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

Grow a spine! The sudden raging popularity of those who stand up to the Offendotrons

There’s a message here to politicians from marketers: Grow a spine, stand up for something sensible

Martin Daubney on Breitbart describes a new form of internet-era marketing. Companies that put out provocative ads predictably get attacked by the holier-than-thou. But if they stand up to the thought police, they suddenly find themselves in the middle of a social media war and at the winning end. Because they didn’t cave in to the PC, they get thousands of passionate defenders online, lots of new customers, loads of free PR, and the “wave” breaches the social media world and spills into the mainstream.

For example, Protein World got attacked for an ad with women in bikini’s. They didn’t pull the ad under the condemnation from the usual quarters; instead they baited the “Offendotrons” with a parody twitter pic of a beached whale “Are you Feminist Body Ready?”. In response to the furore, Protein World has “added 20,000 customers and driven revenue in excess of £1 million – in the last four days alone.”

Likewise, BarberBarber, which does men’s haircuts, banned women from its premises. It got death threats, but sales are booming, there are queues to use it, and new branches are opening. It’s not just “controversy sells” but about calling the bluff and standing up for something. In the BarberBarber case, the offensive insult is not that women aren’t welcome at a place that trims beards, but that people think women are so insecure that we might be offended by a banal common-sense rule. Who is vulnerable and precious? Most women want to cheer – Not me!

Daubney doesn’t say it, but there’s a message here for politicians, especially polite conservative ones who so frequently cave in to the namecalling bullies. The public are sick of being told what to think, treated like babies, and being called sexist, or racist, homophobic, polluting “deniers”, ignorant, stupid, immoral, etc.. There is a wellspring of passionate support waiting to be tapped for any politician willing to turn the tables back on the name-callers. But it is, of course, a high risk game, and those playing it need to get their house in order before they play. If they are at all sexist, racist, or homophobic etc, it will blow up in their face, and in a terminal way.

No wonder voters are cynical to the end

Politicans fail both sides of the spectrum. Left leaning politicians stand for something (though often the wrong thing on “science”), the left-leaning media whips them into messiahs, then they predictably fail to deliver. (Think Obama, think Rudd.) Right leaning politicians stand weakly for the same things, and pander to the outrage-crowd in an effort to avoid the flak. They aim for what they think is the “middle-ground” only to find they are still called misogynistic deniers (even if their deputy and chief of staff are both women and they spend billions to reduce “carbon”).

The big-lie under the outrage crowd, or Offendotrons as Daubney brilliantly daubs them, is that they pretend they represent “most people”  but often they’re just the loudest five or ten percent of the population. (Look out, the noisy fringe yells  “extremist” — it’s projection, projection, all the way down.) Conservative politicians who pander to this earn no votes from those-who-shout, but lose passionate support and feet on the ground from the 50% of the population who’ve had enough. And the national conversation swirls a sinkhole of nothingness while real issues beg to be noticed.

Tony Abbott stood for something when he made a blood oath to get rid of the carbon tax, but when he panders to the vested interests in the RET (Renewable Energy Target), gives money to UN Green Funds, or gives in on free speech with Section 18C, he burns off the once fired up defenders. Appeasement has a price.

For seekers of easy offendotron-targets the flak is the clue, advertising where the best targets are. Occasionally armouring up, and judiciously heading right into the flak, would be a welcome change from being driven around the paddock like a herd of sheep by a veneer of flak-spewing offendotrons on social media.

Bullying is brittle, it depends on an audacious bluff, but cracks up under pressure

Where is the politician who will brave up to the Emperors with No Clothes — the little-dictators who pretend that air-conditioners control the global climate, or that windfarms can stop storms? Close relatives of offendotrons cloak themselves in “science” but don’t even know what science is. They chant consensus, but consensus is the antithesis of science. They don’t want replication, public data, or public debate, they’re anti-science but toss that term at anyone who disagrees with them. They use “tricks to hide declines” and pretend that’s scientific. They claim one thermometer can measure 200,000 cubic kilometers of water to a hundredth of a degree and never ever protest when thermometers are placed next to hot tarmac, industrial machinery, or above asphalt in car parks. Breathlessly they swear we must reduce “carbon”, but they ignore the cheapest, best solutions for doing just that, and choose instead the expensive, wasteful options that reward their friends and punish their enemies. They fake-out that they want to help the poor, then deny them cheap energy. Their leaders buy waterfront properties and clock up huge flight miles, while telling us how evil air travel is and how rising seas endanger us all. Then, to top it all off, they accuse the volunteers who protest their bogus “science” as cynically in it only for the money.

