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

Nine poll shows 69% of Australians “don’t believe” in man-made global warming

Channel Nine asked it’s readers “Do you believe in man-made global warming?” Over 122,000 people responded.

The final tally emailed to me this morning was:    Yes: 38,311     No: 84,240

The tally at 1:50pm EST.

As far as I know, the link to it was not posted on any major skeptical blog except possibly in comments (correct me if I’m wrong). In other words, the poll may be a reasonable representation of the web audience of one of our major free-to-air TV Channels.

A few weeks ago ABC Radio national did an online poll asking their readers if the IPCC was right about a four or five degree warming this century.   That was too extreme, even for ABC readers: 91% of 3101 voters said “No”.

A new US poll finds that even though most Americans identify with what would be called environmental values, hardly anyone thought climate change mattered. The Washington Post:

…”64 percent ‘feel a deep connection with nature and the Earth.’”  

Just 5 percent of Americans thought climate change was the most important issue in the U.S. today.”

Amber comments on climatechangedespatch: “5% must be the university profs and the donation seeking green blob to get it that high.”

Believers may have the run of the old media, but Skeptics are all over the new media. And that’s no accident. (Think preaching from the pulpit versus the printing press, when the latter appeared a few hundred years ago.)

h/t to Matty, Chris and Jim

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (154 votes cast)
Nine poll shows 69% of Australians "don't believe" in man-made global warming, 9.4 out of 10 based on 154 ratings

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

221 comments to Nine poll shows 69% of Australians “don’t believe” in man-made global warming

  • #
    Yonniestone

    The recent UN-Warmist public display of hand wringing, bed wetting, campfire flashlight spooky stories seem to have missed their targeted population hmmmm..

    I guess desensitization works both ways, unfortunately the CAGW scaremongers have drawn the short straw for the public care factor LOL!! :)

    400

    • #
      Olaf Koenders

      No no no.. The message got through to me.

      I recently removed that gawd-awful catalytic converter from my car and it goes much better, saving not only fuel, but the planet by no longer emitting that eeeeevil CO2.

      Now it pumps out gases only harmful to humans.. ;)

      /sarc but true!

      40

  • #
  • #
    Tim

    If a consensus is so important to the warmists; here’s one from the people who pay the bills.

    320

    • #
      cohenite

      The ABC poll on the China/US agreement is interesting; this is the before adjustment result.

      The after adjustment result:

      12/11/2014: China and the US have struck a new deal to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Do you think Australia will need to adjust its climate change policies as a result?

      Yes 76%

      No 23%

      Unsure 1%

      6001 votes counted

      61

      • #
        Robert

        So how does that work? Do they do a poll where they want to show the majority say yes, then when the poll reveals that the majority says no they just switch the Yes and No labels?

        62

        • #
          cohenite

          Do they do a poll where they want to show the majority say yes, then when the poll reveals that the majority says no they just switch the Yes and No labels?

          Correct.

          101

        • #
          beowulf

          Robert, note the ‘votes counted’ figure of 6001 in Cohenite’s final version with 23% NO compared to the screenshot total of 15205 with 55% NO. They may have cherry-picked the only time when the NOs were trailing – or they may have just waved their magical ABC statistics wand to make the nasty number go away.

          100

        • #
          dlb

          My guess is the poll was advertised on a sceptic website some time after the 12th November and subsequently bombed by sceptics. If this was the case the ABC are probably right in cherry picking the earlier “unbiased” result. The later result seems at odds with voting patterns you normally would see at “The Drum” on climate issues.

          24

      • #
        redress

        There is a huge discrepancy in the number of votes cast…..between the historic screen shot at 7.50.41 and the “Final” result…….think they are just avoiding having to do this, and “homogenized” the result instead.

        Remember the poll of around the 4th November????

        Is the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change right that, on current fossil use ‘projectories’, we are heading for a global warming of four or five degrees by century’s end?

        No 91%

        Yes 9%

        3101 votes counted

        Well the ABC has exercised their veto…..’Please note: ABC NewsRadio reserves the right to remove any poll, current or archived, where we reasonably believe irregular voting activity* has occurred.’…………they have dissapeared it from the past polls.

        60

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I looks like we will need to crowd source regular snapshots of the poll results as they unfold. If we can do that, we can show definitively, that they are fudging the results.

        Of course, they are using a very simplistic approach, and there are other ways to fudge poll results, but I won’t give the game away here, because there are also ways to detect those as well, which would prove that they were lying.

        90

  • #
    the Griss

    Darn, I never saw the channel nine one. :-(

    50

  • #

    “It was a vital element of a failed social re-engineering project, which now lies in ruins. They rode a hysterical fashion wave far up the shore in the mistaken belief that it was somehow permanent, but that wave is now receding, never to return.”

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/a-species-facing-extinction/

    The false reality created by the propaganda machine is imploding. Suddenly, it’s hip to be square.

    Pointman

    470

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Those of us who can remember what hot weather really was , thirty, forty, fifty or sixty years ago know that the constant cry on media of the

    “hottest” day/month year decade or whatever is just ridiculous.

    Those too young are at the mercy of the very insistent media campaign to institutionalize Carbon Dioxide as the greatest evil since who knows when!

    Real scientists know that man made CO2 cannot, did not and will not ever cause Global Warming and or Sea Level rise.

    Politics is an amazing business and the Warmers have taken us for Billions and want to keep doing it

    $$$
    $$
    $$$$$
    $$

    KK

    460

    • #
      Ron Cook

      KK

      Absolutely agree.

      52 years ago over Oct Nov I was doing exams in the Exhibition Buildings in Melbourne. The sweat stains on the exam paper were not due to exam jitters it was blooming HOT. 35 deg C plus outside for days in a row and much, much hotter inside. Try doing chemistry, physics and maths exams with the sweat pouring off you.

      The constant bombardment of “hottest day/month/year” is wearing very thin.

      1962 also saw some devastating bush fires in the Dandenongs.

      R-Coo- K+

      160

      • #
        Allen Ford

        Ditto for the 1940s, blisteringly hot for days at a time. My end-of-year-exam experiences duplicate yours, Ron.

        The present day bunch of kiddie,s who promulgate this stuff, need some industrial strength disciplining!

        70

  • #
    Cheaterdude

    Just looks like another consensus to me.

    Who in their right mind would base consequential outcomes on unqualified opinions.

    513

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Maybe the voters have responded in light of recent media coverage of the massive snow fall in North America?

      Seeing a town from the air about 2 metres deep in snow is a bad image for global warming and most people in the Northern hemisphere have experienced more cooling than Global Warming in the last few years.

      It may even be that the interglacial period is over and we are heading into the next big freeze.

      Only time will tell but any turkey who thinks you can “model” this known transition to the next big freeze is not too smart.

      The next freeze will be the first one monitored by modern science and it’s going to be very interesting.

      Ninety thousand years of cold with most of the world’s population migrating to the equatorial zone away from places like New York where

      the offices of the UNIPCCC will be sequestered under a mile deep ice field.!

      KK

      290

      • #

        From the Sydney Morning Herald: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/theres-growing-evidence-that-global-warming-is-driving-crazy-winters-20141122-11rq9v.html

        So you see this is global warming! And up is down and down is up. Wait, was that science or Dr. Suess? I forget.

        120

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          You are correct. It was Dr Seuss who published the peer reviewed paper, describing Sneetches, which observed that: “The Star-Belly Sneetches had bellies with stars, whilst the Plain-Belly Sneetches had none upon thars”.

          That observation underpinned a whole star-transference industry, based on what star-status was considered fashionable at the time.

          I view it as a prototype for climate change, and whether it is fashionable to worry about “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” or a “New Ice Age”, this week.

          100

      • #
        NielsZoo

        I really wish I could live long enough to watch a glacier push the UN building off Manhattan Island and into the East River… bits of concrete and frozen paper from old IPCC reports ending up on a Northern Florida beach in a terminal moraine. Ahhh what a sight that will be. Makes me giddy just thinking about it. (In my mental version they’re in session and it happens really, really fast… Hollywood style.)

        130

      • #
        Manfred

        The next freeze will be the first one monitored by modern science and it’s going to be very interesting.

        The next freeze will be monitored by post-modern science. Its advent will spawn a range of ‘solutions’ from the bizarre to the frankly insane. Of the latter, a little orbital nudge will be proposed to ‘fix’ the problem. Of the former, the suggestion that billions of gigatons of CO2 should be pumped into the atmosphere.

        The real problem: they will be able to to do either.

        80

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Manfred,

          Can I get off the planet when they try “a little orbital nudge”?

          And we all know that no amount of extra CO2 will make any difference,

          but the diagram of expressed CO2 (presumably as measured in ice records) as shown here,

          http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/fig_tab/ngeo1358_F1.html

          indicates that interglacial can last up to ten thousand years but can often be very much shorter.

          Look at some of those sharp peaks and look at the shape of our own current one; we are turning.

          We may have 3,000 or we may have 500, who knows, but certainly no climate scientist will be able to make an informed suggestion to an

          accuracy or more than 1,000 years + or _.

          Never the less on past form once the worm turns they will all be on the “big freeze” boat looking to time it and offer solutions on how

          to “keep us warm”.

          Paradoxical!

          KK

          00

    • #
      Annie

      Chester, Chesterdude, Cheaterdude…who’s who?

      40

    • #
      NielsZoo

      …on unqualified opinions…

      of those of us whose taxes are paying for this whole CAGW scam. I’ve seen several recent polls in the States in the run-up to our mid-term elections and, no matter what’s on the list, “Global Climate [insert current scary term here]” always ranks dead last on the list. We’re tired of hearing (and paying for) climate propaganda.

      110

    • #
      Ron Cook

      Bother! hit the wrong Thumb. Should have the RED one.

      00

    • #
      Ron Cook

      Cheaterdude,

      Seems to me the whole premise of AGW/ACC is based on the UNQUALIFIED OPINIONS of the IPCC et al. And sadly the majority of the world, including you, has been duped. Worldwide governments have BASED their consequential decisions on the false assertions of the IPCC.

      Just what qualifications, if any, do you have?

      I’m an Industrial Chemist. Back in-the-day I had to learn such things as the 3 laws of thermodynamics, physics of heat transfer, rates of reactions, you name it, at RMIT, I had to learn it if it had any relevance to chemistry. But my hobby is electronics in general and ham radio in particular. For ham radio HF propagation relies on keeping track of Sun Spot activity. It is a study of this that led me to be a skeptic.

      Just what are your qualifications?

      You hide behind a ridiculous sounding pseudonym, Ron Cook is my real name.

      What are your qualifications?

      Ron Cook (real name)

      R-COO- K+

      50

      • #
        the Griss

        Ron, a hint ..

        ChesterDude is a parody of the rabid alarmista, ‘red-cordial’ Chester.

        Look at ChesterDude’s posts in that light, and… grin. ! :-)

        I have my ideas who ChesterDude, ShrillyFilly, BlackLadder etal, really is, but am well content to lack any proof, and enjoy the ride :-)

        20

    • #
      Grumpy

      Who? Why, the warmists of course.

      00

  • #
    Lord Jim

    “Do you believe in man-made global warming?”

    The question is still ambiguous.

    You could answer ‘yes’ but reject the claim that co2 will cause catastrophic or dangerous warming.

    Also ‘man made global warming’ could be caused by factors other than co2.

    So the question potentially underestimates the number of skeptic responses.

