scientific.
    add:
    cold fusion
    Lysenkoism
    Piltdown Man
    rejection of continental drift
    aether
    polywater

    10

  • #
    Mike Flynn

    But . . . but . . .but. . .

    Are you seriously suggesting the Tooth Fairy is not real?

    I’m shattered!

    Live well and prosper,

    Mike Flynn.

    20

    • #
      The Backslider

      Yeah, Mattb is upset also, he says:

      What have you got against the tooth fairy?

      and:

      one of these things is not like the others, one of these things is not the same.

      Clearly the tooth fairy is not like the others…..

      20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        For something supposedly not real the Tooth Fairy sure gets a lot of mention. Does someone know something I don’t? I do remember finding money under my pillow in the morning. ;-)

        00