Making the Trolls Pay: How One UK Company Made £1 Million in Four Days from Furious Social Justice Warriors

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.7/10 (142 votes cast)
Grow a spine! The sudden raging popularity of those who stand up to the Offendotrons, 9.7 out of 10 based on 142 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/n7splbr

183 comments to Grow a spine! The sudden raging popularity of those who stand up to the Offendotrons

  • #
    PeterPetrum

    Powerful stuff, Jo. If only ……… !

    361

    • #
      Manfred

      PP, absolutely.
      Paradoxically though, I think Jo may be being a mite too polite.

      There is a growing weariness of being subjected to faux self-righteous tirades associated with offendobot behaviour itself, bullying, vulgar and irrational. Thankfully there are those that push back here and elsewhere. Once again we see the de-cerebrate MSM playing a pivotal role in promoting societal uselessness.

      One possible answer — the cultivation of the art (and science) associated with:
      Beware of being right

      The curse of our times is that so many people have developed the habit of seeking to feel temporarily more powerful when they feel devalued….They grow alienated from their more humane values, which makes them feel progressively less valuable. To compensate, they inflate their egos to fragile proportions, which seem to need more and more power as defense.

      50

      • #
        Ceetee

        I have met a few Offendotrons in my time. If you prod them gently and sensitively you seem to find that they have osmotically absorbed ideas from perceived wisdom that dovetails into every prejudice they ever held. They can’t give an acceptable reasonable and rational explanation and seem to resort to emotive outbursts in their defence. To be offended is divine. Offendedness is a currency. They can stick it.

        40

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          I do believe you’d be correct. There’s obviously some psychological defensiveness masking insecurity. We all have that to a degree. Somehow either, righteousness or “inside information” (for want of a better word) creates a need for them to stand up for what they believe, even though what they believe is shallow. As soon as someone points out their shallow thinking they become defensive. lewandowski for example.

          There is another side to this coin too. Those who encourage righteous outrage in others. Obama for example.

          20

          • #
            Ceetee

            They do that because they know its easy to do. It’s so much easier to manipulate the psyche of the many than it is to critically examine the veracity of their own beliefs. Obama is a master at it. He’ll walk away smug and satisfied because his mind was made up long before he even considered the possibility he may be wrong. He is “Autocue Man”, Every speech he makes is a bit vacuous when you carefully consider it. Shame really.

            20

    • #
      Manfred

      A recent post of mine appears to have been moderated out of existence? Should one launch the offendotrons?

      40

  • #
    Bulldust

    I think it is also partly the fact that many progressives are slackivists – see recent thread on ABC:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-01/wilkinson-slacktivism-and-the-hash-reality/6436410

    Obviously Big Green has a heck of a lot more dollars pushing it, but ultimately many of the would be supporters aren’t interested in more than a casual tweet. Maybe the new term for apathy should be:

    Couldn’t give a tweet!

    410

    • #
      James Murphy

      I’m sorry AZ and Jo, I’ll tone it down. Given the context and spirit of this site, I chose poor/off-topic examples and a potentially inflammatory way of expressing them. I will do my utmost to stay reasonable in future.

      [Don't be discouraged James! Lively debate is essential. ] ED

      60

  • #
    Eddie

    Marvellous. It must be so satisfying seeing all that faux outrage turned to phoductive use. Now if only we could harness it to generate electrical power, everyone but the Greenies would be celebrating.

    261

    • #
      Yonniestone

      As John Lydon wrote “Anger is an energy.”