    240

    • #
      the Griss

      I believe that a significant amount of the small amount of warming in the last 150 odd years, as shown by HadCrut4 or GISS, is definitely man made.

      The so-called “global average temperature” is HIGHLY affected by man, be it by urban heat effects, land-use changes, or by “homogenisation” and data fudging.

      Has there been any real warming???

      Too hard to tell, because the data has been so corrupted by various factors.

      The unadjusted data I have seen indicates that the NH rose from 1900 to a peak around 1940, dropped to 1970 then climbed back up to 1940′s levels in 1998, then levelled out a bit below 1998. The satellite record confirms the post 1979.

      The SH seems to have had a very warm period around 1900, then a decrease to the mid century, then a gradual climb to 2000 then basically level until now.

      310

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi Griss

        People reading this who are not scientists may misunderstand your meaning nor get the ambiguity of the statement about the comment:

        “I believe that a significant amount of the small amount of warming in the last 150 odd years, as shown by HadCrut4 or GISS, is definitely man made.”

        But you did ask “Has there been any real warming???” to bring us back to reality.

        Personally I am sure that man made CO2 has no capacity to cause “warming” but the temporary heat created in our combustion of fossil fuels is measurable in the urban heat island sense.

        Fortunately (in the Global Warming sense)the additional “heat” is lost to that great heat sink in the sky and we are just a few hours of sunshine away from freezing to death.

        It’s complicated.

        KK

        170

        • #
          NielsZoo

          In the grand energy budget of the planet I wonder, do we have a measurable effect? We do dump waste heat from every machine and building we’ve built but if you compare that to a single geothermal area or a couple of active volcanoes we look pretty insignificant. I keep thinking that we might have had some answers to how actual climate mechanisms work and how to measure them if we hadn’t pissed away 10′s of billions of dollars, pounds, Euros, yen and fezzules on the fantasies of the alarmists, eco-loons and their masters, the Progressive bureaucrats, politicians and the wanna-be oligarchists in lefty academia.

          60

          • #
            the Griss

            Niels, think of the heat generated in an average bushfire.

            Does it get trapped in the atmosphere? Nope.

            It just becomes part of the general heat regulation carried out by the atmospheric gravity energy gradient. Funnelled out to space as required.

            70

            • #
              NielsZoo

              I understand the thermodynamics. I just wonder if our total energy input has an even measurable change to the planet’s equilibrium. I kind of doubt it but actually I was kind of hoping that the thousands of dollars of my taxes sucked down every year might have actually produced some usable data.

              40

        • #
          the Griss

          KK, you need to realise that the so-called global average temperature is really just a construct.

          Before 1979 we really didn’t have any way of getting any accuracy what-so-ever.

          The whole temperature record pre-satellite is so affected and tainted by many different factors, not the least being agenda driven “adjustments”, as to be basically worthless.

          HadCrut and GISS are the two main worthless, untrustworthy temperature records.
          They tell us very little about real temperatures last century.

          The past has changed so many times! It used to be warm in 1940, but Wiggly et al took care of that !

          And Australia seems to have had massive heat waves around 1900. Expunged from the Australian record.

          120

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      It’s only ambiguous if you have already lost confidence in our language, which I did long ago. But it is a very bad question. This is the question that I thought might have honestly produced that 97% yes number. It makes no attempt to quantify the warming or lack of, no attempt to quantify the cause for alarm.

      Which makes the result very interesting. How did that 69% interpret the question that I would have expected them to answer differently? And how, too, did the 31% interpret the question?

      Would somebody please put a question which can’t be misunderstood.

      Then again, what was the context for the question? Perhaps in context it did quantify.

      31

  • #
    Chesterdude

    Just looks like another consensus to me.

    Who in their right mind would base consequential outcomes on unqualified opinions.

    33

    • #
      the Griss

      I don’t think anyone would make consequential decisions based on a minor poll, never the less, it does indicate that there may be general realisation that “climate change” really is a bit of a farce.

      181

  • #
    Matty - Perth

    My theory: AGW has been wearing thin for ages and lately the msm has actually waded into the issue of the pause. Most folks don’t need to see a comprehensive expose’- they just need a few salient things to hang the hat on. In other words they are dying to dump this crap.

    170

  • #
    The Backslider

    As far as I know, the link to it was not posted on any major skeptical blog except possibly in comments

    I don’t see the link here either. What gives?

    30

  • #

    I did not see the poll. I would have added to the majority saying no. For me it has nothing to do having a belief. I have qualifications, knowledge and experience with heat transfer to know that CO2 at the present level can only absorb close to zero IR and the cooler gas in the atmosphere can not radiate heat back to a warmer surface. I also know that there is no “acidification” of the oceans, that every human breathes out CO2, that methane is less important than CO2 (other than as a fuel), that plants need CO2 for growth and like methane and like other light organic molecules such as ethane and ethylene.
    AGW or “climate change” as defined by the IPCC is a scam. The people who believe in it are either crooks or incompetent fools. Those who sit in the middle as “lukewarmers” are technical incompetents who do not understand engineering science (particularly thermodynamics, heat & mass transfer, reaction kinetics and fluid dynamics)

    551

    • #
      Backladderthe4th

      cementafriend,

      when you write:

      “… technical incompetents who do not understand engineering science (particularly thermodynamics, heat & mass transfer, reaction kinetics and fluid dynamics)”

      Does that include Google engineers?

      81

      • #
        the Griss

        We don’t know what sort of “engineers” the google guys were.

        Could be “sanitation engineers”. !

        Similar naming criteria as “climate scientist”.

        190

        • #
          jorgekafkazar

          A while back there was a field of study called “environmental engineering.” At that time, the curriculum didn’t include much science, only a few survey courses. The ignorance of typical “environmental engineering” graduates in the field was abysmal.

          Things may have improved since, but they may not. I strongly suspect that the Google “engineers” did not hold BS or MS degrees in mechanical, chemical, or electrical engineering. More likely software or environmental engineering, with little relevant experience. Either that, or they were reporting to rabid green managers who refused to listen to them.

          120

          • #

            Agree with you, most “environmental engineering” courses are part of Civil Engineering departments. All the ones I have met have done practically no chemistry, none have studied thermodynamics, they know nothing about heat & mass transfer, their level of mathematics goes to only first year university.
            Just looked up Melbourne University which is Australia’s highest rated University in technical disciplines such as Engineering and medicine. Thought they may have environmental engineering as part of Chemical engineering but no it is part of civil and the only useful subject seems to be fluid mechanics but who knows what level it is now taught. Most Universities now seem to be in a race to the bottom.

            It seem the Chinese president Xi Jingping studied Chemical Engineering. I would not be surprised if he knows what a scam AGW is.

            210

          • #
            The Backslider

            I strongly suspect that the Google “engineers” did not hold BS or MS degrees in mechanical, chemical, or electrical engineering.

            No, it’s generally it’s in computer science, if any. You do not require a degree at Google to be referred to as an “engineer”.

            30

            • #
              ROM

              Umm! Google does help when you want answers to questions.

              Quoted from the often excellent UK’s somewhat non confomist and often sardonic Net news mag The Register re the Google engineers and their destruction of the “reneweable energy” as a replacement source for global energy supplies..

              Renewable energy ‘simply WON’T WORK’: Top Google engineers
              Windmills, solar, tidal – all a ‘false hope’, say Stanford PhDs

              ___________

              Both men are Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein having trained in aerospace engineering and David Fork in applied physics.
              These aren’t guys who fiddle about with websites or data analytics or “technology” of that sort: they are real engineers who understand difficult maths and physics, and top-bracket even among that distinguished company. The duo were employed at Google on the RE<C project, which sought to enhance renewable technology to the point where it could produce energy more cheaply than coal.
              [ cont ]

              40

  • #
    Jim Simpson

    Screen shot above came from Nine MSM’s web site just before they pulled it (at approx. 1.50pm AEDT Sunday 23rd Nov 2014) in favour of a different Poll re hospitals & baby hatches.

    Not obvious as to where Nine MSM might keep an historical record of such Polls.

    30

  • #
    Timo Soren

    Good Luck Australia at removing the joke of AGW and finding
    a road to a new and brighter future!

    100

  • #
    sillyfilly

    From the Washington post: “Forty-six percent said global warming was a fact and blamed it on human activity… One-third (33%) of Americans say the U.S. public overall will experience a great deal of harm due to climate change, while 35% say the U.S. public will experience a moderate amount of harm… About one-quarter (23%) of Americans say that climate change is a crisis and 36% say it is a major problem…. White evangelical Protestants are more likely than any other religious group to be climate change Skeptics”

    034

    • #
      sillyfilly

      Sorry that was not the Washington Post but the research group that did the study.

      027

      • #
        the Griss

        Religion research group..

        roflmao.. seriously

        How apt for a “global warming/climate change/whatever” survey !!

        Now take your hoofs out of your mouth, you know what they have been treading in. .its disgusting !!!

        210

        • #
          shrillyfilly

          Griss,

          Always with the negative vibes, man.

          Research groups have a great deal of professional integrity.

          Don’t forget it was an adjunct Australian research group that had to sort through literally over 11,500 individual scientific papers to find 39 papers that even mentioned AGW.

          Can you imagine the dedication required for fine-tooth-combing of that magnitude.

          If it had not been for that sort of dedication the world would not have realised that those 39 carefully selected papers, sorted on the most loosely spurious terms actually represented a 97% consensus of all the world’s scientists on man made climate change.

          I’ll bet you that those 97%-of-all-the-world’s-scientists still do not know of the contribution they allegedly made.

          You’ve absolutely no appreciation for politically motivated and financially inspired scientific consensus.

          And another thing, Mr. Griss, I will take you to task as often as I can until I convince you of the value of the contribution that psychology makes to the study of climate science… deniers!

          There!!!

          220

          • #
            the Griss

            “You’ve absolutely no appreciation for politically motivated and financially inspired scientific consensus.”

            Oh Yes I have !!! ;-)

            30

          • #
            the Griss

            And yes, I suspect many of the self-styled “climate scientists” have made regular trips to a psychologist..

            ….. or was that, psychiatrist ?

            30

        • #
          sillyfilly

          I just referred to Jo’s link, and you get on your low horse and blame me, idiocy in inacion!

          05

          • #
            Robert

            Yes we know you are idiocy in action, we’ve been telling you that for years.

            Seriously, it has been years and you can’t up your game beyond sounding like a 12 year old who got onto the computer in Dad’s office and thinks that makes them clever? I have relatives with children that are 7 and 8 years old who can put together better arguments than you, reason them out, and respond articulately.

            Why would anyone listen to you when you constantly come across like a petulant child?

            30

      • #
        NielsZoo

        Wow. You’re quoting a study from PRRI, a group funded by Progressives whose sole purpose is to denigrate, belittle and marginalize people who believe in God and believe that government has no business meddling in religion. They excel at targeting Christians and Jews whose “positions” on government policies they supposedly represent… not even remotely close to what they do. They exist to make it look like religion folks accept things that are antithetical to their beliefs by creating skewed and biased “studies” that reflect the anti-religion goals of the Progressive left. I personally would not believe anything they’ve written. All you need to do is take a look at their list of “fact” sheets to see what they actually do. They are vermin of the first order.

        40

        • #
          sillyfilly

          Jo provide her source, and I just encapsulated what they reported, pity that it misrepresented her assertions!

          04

          • #
            the Griss

            You encapsulate “nothingness”

            That is your mind and your soul.