      This new marketing could be just the ticket for CAGW skeptical revenue raising, there’s a lot of angry deniers out there. ;)

      190

  • #
    bemused

    While these ‘perpetually offended’ appear to reflect increasing numbers, mainly because the MSM give them far more credence than they deserve, they are in fact a very small minority of the general public (in numbers as well as agreed views). If push came to shove ie, put your money where your mouth is, the majority would fade away into the shadows.

    310

  • #
    tom0mason

    So Jo, do a deal with the ad company and a coal supplier,
    and your ad is -????

    ‘Are you Green friendly, and winter ready?
    Order your coal today.
    .
    Coal helping keep the world green.

    560

  • #
    TdeF

    Not so sure. The middle ground is really the most successful, politically. There are many things Abbott could take head on, in a Campbell Newman way and suffer the same fate. From Hawke to Howard, the Middle Ground was the most successful. When even 5% in the middle swing away from you, the difference is 10% and a lost election, which is what has empowered the Greens who are actually fighting Labor. Tony is as strong as he needs to be, no more.

    The fact is that the RET, ABC, BOM, Section 18C can wait, will have to wait until the next term, as can the totally obstructionist Senate, leaving the Labor party to bang on about Gay Marriage, as if anyone really cares. The gay vote like the muslim vote is about 2%, except in some dedicated Labor/Green electorates. The real difference between the parties is that 50+ Liberal/NP seats were elected on first preference and only 8 Labor/Green seats, so Labor is chases every crazy idea, as in the mad dumping of the new freeway link in Melbourne, a fully funded tunnel under a cemetery and a park, reducing traffic times from 20 minutes to 5 and taking 40,000 cars and trucks a day off inner local streets in a Green electorate? I suppose the residents complained? Now it will cost $1Bn not to build the road. Clever? No.

    Abbott is trying not to hand back power at the next election. No boat people, none. No carbon tax, a balanced approach to our huge neighbour rather than tapping the phone of the wife of the President. Exposing the ABC as overpaid, utterly biased political activists and letting them fire their own staff and close production sites wholesale because of a tiny 5% economy. Even the absurd Human Rights Commission is the subject of widespread ridicule and questions.

    However there is only so much you can do when you cannot pass laws and the media hate you. For example, fantasy aboriginal dishonourably discharged Senator Jacqui Lambie simply refuses to pass laws without even reading them. There is a limit to what you can do with this lot in Senate seats. As Paul Keating called them, “unrepresentative swill”.

    In fact, if Abbott is to make it past the IPCC Paris disaster in December with the opposition he has in the media and the worldwide carbon cartel after him, he needs to keep his head low. He is even vilified for a wink. The media are even now trying to push Julie Bishop into the seat, having failed with Malcolm Turnbull. As a BEc, LLB, Rhodes Scholar and Master of Politics from Oxford, you can expect Tony to find the middle road in politics.

    Playing bull at a gate plays into their hands if the media are all against you. Softly, softly works and clearly frustrates, forcing missteps. Expect more rabid and frequent pronouncements from the International Carbon Lobby about how Tony has to go, for all their sakes. The Prime Minister of Canada is also a target.

    302

    • #

      Not so sure. The middle ground is really the most successful, politically.”

      So true, but sensible environmental policies are the middle ground.

      Poll after poll shows that people care about the environment, but don’t want to spend much money on it. It’s low on the list of priorities. The offendotrons want everyone to think that anything less that 100% submission to the carbon market is “extreme” and right wing. It’s part of the marketing plan. We should never buy into it.

      We are the sensible centre.

      252

      • #
        TdeF

        Perhaps we read it differently. I read it as suicidal advice for the Abbott government on many issues, including carbon and climate.

        “Tony Abbott stood for something when he made a blood oath to get rid of the carbon tax, but when he panders to the vested interests in the RET (Renewable Energy Target), gives money to UN Green Funds, or gives in on free speech with Section 18C, he burns off the once fired up defenders. Appeasement has a price.”

        I read that as a suggestion Tony should go in hard and be an extremist too, as they get new respect. That would be fatal.

        The logic seems a little shallow too. Take the Green fund money. People did not read the terms carefully. This was a highly restricted repackaging under strict Australian control of what was already happening under our foreign aid program made to look like Green money. It just looked like a appeasement but was politically clever. Similarly with 18C. Andrew Bolt has to wait until the Senate is reasonable. To attempt to change the law now with a hostile senate could not succeed and would be a gift to the opposition, on own goal. The rule is do not fight what you cannot win.

        Frankly if Palmer did not own $6Million personally, the Carbon Tax would still be there and today, Lambie would not agree to remove it. In opposition, Labor is doing what the Liberals did not do, blocking every bill and saving, even the ones they proposed in government. As Lord Monckton warns, the UN will use their power and money to try to unseat Tony Abbott and the Canadian PM before November. The Peter Doherty statement was just the start.

        142

        • #
          TdeF

          Sorry, owe $6Million. All from his $1 Nickel mine.

          90

        • #

          I’m not suggesting he go “extremist” at all. I’m saying he is going to score flak anyway, and be called names for anything less than 100% submission, so he might as well take a stronger position, and give his supporters something more to support.

          The Coalition needs to “go-meta” in this debate, not feed the monster. They must expose the namecalling for what it is, point out the hypocrisy of Greens who don’t choose the best options to reduce CO2, and don’t know what science is.

          It’s not enough for the Coalition to be semi-green, they can out-green the greens, and indeed Direct Action has done just that. I agree that if you “have” to try to reduce CO2, the Coalition option is the least cost, least harmful approach.

          Abbotts line should be that the Coalition is so concerned about the climate that only the absolute best science will do, which is why they are setting up 5 new Institutes staffed with statisticians, engineers, maths and physics experts to figure out why climate models are so dismally useless. The Coalition won’t settle for hidden and lost data, or tricks to hide declines. Australia can lead the world in science, and both sides need funding. If the evidence is so strong why are the Green-Labor party so scared of investigating it?

          Few voters will change votes because of the environment. It’s too low on their priority list. But voters respect someone who stands their grand. The middle road argument stands for economic, employment, and welfare decisions, not for the “Green” issue. If climate change is an election issue, the coalition has a big advantage. The obvious choice in most countries (eg US) is to say little during the election, then — when voters have no choice — make the climate the “legacy” issue.

          And true, the opposition may be blocking everything, but the Coalition needs to make them pay for that — they are the “second” government — the other half of our parliament. So if our AAA rating falls, if we can’t reach a surplus, it’s a Labor deficit, if jobs have to be cut in science, it’s the fault of the ALP who spent too much during the boom.

          As Andrew Bolt says: “Australia effectively has two governments. One is Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s, which dominates in our House of Representatives and so gets to do the official governing. The other is actually Labor leader Bill Shorten’s, which rules in the Senate.”

          Shorten is not making decisions as though he is responsible for the economic health of Australia.

          151

          • #
            TdeF

            Understood and agree in principle. The core problems are funding and staying in government. There is an election in 18 months and he is behind in the polls.

            The cupboard is very bare and as you point out, thanks to Bill Shorten, the elected representative Government cannot pass or even repeal laws, its basic function. Then you get the huge opposition, sadly all public service.

            The largest bodies of appropriate Australian scientists supposedly in this field are in the public service CSIRO and BOM with their Climate Departments. There is an annual cost of $1.5Bn between them. They, like the ABC, are supposed to be independent and apolitical but they each have public positions which are all Global Warming, Climate Change and upgrading of Cyclones and unexplained editing of data, no matter what you call it. Public servants by their nature work in group think and that is solidly Green, Union dictated, Global Warming. Union membership in the public service is still 42% against 12% in general.

            Then you have to add the many University Climate Change departments with more every year. Is there a department which does not have a money hungry Climate Change group? Psychology, psychiatry, commerce, Statistics, Chemistry, Social studies,zoology, biology, botany,..? They even have the medical profession on board. The Green gravy train extends to every University and every council.

            Tony could declare war on all these people, but that would not be clever.