            00

          • #
            NielsZoo

            Sorry, I read Jo’s link to the WaPo story as the “failed” old media meme, (trying to portray skeptics as anti-science 9th century religious extremists) a story pushed by Progressive hacks controlling all the CAGW acolytes in the liberal media. She then contrasted the skeptical bent of the new media. You obviously read it differently. In either event I believe the PRRI should be ignored and marginalized as the anti-religious, hateful Progressive bigots they are, no matter what they’re pushing.

            10

    • #
      Chester

      What’s amazing about Nova – someone who claimed until recently on her blog banner (has the photo of herself got bigger?) she was a fighter of Group Think – that she can unashamedly post such rubbish without fear of her paying audience being sceptical. I can’t find the poll online and Nova doesn’t link to it.

      Leaving that aside, Nova, greatest sceptic in Australia, doesn’t even question the poll or how it was compiled.

      But, a real scientist would actually at least compare it with other reliable data to do some sort of testing on the reliability of it. e.g.

      http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/05/31/lowy-poll-climate-change-and-public-hypocrisy/

      http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=page/stanford-university-public-opinion-surveys-on-global-warming-2013-has-past-global-warming-been-

      How is it you “sceptics” can fall for this stuff? And you’re giving her money for it!

      146

      • #
        shrillyfilly

        Wow, Chester,

        Deja-vu.

        This is the same exact post you always submit.

        Gotta admire your persistance.

        Nothing like flogging a dead horse.

        Oops, did I just say that?

        My bad…

        380

        • #
          Chester

          Look at that – a different avatar for each person providing counter views. The Nova Groupie Boys are split personalities.

          132

        • #
          sillyfilly

          “A dis a dis a dis,
          a green griss,
          a dis a dis a dis”
          Celebrating the corpse of climate denial!

          08

          • #

            A dreamer right to the end, eh!

            By the way, sillyfilly, going on the emissions reduction targets you guys hope for, who gets to decide which one in four people will have their car taken away?

            Tony.

            50

            • #
              grissforthemill

              Haven’t heard you comment on the Canadian bird kill study, what’s the matter, horse got your tongue!

              [this is a sock puppet name that Sillyfilly is using. Warning Silly: using multiple screen names is a quick way to permanent moderation. ] ED

              02

            • #
              ExWarmist

              ….. crickets …..

              20

          • #
            shrillyfilly

            lo,

            And as it is said so shall it be done.

            A dead horse flogged…

            20

          • #
            the Griss

            Wow, what have you been drinking/smoking tonight ???

            Do you have any brain cells left at all ?

            Because they don’t seem to be working !!

            00

          • #
            the Griss

            And which nursery rhyme are you trying to learn ?

            None of us recognise it yet.

            But do keep trying.

            You are making good progress.

            Small step, small step. !!

            00

      • #
        the Griss

        Poor Chester. !!

        One brain cell, one thought. !

        and his grandma gives him his 10 minutes a week to express it.

        Did you even look at those reports?

        the first one shows a huge drop in “true believers” in 4 years.. that has obviously continued to happen

        Second one.. “MacInnis and Krosnick then applied a statistical modeling procedure to estimate what public opinion would be in each state today”

        Seriously???? roflmao !!

        You don’t need to act to be a clown !!!

        161

      • #
        James Bradley

        Chester,

        “How is it you “sceptics” can fall for this stuff?”

        AGW

        ABC Poll – 2,791 out of 3,101 vote No = 97%

        Channel 9 Poll – 84,240 out of 122,551 vote No = 69%

        John Cook Poll 59 out of 11,944 vote Yes = 97%?????

        Let’s do it your way:-

        3 x independant Polls

        2 x Polls say No

        1 x Poll says Yes

        Therefore:

        2/3 x 100/1

        = 67% rounded.

        So that seems to be how it is, 67% of consensus’ say NO to AGW, really, now you can’t argue with the ABC can you?

        Or is it the money… ?

        “And you’re giving her money for it

        Oh yeah, it’s the money, what is it CheaterChester, no one but alarmists allowed a chunk of the donation pie, that’s rather dicriminatory of you!

        Or is it a darker motivation?

        “And you’re giving her money for it”

        Misogyny, misogyny, your motivated by misogyny.

        tut, tut, tut, shame on you.

        180

        • #
          the Griss

          I wonder how much disciple Chester sent to the Flannery fund. ;-)

          160

          • #
            the Griss

            The two year Chester throws a tanty yet again.

            You must seriously embarrass your nanny.

            Grow up little boy. !!

            151

            • #
              Chester

              Denial comes easy to you, doesn’t it Gristle-muncher?

              You have a record here as a serial abuser that anyone can check for themselves and yet you have the raw hide to write that.

              You’ve been dishonest for so long, you’re now unaware you’re doing it.

              What a sad case.

              130

              • #
                Soused

                Chester,

                Welcome to Aunty Soused’s Propaganda Crit Course (ASPCC) – line by line:

                “Denial comes easy to you, doesn’t it Gristle-muncher?

                You have a record here as a serial abuser that anyone can check for themselves and yet you have the raw hide to write that.

                You’ve been dishonest for so long, you’re now unaware you’re doing it.

                What a sad case.”

                Personal abuse

                Personal abuse

                Personal abuse

                Uninformed opinion

                You forgot to paste your hook:

                “What’s amazing about Nova – someone who claimed until recently on her blog banner (has the photo of herself got bigger?) she was a fighter of Group Think – that she can unashamedly post such rubbish without fear of her paying audience being sceptical. I can’t find the poll online and Nova doesn’t link to it.”

                So now we work on the content, for affective propaganda you need more loud shouty words, to acheive this simply put all loud words in bold and all shouty words in CAPITALS (hint – for greater affect you can use BOLD CAPITAL, but use sparingly).

                Then you need to use exegerated spelling to emphasise a conclusive word of your consequential sentences (hint – we at the ASPCC prefer the use of evvvvvaaaa with requisite punctuation marks).

                Next is your punctuation, you need more exclamation marks!!!!!!!!! (rule of thumb more than 7 and less than 10).Golden rule is to always temper the scare with a modifier/disclaimer – small print surfices – to give the impression that you are an impartial commentator.

                Now we put it all together with our phrases-for-propaganda logarithm (designed from comprehensive climate modelling) on our steam powered Propaganda Phraseology Machine:

                eg

                HOTTEST November evvvvaaaa!!!!!!!!!! (in 5 years)

                Worst BUSHFIRE DANGER season evvvvaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!(in 12 months)

                DAMS will NEVER FILL evvvvaaaaa!!!!!!!!! (may not reflect actual events)

                Coldest winter in USA evvvaaaa!!!!!!!!! (what the??????????)

                Earliest Nigara freeze evvvvaaaaaa!!!!!!!!! (who did that????????????)

                Biggest expansion of ANT-ARCTIC SEA ICE evvvvaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!! (how do I turn this off??????????)

                TURNEY nominated for best SCIENTISTS in THWARTED Ant-Arctice Sea Ice Expedition evvvvvvaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!

                Help – are there any GOOGLE ENGINEERS out there, I seem to be having trouble with the propaganda agenda!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

                WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT’S LOSING STEAM???????????

                124

              • #
                Tim

                “Help – are there any GOOGLE ENGINEERS out there, I seem to be having trouble with the propaganda agenda.”

                So are they…

                http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-google-engineers-say-renewable-energy-simply-wont-work/

                30

              • #
                TdeF

                Eric Worrall is genuinely surprised that solar will not work. He needs to do the calculations.

                According to Climate Commissioner Will Steffen, a physical chemist, Victoria receives twice as much solar energy as required to run the state today. He is right if you do the calculations. However he has not costed the trillions required to cover the state entirely with solar cells and that is without distribution losses. Nor has he told us and the plants and birds and animals where we are going to live when he finishes?

                Humans are burning a million dollars worth of fossilised sunshine, rotted plant matter every year. Solar cannot supply this amount of energy. It will not last.

                We need to be talking about the real problem of sustainable energy and get away from the really idiotic idea that we can do it all with windmills and hydro and solar. Unless there are some Australian mountains we have not found yet.

                There are plenty of ideas for energy, ideas which were explored in the oil shortages of the 1970s and you could list a few. They need to be revisited. Forget solar. The payback period in energy used for manufacture was over 3 years before you could even talk about free energy.

                20

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                The payback period for Nuclear is longer than three years, but once you have broken even, it is really cheap and plentiful energy.

                Just don’t build a station on a coast that is subject to tsunami, or staff it with Communist Russians who, in an emergency, just follow the script, even if it is obviously wrong.

                You could use Communist Greens, at a push, because they would endlessly debate any problem, and therefore probably avoid making any operating errors. But on reflection, that might not be such a good strategy, in the case of an emergency.

                60

              • #
                TdeF

                Not so sure about that. If the power station is $15Bn and outputs 3000Mwatt like Hazelwood, the payback should be under a year (not counting the operating cost). At say 25c/kwhr peak you would sell the output at 3million times 20c or $600,000 per hour. For a year this would be 9000 more but say 4000x to allow for off peak. So an income at retail of $24Bb, breakeven or a profit in the first year.

                As for blowing up, a Thorium reactor would not blow up. Turn off the small Uranium core which drives it and it is inert. No bombs. No explosions. 1/200th of the waste and danger. Why are we building windmills?

                10

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                I was allowing for the payback period of bribes to politicians, not that they ever happen, of course.

                30

              • #
                Graeme No.3

                They are called consultancy fees!

                30

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Sorry, my bad.

                30

              • #
                TdeF

                My point about the solar cells was not the pay back period, but that the energy consumed in manufacture of all the components of a solar cell exceeds its output for the first few years, regardless of the cost, so there is no saving in nett CO2 for say three years. If the objective was to reduce CO2 by using solar, there is none immediately. It looks like Victoria’s desalination plant will cost over time a lot more than a mid sized nuclear power station even though the desalination plant will never be used despite the permanent 50 staff required to not run it. I suppose they are called Green jobs.

                10

              • #
                ROM

                Even without going to a full Molten Salt Thorium reactor design there is a long proven operating nuclear reactor design which is safer than the American designed and developed LWR’s and which has the capabilities of burning thorium in combination with other mixtures of nuclear fuels including burning up weapons grade Plutonium as well as “spent fuel” from the LWR’s that now sits in cooling ponds all over the place..

                And that is the Canadian designed CANDU reactors, a number of which have operated in Canada for some decades with China now building a few of the CANDU type reactors.

                For reasons I can only guess at and those guesses have a great deal to do with the profits of nuclear divisions of the American LWR manufacturers, GE and Westinghouse, the CANDU reactor design is never mentioned as it is highly versatile , highly efficient in operation more so than any LWR, safer than the LWR’s and can do quite a lot of the burn up of waste fuel from the LWR’s plus use a high ratio of thorium in it’s burn process. Plus burn unwanted nuclear fission fuels such as plutonium and U 235 and turn it into a much smaller and a very much lower and smaller radiation source than the original plutonium or actinide fuel load.
                ___________________

                The following dated 2000 which means the Canadians have come along way in their new design CANDU’s

                THE EVOLUTION OF CANDU FUEL CYCLES AND THEIR POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO WORLD PEACE

                The CANDU® reactor is the most versatile commercial power reactor in the world. It has the potential to extend resource utilization significantly, to allow countries with developing industrial infrastructures access to clean and abundant energy, and to destroy long-lived nuclear waste or surplus weapons plutonium. These benefits are available by choosing from an array of possible fuel cycles. Several factors, including Canada’s early focus on heavy-water technology, limited heavy-industry infrastructure at the time, and a desire for both technological autonomy and energy self-sufficiency, contributed to the creation of the first CANDU reactor in 1962. With the maturation of the CANDU industry, the unique design features of the now-familiar product – on-power refuelling, high neutron economy, and simple fuel design – make possible the realization of its potential fuel-cycle versatility. Several fuel-cycle options currently under development are described.