            Like the ABC, it is worth considering whether we should sell and outsource the roles of the BOM and CSIRO. Their relevance in the 21st century is debatable and despite the absurd claim that Australia invented Bluetooth, we have little to show for 100 years of public service research and nothing from fifty years of cloud seeding and automatic sheep shearing.

            Labor has also stacked management with political activists and we all know about activist Green Councils and Agenda 21. I am sure it was a requirement for years that Australia’s Chief Scientist was an extreme warmist, as is very much the case with Penny Sackett and then Ian Chubb although Ian has ducked direct confrontation and is cleverly vague in his public statements.

            However look at the situation when Australia is already paying billions for good independent advice from tenured Government climate scientists and more from hopelessly politicised Universities.

            In fact if it were not for overseas satellite data and scientists, we would be seeing a joint scare campaign to rival the Spanish Inquisition! Activists are even demanding laws to prosecute ‘deniers’.

            The best friends we have are the facts and the satellites and excellent blogs like yours. For myself, I have tried using straight physics to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is no problem, but most do not understand and none of the usual suspects are listening. Like a pandemic, this insanity will have to run its course.

            I have to say I like what really useful things Tony is doing at low cost and at the same time to kill the possibility of a carbon tax return. If he holds onto power, the institutions will slowly adapt and change. Rapid change is not only impossible, it is electoral suicide. With the collapse of the wasted mining boom, the funding situation will be worse. Is there a world market for Pink Batts and old School Halls and multiple brand new unused desalination plants?

            70

      • #
        TdeF

        Also in a way, the Abbott’s Direct Action plan is quite cunning practically and politically.

        Reforestation not only pleases the Greens, it is something which captures water by preventing runoff, reduces salination and actually can change local climate. Basically it is costly but pleases a lot of people and is worth doing anyway at a National level. Whether this has anything to do with Global non warming is irrelevant. That is the cunning bit.

        I am sure a lot of the schemes are worthwhile in their own right and finally a recognition that huge Australia technically can add and subtract CO2 from the environment with its vegetation. The recovery from the drought must have stored billions of tons of CO2 in recovered vegetation. Sweden includes its biomass in its CO2 nett calculations and Direct Action uses this concept. Dams and irrigation and farming also contribute to biomass capture and so you can use the Green vote to get the job done and please both sides of politics, while building the infrastructure farmers need to grow food.

        One of the damning ideas from the inner city Greens is that farmers do not care for the land. In my experience, they care very much personally and also because it is their lives and livelihood, not just a weekend postcard. The other convenient fantasy is that aborigines cared for the land. The evidence is much the other way. All the megafauna died precisely 50,000 years ago and the rainfall halved at the same time. Consider that we might restore our rainfall with Direct Action and planting. It is clearly possible. Greens are just about stopping everything, from roads to food to clean power. Direct Action appears to be about caring for the land.

        160

      • #
        Bill

        If they really gave a fig about the “environment” instead of telling everyone else how to live, they’d target real pollution not a trace gas that all life on earth depends on.

        20

  • #
    Ted O'Brien.

    There are many people who fear their own ignorance, and don’t want the responsibility of making their own decisions. They would rather follow the bloke they think is in front.

    For over 30 years or more I have watched as conservative politicians tried to not offend anybody. While left wingers in parliament, the unions and the media ran the country.

    For a leader the people want somebody who looks like a leader, not a learner. Somebody who can speak plainly, not waffle around the issue.

    380

    • #
      PeterPetrum

      Someone like Scott Morisson? He takes no prisoners, speaks fluently and knows exactly where he is going is a debate or interview. He is a pleasure to watch when interviewed by Leigh Sales; I just love that half smile that he has when listening to her question – he knows exactly how he is going to deal with her before she is halfway through. Go Scott!

      420

      • #
        el gordo

        Not sure about Scott Morrison on climate change, bit of a dark horse. Anyway we can’t seriously expect a change of leadership before the next election.

        There are good people in the Coalition, like Dennis Jensen and Bob Baldwin, parliamentary secretary to Greg Hunt.

        Baldwin compared ‘the impact of Australia’s man-made greenhouse gas emissions to that of a single strand of human hair on a 1km bridge.’

        220

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Perhaps calling their attention to

      Swiss Weekly Calls Temperature Rise A “Propaganda Trick” (Not A Trend) …”We Are Making A Warming”! – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.eZet0BAg.dpuf

      Even better if we could get it into The Australian.

      50

    • #
      kneel

      “For a leader the people want somebody who looks like a leader, not a learner.”

      Couldn’t disagree more.

      What people want is someone who states clearly what they stand for and actually does stand for it. Period.

      Think Mayor of London – everyone told him he would look weak, lose votes etc because he said things like “Well, the experts all advised us to go down this path, but none of the promised results have appeared. I’m sorry about that, and we will now un-do what we did that clearly isn’t working and try another approach.” What happened? He gets MORE votes! Why? Because when the choice is between stupid and honest vs clever and dishonest, people pick stupid and honest!

      For me, I know it’s complicated and I know there’s no easy solutions – otherwise it wouldn’t be a problem, would it? I might not agree with the way you do it, but if it delivers as promised, there is little more I can ask. When it fails, and you say “We didn’t go far enough”, go further and make things even worse and STILL refuse to acknowledge you were wrong, THAT’S when you look like a weak, spineless drone controlled by hidden vested interests, and lose my vote.

      And from the head post, I’m not alone. State your convictions and don’t back down – people respect that and even if they aren’t 100% in agreement, they’ll support you and defend you from the red vs blue morons who think they MUST be right, those who disagree are evil and no-one should EVER be offended.

      60

  • #
    john karajas

    Coal seam methane is good for the country and good for you.

    Producing shale oil and shale gas by fraccing is good for regional Australia, will generate meaningful jobs for indigenous Australians and will be more environmentally friendly than wind power or biofuels.

    342

    • #
      el gordo

      As long as its not done on good agricultural land or close to water sources.

      60

      • #
        john karajas

        Granted, there do need to be some checks and balances and, yes, greed and/or senseless stupidity can lead to unsavoury outcomes if there are no checks and balances. I have come across some “rock apes” in my time in the resources industries. What really gets up my nose, however, is how some recent arrivals in Broome, say, start agitating for a total ban on oil exploration in the Kimberley when the region has been an oil exploration province long before their arrival. For instance there was an acid frac job done on the Yulleroo #1 well back in 1961 without any deleterious effect on the surrounding environment whatsoever.

        40

      • #

        Fracing for oil and gas occurs exclusively well below any water table and aquifers. Not to be confused with coal seam gasification!

        There’s an impermeable layer (typically clay) between the oil/gas and the water that prevents the oil and gas seeing to the surface via the water. The fraccing process pierces the impermeable layer in one location and the hole is lined to be gas-impermeable; not just to protect the environment but to maximise the amount of gas to be recovered. Modern “horizontal” drilling allows for the one hole through the impremeable layer to be spread out over a wide area using multiple bores branching out.

        Fracturing the e.g. shale containing the oil and gas is done with water and sand mix with a surfactant similar to dishwashing detergent so that the water penetrates the crevices more easily while pressure is applied to fracture the rock. The sand lodges in the crevices and keeps the crasks open.

        Once fractured, the well produces gas and oil “unaided” for quite some time. The only “permanent” surface vestige is that of the pipe head which connects to an underground pipeline connecting multiple wells. Such wells are no longer closely spaced due to horizontal drilling.

        There is insignificant risk to agriculture and ground water from fraccing.

        80

  • #
    pat

    o/t but another example of what CAGW sceptics are up against:

    1 May: Local, Netherlands: RCMP: Dutch arctic explorers likely drowned
    by Janene Van Jaarsveldt
    The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has confirmed that both Marc Cornelissen and Philip de Roo are presumed drowned. A recovery operation is underway to find the bodies of the two arctic explorers, Canadian newspaper CBC news reports…
    In a voice recording that Marc posted on line on Tuesday he said: “Today was a good day.” He described the weather as being too warm. “We think we see thin ice in front of us, which is quite interesting.” he said. “And we’re going to research some more of that if we can.”
    The likely death of the two experienced polar explorers is extremely cynical, especially since Marc has been warning of the effects of global warming and the ever faster melting North Pole for years. “And so we get more extreme weather, more floods, an unpredictable climate. The earth will not perish, but we make it increasingly difficult to live here”, he said. Ans now he himself is likely the victim of melting ice.
    Wilco van Rooijen, contact person and a good friend of the the two friends, believes that the most likely scenario is that they fell through the ice. “The most likely is that one of the two fell through the ice. The other then turned to help, but went through the ice himself.” he said to the AD. He spoke to Marc the day before they disappeared. “He was worried about the situation in Nepal. But he also told me that the weather was too hot. Therefore the conditions were bad. That ice is is unreliable, they know. But this year was extremely bad. There was a lot of open water.”
    http://www.nltimes.nl/2015/05/01/rcmp-dutch-arctic-explorers-likely-drowned/

    30 April: CBC: Dutch skiers presumed drowned in High Arctic, say Nunavut RCMP
    Marc Cornelissen, Philip de Roo were on 2-month scientific study of Arctic ice
    The two men left Resolute on skis April 6 for the Last Ice Survey.
    In a news release, the Dutch support team says that on Wednesday morning, the base camp received an automated message for an urgent pickup. A pickup operation was started immediately with a local aircraft, but the pilot could not land because of thin ice…
    COMMENT: by Akimajuktuq: I’m sorry for whatever has happened to these people. What I don’t understand is why they didn’t have a local with them on any and every outing. Maybe it wouldn’t have mattered, but having knowledgeable local along that is familiar with the area is a best practice.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/dutch-skiers-presumed-drowned-in-high-arctic-say-nunavut-rcmp-1.3055646

    121

  • #
    pat

    1 May: Guardian: Damian Carrington: Vote who, go green? Parties diverge on how to save the planet
    As the row over the green levies added to energy bills was building towards its climax a couple of years ago – with David Cameron reportedly ordering aides to “get rid of all the green crap” to lower prices – social scientist Nick Pidgeon was touring the UK.
    From Merthyr Tydfil to Glasgow and from London to Cumbria, Pidgeon’s workshops with members of the public wrestled with solving the triple challenge of keeping the lights on, energy bills affordable and global warming under control. To Pidgeon’s surprise, people attending the workshops overwhelmingly backed a transformation based on renewable energy, energy efficiency and cutting fossil fuel use.
    “They said why on earth are we not doing this already?” said Pidgeon, a professor of environmental psychology at Cardiff University, who also tested nationwide opinions via polling.
    ***“When the complex problems were explained, people had a vision of the future that was clearly more ambitious than any of the political parties. They believed that fossil fuels were old-fashioned and finite and had all these other [pollution and security] problems associated with them. They felt there is no future for their kids if we are stuck with fossil fuels.”…
    The 2013 “green crap” row, which resulted in £50 being knocked off bills, commanded the political spotlight for a while, having been electrified by Ed Miliband’s popular pledge to freeze energy bills. But it was a “phoney war”, according to Matthew Spencer, director of the influential Green Alliance thinktank, as the levies set to be added to future bills to drive the green transformation remain firmly on an upward curve and are expected to more than double to £187 a year by 2020 (though the overall bill may fall if energy efficiency measures bite)….
    In the UK, the environment lags behind the perennial big hitters of the NHS, economy and immigration in issue tracking polls by Ipsos Mori and YouGov. However, it ranks alongside tax, the EU and crime and, although the three main parties have jointly pledged to tackle climate change to protect the UK’s national and economic security, the party manifestos have less in common in 2015 than in 2010.
    The starkest change has been in the Conservative position. In 2006, the high point of environmental concerns in recent decades, Cameron went to the Arctic and hugged a husky…
    But within 18 months of the election, the green drive was dead, with George Osborne saying: “We’re not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business.” The energy minister, Greg Barker, was forced to argue at the time that the party was acting green, if no longer talking green: “We are all trousers and no mouth.”
    But by their final party conference, Tory ministers had nothing new to say about the environment or energy at all. The 2015 manifesto has only one significant new energy policy: a ban on new subsidies for onshore wind farms and a veto for local communities…
    “I suspect [the wind farm policy] is targeted at local constituencies where there is a particular local issue,” said Anthony Wells at YouGov, as the overwhelming majority of the UK public supports wind farms.(???)…
    Labour argues that coalition rows have undermined the huge investment needed to transform the energy system…
    Also offering a distinctive manifesto is Ukip, which dismisses the notion of man-made climate change and wants to “rejuvenate the coal industry”. However, fewer than 10% of the UK public thinks global warming is not happening or is entirely natural. Yet, even the relatively low level of climate scepticism in the UK is higher than in most of the world and higher than a decade ago…
    As expected, climate change is at the centre of all Green policies, with proposals for a rapid transition to a zero-carbon, sustainable economy…
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/01/vote-who-go-green-parties-diverge-on-how-to-save-the-planet