                _________________
                [quoted ]

                The main obstacles to the far higher adoption of the CANDU reactor design is the high initial capital cost of building the CANDU’s which is compensated over the life of the reactor by the lower running costs and reliability of the CANDU’s plus the “Not Invented Here or Made in America” stigma along with some very heavy handed political and business pressures to keep the CANDU’s out as they would seriously affect GE’s and Westinghouse’s Nuclear divisions profits if they were allowed free reign in the USA and elsewhere.

                20

              • #
                Graeme No.3

                Did Steffen include a factor for conversion efficiency (typically 10%) ?

                And did he by any chance notice that the sun doesn’t shine at night? If so, what storage scheme did he have in mind?

                40

              • #
                warcroft

                I personally like to put a couple of 1′s in with the exclamation marks (because I missed holding shift on some of my button bashings).
                eg: eevvvaaaaa!!!!!!!!1!!11

                00

            • #
              the Griss

              And the Chester tanty continues.. :-)

              180

              • #
                Robert

                Told ya, see 27.1. There goes chester complaining that YOU are a serial abuser. Apparently he must not like being treated like that.

                Doesn’t bother him at all to treat others that way just don’t do unto him as he does unto everyone else. His feelings will get hurt. Poor baby.

                40

            • #
              the Griss

              “Denial comes easy to you,”

              ?? WT* are you talking about.. ??

              100

          • #
            GI

            Chester,

            Same question:

            “Do you have a life away from this site – *substitute activist troll of choice – Groupie Doll?”

            20

            • #
              the Griss

              Was really nice down the beach yesterday morning surfing with some friends,

              Then watched the cricket, while annoying some base-level trolls. :-)

              Weekends are such hard work ;-)

              80

        • #
          Chester

          And still no scepticism:

          http://www.gallup.com/poll/168620/one-four-solidly-skeptical-global-warming.aspx

          2014:

          One in Four in U.S. Are Solidly Skeptical of Global Warming

          Nearly 40% are “Concerned Believers” in global warming, others are mixed

          http://www.lowyinstitute.org/news-and-media/press-releases/australian-attitudes-heating-about-climate-change-2014-lowy-institute-poll-finds

          This year, 45% of Australian adults now say that ‘global warming is a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs’. Concern is up 5 points since 2013 and 9 points since 2012.

          ‘After successive polls revealed declining concern about climate change between 2006 and 2012, this year’s Poll shows that the trend-line has turned, and that Australians’ concern about climate change is now on the rise’, said Alex Oliver, Director of the Poll.

          When asked about international policy on global warming and carbon emissions, 63% of Australians say the government should be taking a leadership role on reducing carbon emissions. Only 28% say it should wait for an international consensus, and a fraction (7%) say the government should do nothing.

          And there’s more – if only you have the scepticism to look. The only polls that show much different are those run by groups with an agenda.

          And yes, Jo has posted such dishonest garbage before.

          131

          • #
            Lord Jim

            Yeah, what a fantastic result:

            “I support the carbon pricing laws”

            34% agree
            30% neither agree nor disagree
            30% disagree

            http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/climate-of-the-nation-2014.html

            So, “63% of Australians say the government should be taking a leadership role” but only 34% support the carbon pricing laws.

            And yet:

            As in last year’s poll, support for the laws is a
            majority, 51 per cent, when it is explained that all
            the money raised goes to support households,
            businesses and renewable energy investment. (P15)

            Hahaha.

            Someone should ‘explain’ to them that such support obviates the need for such laws in the first place.

            Carbon pricing is to reduce carbon consumption.

            If you provide support you promote the continued use of carbon thus undermining the whole premiss of the laws: it is one giant slush-fund-money-go-round.

            Oh, and let’s not forget the percentage ‘donation’ the ALP-Greens wanted to send to the UN.

            110

            • #
              Lord Jim

              Oh, and did Chester notice that climateinstitute is an advocacy group (I mean suggesting that Australians who do not agree with the UN Conga line on ‘global warming/climate change’ are ‘dinosaurs’ is an act of advocacy, right?

              150

              • #
                Robert

                The only polls that show much different are those run by groups with an agenda.

                According to Chester these would be the ones where the results trend towards skepticism I assume.

                Oh, and did Chester notice that climateinstitute is an advocacy group (I mean suggesting that Australians who do not agree with the UN Conga line on ‘global warming/climate change’ are ‘dinosaurs’ is an act of advocacy, right?

                Oh but there’s no agenda THERE now eh? Chester is a walking agenda, unable to tell the truth if his life depended on it. But in his world it is anyone who has a difference of opinion from him, supported by actual evidence rather than his hyperbole that has an agenda.

                When did truth become an agenda? When people like Chester want to convince you to believe their lies, because in his world the only people interested in truth obviously have an “agenda”.

                Still waiting for you and yours to provide us with the paper trail showing all this money we’re receiving from big oil to try and torpedo your version of “truth.” You’ve had decades now, not only can you not prove CO2 has a thing to do with it, the only person who could come up with “damning evidence” of how much money was supporting skeptic “disinformation” as you call it had to do it through fraud. But when people like Peter Gleick are your heroes we don’t really expect anything from you but more lies. After all, you are only emulating your heroes.

                So how many years is this now? And chester, sillyfilly, blackadder4, etc. are still stuck on the same page, the same behavior, the same formula, the same lies. It hasn’t worked for them yet but they aren’t going to try anything different, they are after all terrified of change.

                20

          • #
            the Griss

            Sample size 1000..

            And 49% say the greatly admire Obama !!!

            Seriously !!!

            110

          • #
            Backladderthe4th

            Dear Chester,

            Read your latest manuscript.

            Found it somewhat repetative, but…

            Suggestions:

            “What’s amazing about Nova – someone who claimed until recently on her blog banner (has the photo of herself got bigger?) she was a fighter of Group Think – that she can unashamedly post such rubbish without fear of her paying audience being sceptical. I can’t find the poll online and Nova doesn’t link to it.”

            Good, strong opening, keep it (as always).

            Follow up with :

            Spurious rhetoric – insert here.

            Meaningless link/s – insert here.

            Personal abuse – insert here.

            Now I know this is formula, but isn’t that what we’re going for here.

            The old tried and true climate propaganda.

            And don’t forget the old climate activists motto – “Never change, never adapt”.

            140

          • #
            PeterK

            Cheater / SillyHorse: You can have all the polls you wish but they are meaningless. Good science DOES NOT support global warming / climate change! Period!

            Since I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer and my science is high school at best, anyone with a brain, life experience and a good dose of common sense will not subscribe to this SCAM.

            I have spent the last four years or so reading many different blogs (pro and con) and have read many science papers posted or referenced by these blogs. If you can’t seen the dishonesty of global warming / climate change, then I have to state your type is either one brick short of a full load or you personally benefit financially from this SCAM.

            Honest, hard working people pay no never mind to the ‘climate scientist geniuses’ until it starts to hurt their wallets. They are too busy working for a living. But, in my opinion, people the world over are waking up to this sham, and I do believe that the sham has peeked. It is now just a matter of time as to how fast this whole scam collapses.

            Any maybe then your type will have to find some honest and beneficial work for the first time in your lives.

            170

          • #
            The Backslider

            This year, 45% of Australian adults now say that ‘global warming is a serious and pressing problem.

            So Chester, even a biased poll shows a minority. Thank you.

            70

          • #
            The Backslider

            The only polls that show much different are those run by groups with an agenda.

            Agreed Chester. It is clear to us all that polls run by the Green Blob are indeed biased. Thank you again.

            60

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Chester,

            Polls attempt to measure public opinion.

            And good polls measure the opinions of people selected at random, i.e. people who are unlikely to have sufficient technical background to have an informed opinion.

            So, you are measuring the success, or otherwise, of the propaganda messages given in 2014 (the date you gave). That is all it measures, nothing more, and nothing less.

            Every time you attempt to justify anything by referring to a poll, I, or one of the other regulars here, will point this out to you, yet again.

            70

      • #
        Lord Jim

        Chester
        November 23, 2014 at 5:49 pm · Reply

        http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/05/31/lowy-poll-climate-change-and-public-hypocrisy/

        “Percentage of Americans who believe past global warming has been caused by humans or in equal part by humans and natural fluctuations ”

        Which does not discriminate between skeptics and catastrophists.

        Oh, and incidentally, the methodology includes… ‘modeling’.

        As for:

        http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=page/stanford-university-public-opinion-surveys-on-global-warming-2013-has-past-global-warming-been-

        From 2010: FOUR years out of date AND at the peak of CAGW warming hysteria.

        How is it you “sceptics” can fall for this stuff? And you’re giving her money for it!

        LOL.

        70

        • #
          Robert

          I love Chester, we need more like him.

          The more he comments the more he convinces thinking people that:
          1 – he is irrational
          2 – he is incapable of logic
          3 – he is representative of those supporting this nonsense
          4 – his only means of argument is personal abuse of the opposition

          As a result more and more people are walking away from the very thing he is trying to drive them towards. People like him, BA4, and SF do more damage to their cause by opening their mouths than they will ever realize. But that just goes back to 1 and 2 above.

          130

      • #
        handjive

        Quote Chester:

        “What’s amazing about Nova – someone who claimed …”

        What is not amazing about Nova is that you can make a comment like yours and NOT be deleted, unlike your ‘fanboi’ sites.

        Enjoy the freedom to express your thoughts, but don’t expect the moderated sheltered workshop you are used to.

        110

      • #
        Tim

        Germany, Britain, France, US Presidents/PM’s on the way out because of green policies?

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/21/will-green-politics-soon-be-a-thing-of-the-past/

        10

    • #
      The Backslider

      So good of you, Dumb Donkey, to show us affirmatively that your numbers are in the minority.

      10

  • #
    pat

    there’s so much rubbish in the following Tele piece, but this is what the CAGW-sceptical australian public is up against in the MSM. Claire usually writes about social issues, but that doesn’t stop her claiming the generic “scientists” say, etc.
    how Russia comes into her Great Barrier Reef para is one of life’s little mysteries:

    23 Nov: Daily Telegraph: Claire Harvey: Claire Harvey: I’ll barrack for US President Barack Obama
    IS ANYONE else sick of Australian conservatives’ monumental arrogance in dismissing, and dissing, Barack Obama – one of the great leaders of our time? …
    It’s the same with climate change. Obama’s decided his next two years will be spent doing things without Congress’ say-so: like brokering a global agreement on mitigating pollution. Obama thinks he has a shot at persuading the world’s dirtiest economies to come to a basic agreement on cleaning their acts up. I think if anyone can do it, he can. That’s a legacy to be proud of…
    Obama invoked our greatest natural treasure (Great Barrier Reef) to make one simple, and much bigger, point: if global carbon dioxide emissions result in sea-levels changing, ocean acidity increasing and severe weather events dramatically increasing, as the vast majority of scientists(???) and our own government experts say they will, the Reef will suffer like everything else on the planet. That’s it. Obama was talking to Russia as much as to Australia – but the federal Government reacted with an unseemly defensiveness…
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/claire-harvey-ill-barrack-for-us-president-barack-obama/story-fni0cwl5-1227131574059

    the writer, Claire Harvey, has a brother, Adam, who works for the ABC. they are the children of the late Peter Harvey of Channel Nine fame, according to Peter’s Wikipedia page:

    May 2012: ABC World Today: Climate report turns up the heat on Sydney’s west
    ADAM HARVEY: The new report from the Climate Commission zeros in on Australia’s biggest city and says extreme weather is getting much more common…
    ADAM HARVEY: And speaking of vulnerable people, Will Steffen says the commission has moved headquarters after threats to staff.
    WILL STEFFEN: Well I think that newspaper headline you’ve got there in front of me called ‘Climate of Fear’ could actually be turned around to describe what happens in some cases to climate scientists and our staff.
    But there’ve also been direct aggressive and threatening events, physically threatening events to some of my staff. But there were a couple of incidents there which my staff interpreted as being threatening and I think they had very good reason to do so.
    I took a whole range of pieces of evidence – email, non-email and so on – to our security people at ANU (Australian National University) who are experts in the field and asked their advice. And their advice obviously taking a rather conservative position to ensure our safety, which is appropriate, that we move to much more secure quarters, which we have…
    http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3502194.htm?source=rss

    no wonder the MSM is losing its audience.

    60

  • #
    Rob Herron

    Julie Bishop was shot down in the MSM about her comments that the Great Barrier Reef is not in danger, and specifically from climate change.

    As usual she, on behalf of the Government, was defensive and talked about all the environmental actions the Government is taking.

    That was not the correct reponse. There is no evidence the reef is under threat from climate change. None at all. Cyclones (attributed to climate change) have decreased not increased, the sea temperature and sea levels have not risen of any concern in 100 years, globally temperatures have not increased for 18 years and only 0.7C in the past 100 years.

    All of this is admitted by the IPCC, NASA and other “warmist” scientists whose only resort is that the reef is threatened if their models of future temperature increases come true (so far total fail since 1990) and their assumptions (speculations not science) of the results are also true.

    The MSM give great coverage to claims the Abbott government is “in denial”, are “flat earth” (even by British AGW politicians) and we are left with wimpy responses and defensive argument by Abbott et al. Unless Abbott calls this AGW out for the fraud that it is, with facts such as I have listed he will lose. Grow a pair Tony.

    170

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Tony panders to the MSM.

      He’s a politician, they exist in a warm symbiosis with the media message propagation machines.

      10

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    You only have to follow the online comments at the UK Telegraph to see how the online version is displacing the print version.

    60

  • #
    TdeF

    The CO2 hypothesis was always just a political ploy of the communist Greens. It was never has been scientific fact and the world has demonstrably not warmed for 18 years, so a nonsense question for a non existent problem. However this sort of poll, even with a leading and double barreled question will shake politicians on the left of politics.

    If 70% of people do not believe this and the vote is split 50%:35%:15% conservative, Labor, Green, the 20% has to be allocated between the Greens 15% and Labor voters, 35%. Presuming science free Greens voters are prepared to believe anything they are told, the 20% are Labor voters and even more if a few conservative voters think it might possibly be true. So you have 20/35 or 60+% of Labor voters do not agree.

    This shows why third parties are growing. The Greens are power hungry anarchists and science loonies but also an alternative to the traditional parties. There has always been a third party in Australia. However disenchanted Labor voters are finding it harder and harder to support Labor and their local member is totally dependent on Green preferences, so the nonsense continues.

    Incredibly only 8 Labor members in the House of Representives were elected on first preferences. The question Labor members face is whether to drop the Greens and dare them to preference conservatives. We just had an awful three years of a Green dominated minority government where the new and unpopular PM was too desperate to govern and too weak to resist the demand for a carbon tax. It was the price she was willing to pay for the job. So with only one Green member of the House of Representatives, Australia was forced to introduce the most inane, expensive and damaging Green taxes and schemes, attacking the backbone of the Australian economy in mining and farming. Only the Green spout the nonsense that the miners pay no taxes or are handed subsidies. Only the Greens believe carbon is evil, chlorine is evil, farming is evil and manufacturing is evil. 1200 people died with their caring policies, more than the total of all civil disasters in Australia’s history. Caring Green senator Sarah Hansen Brown was not concerned, “accidents happen”. Lots of them.

    What Labor does not appreciate is they are rapidly alienating their own voters with this Global Warming nonsense, windmills, Carbon taxes, wildly open borders and massive incompetence at economic management. A poll like this raises the serious question of whether Labor politicians can continue to sell their souls to the Greens just to keep their jobs. Then, 70% of Labor in the last Federal Parliament were Union officials handed their seats, so they are used to this sort of morality. The growth of independents is assured.

    170

    • #

      Brain-storm meeting of the Climate Klimatariat under
      the Cone of Silence …

      “We must try harder. Maybe we need to change the name again from ‘Climate Change’ to …’ Hmmm,get me the Ministry of Truth on the phone … “Say, is that the Department of Goal-post Changing? We have a problem.’

      110

    • #
      Dariusz

      TdeF
      How do u explain that despite 18′years of no GW,complete budget shambles that

      40

      • #
        Dariusz

        Apologies for fat fingers and hence my first message unfinished.
        Agree with you but unfortunately 55% will vote labor green in less than 2 years according to the polls. Despite paying 1 bill. In interest alone per month these people think that the current gov. Is crap. How do u get up from such position? 2 years from now will probably have even cooler temperatures but people will still believe GW. They will spent more money, borrow more and we will have to pay twice as much in interest alone. Human stupidity has no boundaries.

        70

        • #
          TdeF

          Only a small proportion of people are scientists or have any scientific training. Most rely on authorities. The same is true in everything. You trust people like doctors. These experts tell you they are scientists and there is something to fear, so you believe them. Flannery, a non physical scientist tell them they will all die if they do not build windmills and even recommends a hot rocks scheme in which he has invested.

          As for money management, how many people are good at that? Palmer, an alleged billionaire tell people that there is no financial problem, that there is no need to reduce spending.

          Unfortunately around the world, a small percentage of swinging voters currently choose governments and they are easily manipulated. Worse, you get members of parliament in conservative seats in Australia who change their allegiance because they are bribed to do so.

          Worst of all, the ABC, government media which by necessity and charter has to be scrupulously independent to justify its existence, is outrageously biased and daring the government to do anything about it.

          It has not a good time for sensible government in Australia and the ABC should be sold. It no longer performs its function of fair, balanced, independent reporting but acts as the Government in exile. Sell the ABC. Those who watch it don’t pay for it. Those who don’t watch it do not want to pay for it.

          90

          • #
            Dariusz

            just like looking in the mirror with what you just said.
            One thing that I want my son and the others is to learn the value of money. Unfortunately school does not provide this as almost all teachers are lefties. I know that for a fact as I have attended many social gathering and I was the only one that was liberal. Teachers are directly responsible for poor start in life and stupidity that is so pervasive. No wonder that people are not educated, not even a little science or simple economics, but this leads to better control of the masses so perhaps there is a method here.
            Under communist Poland I have received an outstanding secondary education (except history and money making) with subjects like chemistry, astronomy, mathematics, physics, Latin as seperate subjects. I came over here and went to uni and realised that my secondary math was on the level 2 year uni curriculum.

            Learning history again was fun, with do it myself course of money making. Now I don,t have to work, although I choose to do that with great pleasure. Yet I see same teachers that I have known for many years now that had good jobs, good health, good pay, stability of their profession and yet no money. No wonder that 75% of populace dies poor.

            Off to work that like so much now. Another glorious day with geology and the Mother Earth.

            50

    • #
      TdeF

      Sorry Hansen Young. Thinking of Dr Bob Brown, Julia’s boss.

      20

    • #
      pattoh

      Tdef ( & anybody who has a mortgage)

      This is a link to a Reserve Bank graph created from ABS data. Notwithstanding the Fabian Fifth Columnists who proliferate the system – the simple truth in this cannot be denied.

      http://www.rba.gov.au/chart-pack/balance-payments.html

      Just for fun, take the ~$10B/ q “RURAL” & add it to the ~$50B/ q “RESOURCES” & get the plain fact:- 3/4 of Australia’s foriegn earnings comes from probably less than 5% of the people working in this country.

      It is not a big leap to join the dots between the BoP > Exchange Rate > A debtor nation’s foriegn borrowings ( Thanks Kev, Julia & Kev!) & domestic interest rates. Thought bubble some Wotifs? & WTFs!

      We do not manufacture a hell of a lot domestically & probably soon will not have an operating oil refinery. Clever Country not.

      The party will soon be over ( I never did like Maurice Strong as a DJ anyway)

      50

  • #
    Renato Alessio

    Both the Channel Nine and the ABC polls are utterly and completely meaningless and are not a reasonable representation of the web audience, no matter how many people responded. This is because the sample is self selecting.

    A meaningful poll which has some chance of being representative of what the population thought, or of what the web audience thought, would be one where the ABC and Channel 9 selected the sample randomly and sent emails to 100 random people who visit their sites, asking them what they thought about the issue.

    Regards.

    010

    • #
      the Griss

      “100 random people who visit their sites, ”

      Seriously ?? I for one would never choose to go to an ABC site.. this sample is still very much self selecting !

      Mind you, with the number of ABC sites out there, there is a good chance of landing on one accidentally !

      121

    • #
      Lord Jim

      Someone should do a survey that starts with:

      Despite an exponential increase in co2 there has been no warming in 18 years.

      According to the [ahem] science of global warming co2 causes catastrophic warming.

      Please indicate whether the recent increase in levels of co2 is:

      a. Causing catastrophic global warming.

      b. Having no discernible effect on temperatures.

      They could follow up with:

      In light of the fact that there has been no warming in 18 years despite an exponential increase in co2 and the fact that Australia is responsible for a miniscule proportion of co2 output worldwide, the Australian government should:

      a. Take extreme economy crippling measures to cut our co2 emissions [the ALP-Greens solution].

      b. Do nothing.

      c. Say it is of gave concern and that we will think about cutting our emissions in 2030, if we feel like it [the China solution].

      110

      • #
        the Griss

        The problem is that the general populace only ever hears the MSM propaganda on climate.

        This is basically relentless toward catastrophe.

        Climate change does this..’ climate change will do that…

        All made up on the fly with zero scientific basis.

        Not many people realise that basically NOTHING significant is changing wrt climate

        The climate is currently remarkably stable. !!

        The only reason for suspecting any catastrophe in the future is a set of wildly discredited climate models.

        Yet all they hear on the MSM is doom and gloom fear-mongering.

        Its a “lack-of-awareness” issue more than anything else.

        And then you have Obarmy carrying on like a pork-chop…

        Americans have figured him out, but for some reason a lot of Australians still think he is a worthwhile person.

        That Lowy poll that someone linked to had something like 81% respecting him.. ..seriously ???? Are Australians really in that deep a coma?

        40

        • #
          Ted O'Brien.

          Hang on, hang on! The “Murdoch Press” is mainstream media, you know. So too is 2GB, no matter how much some people might wish they were not.

          You are copping it here for a lot of people as I flip the switch, but what I say is true.

          30

          • #
            the Griss

            Yes, there is a small percentage that sees truly, rather than through a green fog.

            2GB and some Murdock press are reasonably “balanced”

            but the rest is just an avalanche of climate hysteria. !

            40

  • #
    thingadonta

    In Poland after WW2, the communists were so sure of themselves and that people would automatically vote for them that they initially held polls thinking it was a forgone conclusion, but quickly stopped doing this when they realised nobody wanted them. The people had to be ‘shown the way’ for the next 50 years or so, after which they were immediately voted out again.

    80

  • #
    Paul Evans

    No Mention on the Galileo Movement social media platform so we couldnt be accused of rigging a poll like the ABC one.

    40

  • #

    Like all online polls without Turing test; not even worth the bytes used to store the result. It’s the sort of think a climate cook might do.

    Note that the number of votes skyrocketed by about 40,000 in the space of 4 hours after a link was posted on Facebook.

    60

    • #
      the Griss

      But fun rubbing it in and watching the rabid alarmistas trolls get all upperty !

      For that.. definitely worth it. :-)

      110

  • #
    Neville

    This is O/T but is very interesting.
    Steve McIntyre continues to pull apart the PAGES 2K paleo-climate study.
    http://climateaudit.org/2014/11/22/data-torture-in-gergis2k/#comments
    In this post he concentrates on the Gergis et al Australasia section of the study. These people are real data torturers and yet it still passes peer review?

    60

    • #
      NielsZoo

      You are not using the proper definition of “peer review.” A paper passes review if it reinforces the likelihood of the reviewer’s grant being renewed. If it challenges the catastrophic status quo, and thus the amount of gravy in the reviewer’s gravy train, it will fail review. That is the ONLY way most of these papers would be published. If I had done work like that in 7th grade Physical Science, I never would have made it to 8th grade (as it was it was touch and go ’cause of English Lit.)

      30

  • #

    The number of respondents to the Chanel 9 poll staggers me.
    “The Drum” polls normally attract between 1,000 and 4,000 folk.
    Tim Blair runs a poll for “Frightbats” and gets >5,000.
    How the hell does Chanel 9 get 122,000 respondents? OR, are they “homogenising” the numbers?

    30

    • #
      Matty

      Good call. How could they get over 100,000 responses to a Poll that wasn’t up long enough for anybody to see ?

      20

    • #
      handjive

      The channel 9 site is a worldwide 9 linked MSN site.

      Channel 9 Australia promotes 97% Doomsday Global Warming, so, though it’s not a ‘scientific’ survey, the result should have the “97% certified believers” concerned.

      20

  • #
    Don B

    In a comment at Judith Curry’s blog, Dr. Girma Orssengo discusses the Solar-Climate link:

    Solar-Climate Link Since Mid-20th Century

    By Girma Orssengo, PhD

    In this essay, I demonstrate the 11-year solar cycle signal in the HadCRUT4 dataset for the global mean temperature since mid-20th century shown in Figure 1, confirming the result of Camp and Tung ( 2007), which was done for the NCEP dataset….

    Girma | November 22, 2014 at 10:27 am | Reply
    Solar-Climate Link Since Mid-20th Century
    http://judithcurry.com/2014/11/22/week-in-review-36/#comments

    30

  • #
    Ted O'Brien.

    I was an early sceptic, even before the IPCC, starting with the Hawke government’s partisan hacking of the CSIRO management in 1986. So I was watching for bogus science.

    The first of the bogus science that I saw was very noticeable to me, because it attacked my industry. “Cows are Australia’s biggest source of greenhouse gases”, a front page headline which was a barefaced lie.

    So I wasn’t just sceptical, I was cranky too. And looked around bit. This was long before the internet.

    The proverb says: It’s an ill wind that blows no good.

    But not a single good word could I find for global warming. When it is patently obvious that some areas would benefit. And every change that AGW brought was catastrophic, too.

    The story about cows was corrupt, so the negativity probably was too. And it failed the very reasonable proverb test. Maybe it is the unreality of the gross negativity that is waking people up.

    In recent days we have copped a flood of new, bizarre alarms. See The Conversation, where you have to wonder who is orchestrating it.

    50

    • #
      Robert

      When those who believe in this nonsense have as their only real arguments claims that anyone who disagrees is a shill for big oil, stupid, doesn’t understand science, etc. etc. as the insults go on what would one expect.

      When the attempt to convert someone to your way of thinking involves calling them names, accusing them of beliefs they don’t hold, or associations that they are not a part of, well that’s not exactly the brightest approach.

      These people, see sillyfilly or chester as prime examples, knowingly or unknowingly operate using Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. But old Saul’s Rules only work over a short term. The longer one wages that sort of “war” the more the opposition stops caring what those people think, stop listening to what those people say, and begins to get really pissed off about being called things they aren’t and told the believe things they don’t. By this point they don’t go on the defensive as the alarmists expected, they go on the warpath. While we would all love to not have to sink to their level, when dealing with that sort it eventually becomes apparent that the only thing that works is to do unto them as they do unto others. Mainly because they can’t handle it. Classic example being how they will whine and cry that they are being abused, not shown any respect or consideration, yada yada… Never once in whatever vacuum exists within their head do they realize or consider that they are complaining about seeing is exactly what everyone sees from them constantly. The logical conclusion if they don’t like it is that they don’t like themselves.

      Given that logic and critical reasoning is something skeptics have and alarmists don’t, the alarmists are digging their own hole.

      90

  • #
    DouptingDave

    Whilst surveys like this show sceptics are in the majority they also throw up a challenge as they show that most sceptics are apathetic and fighting the climate scam is very low on their list of lifes must do’s. So how do we get people to be more actively engaged in our struggle ?.The alarmist side have no trouble gathering the activists and usefull idiots to demonstrate against for example the keystone pipeline or fracking sites here in the uk,but how do we get people to turn up at a wind turbine site or demonstrate outside parliament when they are so reluctant to get out of their armchairs.

    30

  • #
  • #
    Matty

    Cameron’s Tories worse than Obama, siding with the Green Blob to beat up Australian Government.

    https://twitter.com/lorddeben/status/535580981970092033

    30

  • #
    nfw

    I use ninemsn as an entry page for other sites and was watching regularly to see how the poll would go. It was pulled very early and quickly. It seems somebody at ninemsn (an appalling site for grammar and the misuse of the English language anyway; obviously it’s put together in a non-English speaking country by 12 year olds) didn’t like seeing the numbers going the “wrong” way for his/her liking.

    30

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Just 5 percent of Americans thought climate change was the most important issue in the U.S. today.

    I expect you would find a similar result if you asked climate change about Americans: Climate change, do you think Americans are an important issue?

    No, 97%
    Yes, 3%

    Sounds about right to me. The climate pays no attention to us so why do we waste time on it? ;-)

    20

  • #
    CriddleDog

    Not aimed at anyone here,but what would be really useful would be a short lesson on the real meaning of “exponential” as well as “logarithmic”.

    It seems these days that any increase in anything is “exponential”, except my investment earnings.:)

    30

    • #

      We no longer have “High Fire Danger”. it has been replaced by “Catastrophic Fire Danger”.

      30

      • #
        The Backslider

        We no longer have “High Fire Danger”. it has been replaced by “Catastrophic Fire Danger”.

        That is known as “exponential growth in alarm”.

        10

      • #
        Matty

        With no rise in globally averaged temperatures in 18 years you have to make up for it somewhere. The language seems like a good place to start.

        10

  • #
    Streetcred

    The Washington Post:

    …”64 percent ‘feel a deep connection with nature and the Earth.’”

    My question to them then, “What the hell are you doing living in the city?”

    How many of them have ever been beyond their city limits?

    20

  • #
    pat

    24 Nov: Australian: Patrick Moore: We need more carbon dioxide, not less
    (Patrick Moore was a co-founder, and leader of Greenpeace for 15 years is now an independent ecologist and environmentalist based in Vancouver, Canada)
    I am sceptical that humans are the main cause of climate change, and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over”, the “science is settled”.
    My scepticism begins with the warmists’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model…
    The idea that it would be catastrophic if CO2 were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.
    Recently, the IPCC announced for the umpteenth time that we are doomed unless we reduce CO2 emissions to zero. ­Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years before humans began clearing forests for agriculture…
    By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We don’t understand the precise workings of the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. But if the IPCC did not find that ­humans were the cause of warming, or if it found that warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse. ­Either the IPCC should be reconstituted with a larger membership of UN bodies (it is now a partnership between the World Meteorological Organisation and the UN Environment Program), and its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled…
    Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and engage in a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as large wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.
    So we are told CO2 is a “toxic” “pollutant” that must be curtailed when in fact it is a colourless, odourless, tasteless, gas present at 400 parts per million of the global atmosphere and the most important food for life on earth…
    We have no proof increased CO2 is responsible for the slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the CO2 ever emitted. Yet we have absolute proof CO2 is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasise to our children?…
    Let’s celebrate CO2.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/we-need-more-carbon-dioxide-not-less/story-e6frg6zo-1227132351356

    10

  • #
    pat

    LOL:

    23 Nov: UK Express: Camilla Tominey: Queen goes green and signs up carbon-cutting club to lower emissions at Royal Palaces
    PRINCE Charles is known as the eco-warrior of the Royal Family, but apparently he is not the only one.
    The Royal Household, which runs Buckingham Palace, St James’s Palace, Kensington Palace and Windsor Castle, has joined a network of organisations which swap tools and techniques to lower their carbon footprint.
    It emerged earlier this month that Her Majesty is concerned about climate change after she asked Met Office chief scientist Dame Julia Slingo if global warming had been responsible for a high level of flooding at her Balmoral estate…
    The programme was launched by the National Trust and sustainable energy charity Ashden last year and has 85 members, including the Church of England, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and Oxford University…
    The Queen has a reputation for switching off the lights at Buckingham Palace and famously heats her favourite room at Balmoral with a three-bar electric fire…
    Further changes were made at Buckingham Palace after it scored zero out of 10 in a 2009 poll of London’s least environmentally friendly buildings…
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/538853/The-Queen-signs-palaces-eco-group-reduce-carbon-footprint

    00

  • #
    ROM

    Ok I’m late to the party again but often I try to think an item through and do a bit of research before commenting.

    First up and darned if I can locate the source again but a few days ago I came across a blog commentry which pointed out from survey’s [ again! ] that despite the MSM appearing to be the main long standing source of news, opinions and public policy influences, the reality has become and increasingly so, that an ever larger percentage of the population are now consulting Internet sources for opinions and news and for guidance in forming their own personal approaches to a subject,
    So much so that the survey pointed to Net sources being consulted for news and opinion in forming attitudes by a much higher percentage than those who still rely on the MSM for news and opinions.

    Secondly, it is becoming quite obvious that surveys and polls are being quoted more and more by Skeptical sites as they indicate a retreat by the Public from the extremist climate advocates positions towards a more nuanced, doubting or plain dismissal of the whole global warming / climate change meme by an increasing, according to the polls, percentage of the populace.

    So just how accurate and truthful were those dire climate prediction polls, forgetting those blatantly corrupt and deliberately lying polling strategies of Cook’s SS and Lewendowsky and etc, that supposedly indicated a very high percentage of citizenry were deeply concerned by the alarmist climate catastrophists and their publicly promoted computer predictions of an imminent climate catastrophe of a never clearly defined origin?

    Or for that matter how accurate are the polls that are showing a shift in public sentiment towards straight out dismissal of the CAGW meme or a sated mental overload of climate catastrophe crap which has switched people off to the point they no longer give a damn about something that they cannot see and have never seen any personal or a publicly proven evidence of?

    What I strongly suspect that like when the subject of CAGW or it’s latest manifestation is brought up in conversation, there is very frequently a small hesitancy apparent as the other parties in the conversation as they carefully assess and maybe sound out the group individual’s attitudes
    They then will most likely not buck the group meme and just give an “acceptable” public response as it is not worth the angst and argument to state their position forcefully.
    I strongly suspect that this is also the case when pollsters contact somebody to ascertain their attitudes when polling on Climate Change attitudes
    Voluntary polls such as those run by news outfits are highly selective and don’t really mean anything much.

    What I do suspect is that as skeptiscm of the CAGW meme becomes more acceptable publicly and the alarmists are really helping here with their quite violently and very nasty ad hominen language against anybody who doesn’t toe their alarmist line, then the public will increasingly feel free to truly express their deep down long hidden personal deep down doubts and even skeptiscm of so much of the CAGW cult beliefs when asked in a polling situation.
    Particularly now as the whole CAGW meme founders on political, economic, propaganda, green business failures [ UK's renewable Ocean power generator outfit has just gone under financially ] and rising energy costs plus increasing energy poverty from unaffordable energy cost increases.

    Hence the steady apparent increase in the percentage of the public whom are prepared to state something they may long have felt but were deeply inhibited from doing so due entirely to the pressures to conform from the MSM. the politicals and the sheer violence and disgusting, disparaging vehemence of the response of the Rabid Green Blobbery and climate alarmist cultists towards anybody who dared to step out of line and question the predictions of an imminent climate catastrophe which was all our own fault and for which we are still waiting after two decades to see a skerrick of evidence of.

    As for the polls and pollsters themselves, Judith Curry in her Climate Etc weekly “points of interests round up, points to an article by Nate Silver;
    It refers to political polling but is applicable to any controversial subject that the pollsters get involved with.

    Here’s Proof Some Pollsters Are Putting A Thumb On The Scale

    Of particular interest is “Herding” by pollsters where they all start to give similar poll outcomes. And that I would suggest is very much behind the long established poll numbers that supposedly suggested most of the population was seriously concerned, afraid even of Global warming./climate changes predicted climate disasters ahead always ahead, never ever evident or proven.

    The truth is more likely to be that the pollsters were being told what they wanted to hear by the individual polled so as to not as to run counter to the very nasty and vicious attitudes of the climate change cult believers as it simply wasn’t worth the effort or the angst by most who probably could not and never were much concerned by the predictions of the global warmists.
    They all had far more personally important things to worry about in their lives than some predicted future catastrophe which nobody seemed to be able to tell when it might happen, to whom it might happen and how severe it would be or even if it would ever happen as they were hearing from skeptics..

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Another measure on the state of the meme, is the number of climate change disaster movies (with tidal waves washing over the Himalayas, no less) being released in each season. James Cameron had a good run there, for a while, but he has moved on to doing other stuff. That particular genre is dying. Speaking of which, Zombie and Vampire movies seem to be taking their place.

      30

  • #
    pat

    23 Nov: Financial Times: Pilita Clark: World Bank warns of climate perils
    A “frightening world” of global instability lies ahead unless governments tackle the threat of man-made climate change, the president of the World Bank has warned…
    In Central Asia and the western Balkans, melting glaciers and shifts in the timing of water flows will lead to lower water supplies in summer months and high risks of torrential floods, said the report the bank commissioned from Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics…
    The study is the third of its kind the World Bank has released and focuses on regions where the lender operates…
    “Dramatic weather extremes are already affecting millions of people,” he said, pointing to soaring temperatures in Australia this month and last week’s record ***snowfalls in New York state.
    “As the planet warms further, heatwaves and other weather extremes which today we call once-in-a-century events would become the new climate normal, a frightening world of increased risk and instability,” he said.
    “These changes make it more difficult to reduce poverty and put in jeopardy the livelihoods of millions of people,” he said, and have serious consequences for development budgets, and institutions like the World Bank Group.
    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/bbe283a0-71bd-11e4-9048-00144feabdc0.html

    23 Nov: Guardian: John Vidal: World bank to focus future investment on clean energy
    World Bank will only fund coal projects in cases of ‘extreme need’ due to the risk climate change poses to ending world poverty, says Jim Yong Kim…
    “We know that the dramatic weather extremes are already affecting millions of people, such as the five to six feet of snow that just fell on Buffalo, and can throw our lives into disarray or worse. Even with ambitious mitigation, warming close to 1.5C above pre­-industrial levels is locked in. And this means that climate change impact such as extreme heat events may now be simply unavoidable.”…
    But the bank made no commitment to cut funding for oil or other fossil fuel exploration. Analysis earlier this year by Washington-based NGO Oil Change International showed that the bank had funded $21bn (£13bn) of fossil fuel projects since 2008, including $1bn of oil and other fossil fuel exploration in 2013…
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/23/world-bank-to-focus-future-investment-on-clean-energy

    00

    • #
      the Griss

      “Potsdam Institute”

      I suspect very large funds have flowed to Potsdam to be at the head of some of this alarmist dwaddle !!

      Would be interesting to have their “grants” and the soucres exposed. !!

      20

  • #
    pat

    22 Nov: TheNews, Pakistan: Reuters: China commits $45.6 bln for economic corridor with Pakistan
    The Chinese government and banks will finance Chinese companies to build $45.6 billion worth of energy and infrastructure projects in Pakistan over the next six years, according to new details of the deal seen by Reuters on Friday…
    Documents seen by Reuters show that China has promised to invest around $33.8 billion in various energy projects and $11.8 billion in infrastructure projects…
    Major Chinese companies investing in Pakistan´s energy sector will include China´s Three Gorges Corp, which built the world´s biggest hydro power scheme, and China Power International Development Ltd…
    Pakistan sees the latest round of Chinese investments as key to its efforts to solve power shortages that have crippled its economy.
    Under the CPEC agreement, $15.5 billion worth of coal, wind, solar and hydro energy projects will come online by 2017 and add 10,400 megawatts of energy to the national grid, officials said…
    http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-166492-China-commits-$45.6-bln-for-economic-corridor-with-Pakistan

    reminder:

    23 Nov: Pakistan Tribune: Energy crisis: Pakistan looking to form coal supply chain
    KARACHI: Pakistan has started work on establishing a coal supply chain for various power plants in an attempt to address the country’s electricity shortage and reduce the reliance on expensive furnace oil, said an industry official on Saturday.
    Coal, in the millions of tons, would have to be imported for power plants, which the government has been pushing investors to build in Punjab and other parts of the country…
    “I don’t know how long it takes but the fact is that circumstances require the addition of at least 10,000 MW based on coal,” said Aasim Siddiqui, managing director at the Marine Group of Companies, in a meeting with a group of journalists.
    Marine Group is building a 12-million-tons a year terminal at Port Qasim to handle coal imports. It is also hoping to get into the business of transporting coal through rail.
    But he said that Pakistan Railways has already issued a tender for purchase of 50 locomotives, powerful enough to move large shipments of coal.
    Pak-China Economic Corridor
    Siddiqui, who is also the All Pakistan Shipping Association (APSA) chairman, sees 7 million more containers passing through Pakistani ports once China starts using Gwadar port and road link via its neighbour…
    “Imagine the economic activity this amount of cargo will generate. Entire cities will prop up along the routes — there will be hotels, restaurants and petrol pumps. Cargo villages and other affiliated industries will come up,” he said.
    http://tribune.com.pk/story/795640/energy-crisis-pakistan-looking-to-form-coal-supply-chain/

    00

  • #
    TdeF

    Never forget this is all about CO2. Man made CO2 and the alleged ‘hot house effect’ on a planetary scale.

    It is not about climate change or coastal erosion or the sex life of gnats, but the idea that increasing CO2 and CO2 alone increases the temperature. Otherwise CO2 cannot produce ‘climate change’ or affect anything else.

    So CO2 and CO2 alone is blamed by the Green parties for a recent tiny rise in average world temperature. If this is not true, the whole thing is a waste of time and money and worry.

    Dr. Patrick Moore had a good standard article in the Australian this morning. He repeated the science story that CO2 has not caused warming before, that it has been much warmer before and that under 150ppm, plants die and we die with them with CO2 at an historic low. CO2 is a good thing.

    However he still says CO2 is merely ‘food’ for plants and while important, that leaves the wrong idea that plants might still be made from dirt. In fact plants are not made from dirt. Plants are made >99% from only CO2 and water. So therefore are all living things. A 50 ton tree takes almost nothing from the ground, apart from water. Trace elements are important but that huge tree is 30tons of water and 17.4 tons of Carbon and 2 tons of Hydrogen. Apart from water and 2% calcium for bones, humans are also 86% Carbon. We are all made from CO2. We are carbon lifeforms, almost solid carbon.

    There is also his implication that trees are somehow better than grasses, that chopping them down and replacing them with grasses is a problem. Not really. It does free more CO2 but to argue that trees are better at essential photosyntheis than grasses or phytoplankton is unjustified. All these plants grab all the sunlight they can and convert CO2 and H2O into Hydrocarbons and Oxygen. The very important difference is that generally, animals cannot eat trees. Fruit, yes. Trees, no. Termites can and they are a form of cockroach. Maybe politicians too.

    So we are all pollution and the tree worshiping Greens would rather we all left the place to them. Amazingly while they go on about your children and your children’s children, really they are talking about themselves and not you. They certainly never cared for boat people, just the damage which could be done to Australian society under the banner of caring. In fact the Greens are uncaring anti people, anti Labor, anti Western society and very anti Jewish, anti Israel. They see this as the political path to power and as Stalin did, see Jews as a rival power group. Anyone who thinks the Greens give a damn about anyone should just look at what they did with boat people.

    50

    • #
      TdeF

      In fact humans cannot eat grasses either, at least not the cellulose. Cows can. Other ruminants too. Humans can only eat the fruit or seeds of the trees and the fruit of the grasses, the seeds. Fruit itself was developed in symbiosis with animals and monkeys in particular. Nuts with the help of birds. Australia has almost no fruit trees as it has no monkeys and vice versa. It is why Australia has been nearly empty of humans until very recently. So in the age long battle between different plants, it is amazing that the Greens takes sides in the battle between trees and grasses. Grasses try to kill trees and trees try to poison the grasses.

      Amazingly agriculture has only been around for 10,000 years, allowing a massive explosion in human populations. So we need more grasses but the Greens would have us wandering around in massive forests with nothing to eat but random weeds and the occasional mushroom.

      So the Green view of the world is one which vanished tens of thousands of years ago. It was a brutal world. Vote Green and we can go back there.

      30

    • #
      the Griss

      As you know, I agree COMPLETELY with CO2 being TOTALLY BENEFICIAL to all life on Earth.

      This is the message that we have to get across somehow.

      CO2 has NO EFFECT on tem[perature, but is ESSENTIAL part of the carbon life cycle of the planet, and actually needs to be much higher than it currently is.

      Human release of CO2 has ENHANCED the whole world for all life forms.

      Thank goodness for China, India and Germany continuing their build up of CO2 emmissions.

      30

  • #
    TdeF

    Sorry, I upped it from 500Mw like Hazelwood. Most of the world’s plants are 1000mwatt to 3000mwatt, enough for all of Victoria.

    10

  • #
    the Griss

    “Did Steffen include a factor for conversion efficiency (typically 10%) ?”

    And dropping rapidly as they become more and more INEFFICIENT !

    Plenty of high paid “Green” jobs cleaning all them panels.

    Gotta add those into the cost.!!

    Now wait for the next good hail storm !!

    00

  • #
    Frank

    And about 45% of Americans dont accept evolution …. general scientific knowledge is pretty poor

    02

    • #
      the Griss

      “general scientific knowledge is pretty poor”

      How true that is, Frank.

      The alarmista have used the MSM very well to cover up the lack of science behind the climate change/anti-CO2/anti-human-progress agenda (21) and to bend the general public to their meme.

      Had you noticed how many so-called skeptics are people who have the required scientific or engineering knowledge to see right through the lies and mis-information of the paid alarmista agenda.

      People who DON’T have “skin-in-the-game” so to speak.

      Hadn’t you noticed that ???

      ALL the alarmista are government or NGO paid apostles or so-called academics with a hand firmly on their grants !!!

      …..while the skeptics are those that are independent of such massive funding.

      In fact, MANY skeptics are real scientists that have realised the lies and deceit of the CAGNW agenda and have renounced the funding.

      Its called integrity.. something the general alarmista “climate” scientist sorely lacks.

      Just ask Gleike !!

      20

      • #
        Frank

        Ah…at last, its a world wide conspiracy , you left out the hidden socialist agenda.

        01

        • #
          the Griss

          Not hidden at all, Frank.

          They are quite open about it !!

          They have even put out manifestos about it.

          Seriously, your pathetic propaganda doesn’t fool anyone. !:-)

          (Except maybe yourself)

          00

          • #
            Frank

            Also , shhhh, there’s the Jews …..

            01

            • #
              the Griss

              So you are an anti-Semite as well.

              Far-left, writ large !! UGLY

              20

              • #
                Frank

                Sorry, you misinterpreted the joke , I was betting that a global science bias / socialist control conspiracy theorist would also buy into zionist world domination, an example of Poe’s law.
                [A joke is only a joke if and when the audience laughs. The audience has not laughed, so your "humour" failed. Please do not pursue this any further. -Fly]

                00

            • #

              You forgot the big oil companies that are conspiring against global warming truth. No wait, that’s on the AGW believer’s side. My bad……

              10

            • #
              James Bradley

              Frank,

              I think your post is well out of line, ignorant of history and outright intolerant.

              The use of a reference to Jewish people framed in this way can only be perceieved as vilification and not only reinforces the Holocaust Denier/Denier concept promoted by the proponents of AGW, but is just plain inappropriate on any platform and interpreted as hate speach.

              I don’t mind a bit of finger pointing, sarcasm and satire, but I think you need to be pulled up.

              As such, I have made a formal complaint.

              Yours, James Bradley.

              00

        • #
          the Griss

          You do see to have conspiracy on the mind though.. do you know something ?/

          I’ve have noticed though….. it always seems to be the rabid warmistas with the conspiracy theories.

          Me, I’m quite prepared to put it down to basic greed, lack of ethics, and stupidity.

          Which 3 are you ?
          [Leave it there, Griss. Let us not get personal. -Fly]

          10

    • #
      FIN

      The interesting thing is that the self same people also reject climate science, Obama’s birth certificate, moon landings, the usual grab bag of nutter theories. The religious right reject are a wacky lot.

      11

      • #
        the Griss

        Only in the mind of John Cook and Lewy..

        You want conspiracy theories.. start at home !!

        ALL the astronauts who actually WENT to the moon are sceptics.. you did know that, didn’t you. ????

        Do you really believe the lunacy of Cook and Lewy??????

        Is that really how badly your mind in compromised ??????

        Stop trying to hide behind those loonies and their fallacies….

        or YOU will be marked with the same pen. !!

        There are only so many cells in the asylum for these guys. Don’t be one of them !!

        00

      • #

        Don’t get people started on what “whacky” theories believers in AGW believe. There’s a bunch and none of it is good. The Flat Earth Society has people who believe global warming is real. Nutters? I guess then we should reject the global warming theory, since nutters believe it, too. Wait, that’s probably why this is a logical fallacy—what a person beliefs in one area has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of his other beliefs. Only the evidence matters. If we follow your “logic” we are forced to reject both skeptics and believers, which actually might be to the good. At least we wouldn’t be spending millions trying to stop a non-existent threat. That’s really bad for science, however. We reject all of science, probably religion—we’re down to rejecting everything. A very bad line of reasoning.

        00

      • #
        James Bradley

        FIN,

        And yet here you are…

        00

      • #
        James Bradley

        Doug/FIN/Frank/SF/Chester,

        You are one zany climate activist.

        Here’s the thing.

        The louder the zealot the deeper the doubt.

        To prove this – post at SkS.

        Then after a good, long time ask this:

        Q. How many sceptics posted at SkS to challenge you.

        A. None, because we don’t give a f#ck.

        [They are not the same entity -Fly]

        00

  • #
    Dennis

    Is time running out for governments to prepare for the cooling ahead?

    00

    • #
      panzerJ

      The last time any govt was prepared was when Joseph talked Pharaoh into stashing some wheat for a famine,since then govts wait till something happens before responding,govts believe that shutting the gate after the horse has bolted is the proper way to fix a problem.
      Technically the gate is now shut and the horse is not there but if the govts says that the horse is there then it is even if no-one can see it especially if an eminent/peer group has deemed it so.

      10

  • #
    panzerJ

    Coal burnt for power no matter how dirty will eventually end up back in the ground,so what’s the problem?
    The Americans are running scared of China and the last thing they want to see is China get cheap coal from Qld via the barrier reef waterways,that one was so blatent even the ABC should have seen it.
    This climate-change rubbish has reached the point where I no longer care if the warmies get their way or not,if they have the votes then it does not matter one iota what the “science” has to say,it’s the political numbers that and count not the data.
    All it means is another hand in your pocket and 10′s of millions set to face starvation and abject poverty.

    00

    • #

      It’s that “eventually” part. According to the AGW theory, we are freeing CO2 that was sequestered in the “fossil fuels” at a rate much higher than nature intended (I’m not sure why we aren’t part of nature, guess we’re aliens….). Thus, very bad things will happen. This, of course, assumes fossil fuels are really dead microbes (or whatever the latest theory is) and that nature has a time table that cannot be violated with horrible consequences. The fact that CO2 was higher in the past seems to indicate nature is not all that adept at maintaining those levels as the scientists insist she is…….Actually, the whole “too fast” idea just fits with their conclusions. How could you say people will suffer? This is all about saving humanity—well, at least some of humanity. ;)

      10

  • #
    A C of Adelaide

    Thanks Jo
    I needed a bit of cheering up after spotting some promos for an up and coming SBS program that can only be depressing.
    Its nice to know how ineffective they are

    00

  • #
    pat

    how typical that CAGW-infested, urban elitist ABC would axe “Bush Telegraph”!

    24 Nov: ABC: Lucy Barbour: Senator complains as ABC axes national rural radio program, Bush Telegraph
    Nationals Senator for Victoria Bridget McKenzie: “I’m disappointed that Mr Scott has made this decision, but it is within his purvey as managing director and he’s responsible for making sure the ABC meets its budget obligations…
    Long-time Bush Telegraph listener and interviewee Professor Snow Barlow, who specialises in horticulture and viticulture at the University of Melbourne, argues rural people will be at a disadvantage without the program…
    The ABC does provide rural content through the Country Hour programs, but unlike Bush Telegraph, most of them are not broadcast to a metro audience.
    Professor Barlow believes reducing the national reach of rural and regional content is a backwards step for Australia’s economy.
    “It’s at just the very time when rural Australia and the food output from rural Australia is being looked to to take up some of the slack that will inevitably occur in our exports as the mining industry tapers off a bit,” he said…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-24/rural-program-bush-telegraph-axed-in-abc-budget-cuts/5913404

    and how typical ABC would have a Melbourne academic, Snow Barlow, quote something about a decline in mining in the above story! btw i can think of dozens of programs & entire ABC radio/tv stations/personnel that should go before Bush Tele though.

    Snow was not exactly my favourite guest on Bush Telegraph!

    14 Nov: ABC Bush Telegraph: Australia set for the hottest year on record
    Professor Snow Barlow, from Melbourne University, says Australia’s farmers will need to rethink traditional agricultural districts as a warming planet sees cropping, vineyards and other industries move south.
    ‘The globe is getting warmer and inexorably our agricultural systems are going to have to adapt to higher temperatures and, in some cases, less rainfall.’
    ‘Farmers need to be aware of how the climate is changing. They need to think about how they adapt as they go forward.’
    He says the evidence suggests the climate will not return to temperatures experienced 30 years ago…
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bushtelegraph/climate-report/5092094

    00

  • #
    pat

    Mark Scott should be the first to go:

    25 Nov: Australian: Sid Maher: ABC facing regional backlash
    THE ABC faces a backlash from rural MPs angry that the broadcaster has sacrificed regional operations in favour of pursuing a digital strategy and centralised television production in Sydney and Melbourne.
    MPs vowed to make direct protests to the ABC board, and independent Nick Xenophon called for a Senate inquiry after its managing director, Mark Scott, yesterday announced up to 400 redundancies, the axing of Radio National’s popular Bush Telegraph program, cuts to Newcastle radio staff and the closure of five regional sites…
    NSW Stateline host Quentin Dempster said the cuts confirmed the ABC was “Sydney-centric” but he blamed the government.
    “We’re meant to be getting more localism out of the digital revolution, not less,” Dempster told Radio National…
    The ABC annual report reveals that more than 72 per cent of the broadcaster’s 4600-plus staff are already concentrated in NSW, the ACT and Victoria. More than half are in NSW alone…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/broadcast/abc-facing-regional-backlash/story-fna045gd-1227133620317

    00

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    69% of Australians “don’t believe”

    So isn’t it time the Coalition to grow some and call the quasi-religion out? The loud people who want the Coalition to be Labor Lite, will be voting Labor/Greens.

    00

  • #
    Nathan

    mmm… the US Poll links are dead already? A little political persuasion perhaps?

    00

  • #
    Craig Thomas

    Oh well, never mind, at least a majority of Australians are now voting against climate-denying coal-subsidising right-wing fruitloops.

    Can’t wait for 2016 when we get some adults back in charge – adults capable of getting a workable budget through.

    01

    • #
      the Griss

      Oh.. so you think the Liberals ill win both houses in 2016. :-)

      Sure as heck you can’t be referring to the ALP, they have NEVER produced a workable budget in the history of Australian politics.

      And yes, the ALP and the Greens ARE climate-denying fruitloops.
      They actually think the climate doesn’t change naturally !.. How loopy is that , hey !!!!

      And please, that old coal-subsidising brain-fart of yours…
      Go and learn something about the taxation system, goose-brain !!
      [Griss, Less of the adhominem please - I don't want to have to sin-bin you again -Fly]

      10

    • #
      the Griss

      And seriously??

      If you are referring to the Victorian election,

      The Victorian Liberals were not “climate-denying”, nor “coal subsidising”, NOR “Right-Wing”.

      So your blathering rant is, as usual, totally meaningless.

      10

    • #

      Craig: What is “climate denying”? I don’t know of anyone who denies there’s a climate. Is this unique to Australia? How odd.

      00

  • #

    [...] Nine poll shows 69% of Australians “don’t believe” in man-made global warming [...]

    00

  • #

    [...] Nine poll shows 69% of Australians “don’t believe” in man-made global warming [...]

    00