    ***Nick Pidgeon’s Workshops – 12 people per workshop, split into 2 groups of 5-6, then indoctrinated!

    Transforming the UK Energy System: Public Values, Attitudes and Acceptability – Deliberating Energy System Transitions in the UK
    OPEN DOCUMENT – .PDF 72 PAGES
    This Research Report summarises the findings of a series of deliberative workshops with members of the British public carried out between June and October 2011 as part of an interdisciplinary UKERC research project: Transforming the UK energy system – Public Values, Attitudes and Acceptability.
    http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/publications/transforming-the-uk-energy-system-public-values-attitudes-and-acceptability-deliberating-energy-system-transitions-in-the-uk.html

    91

  • #
    pat

    1 May: Guardian: Extreme weather and rising seas are already global threats. This will only intensify
    World leaders will meet in Paris this year to try to reach a deal to cut carbon emissions. Failure could be catastrophic. We explore the facts, myths and opinions around global warming, starting with an expert view and a survey of the British public by Opinium/the Observer.
    by Nicholas Stern, with graphics by Pete Guest
    You may not realise it from the UK general election campaign, but this is a crucial year for the global battle against climate change…
    Last year was the warmest on record globally, with 13 of the 14 hottest years now having occurred since 2000. And the period between January and March 2015 has been hotter than any other year.
    In the UK, 2014 was our warmest year, with the eight warmest years all having taken place since the start of the new millennium. Because a warmer atmosphere can hold more water, we are also experiencing heavier rainfall. The winter of 2013-14, during which there was devastating flooding in many parts of the country, was the wettest we have ever seen…
    The Tech Monthly Climate Change Survey
    Thinking about the upcoming General Election, what would you say are the three most important issues facing Britain
    (THE ENVIRONMENT COMES IN DEAD LAST OF 12 CHOICES, WITH 5%)
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/01/climate-change-nicholas-stern-paris-summit-global-warming

    132

    • #
      James Bradley

      Pat,

      The point I got from that was:

      “Because a warmer atmosphere can hold more water, we are also experiencing heavier rainfall.”

      How they change the meme when it suits a purpose.

      The fear of drought didn’t do it.

      Now it’s fear of floods.

      91

    • #
      Carbon500

      Pat: You and other readers might like this letter I sent to the Guardian last year after the much publicised floods in the UK.
      They didn’t print it, of course!

      “Here we are in the midst of a typical British winter, and a golden opportunity for another doomsday article on the supposed man-made global warming (Nicholas Stern, The Guardian, 14th Feb).
      There are too many exagerrations and vague suppositions to comment on in a letter, so I would like to focus on two. Since it’s atmospheric temperature that’s the crux of all the panic, I suggest that readers obtain on-line a copy of the Central England Temperature Record (CET) from the Met Office. In recent years, there has been a cluster of readings slightly over 10⁰ C. Note that such temperature levels are not unusual, and are seen in the record as far back as the 1700s. The year’s average for 2013 was 9.56⁰C, a typical value seen in the record, which stretches back to 1659.
      Where, then, is the dangerous warming apparent in this data set?
      You refer in your editorial to the failure of average global temperatures to rise in the past 15 years. What you don’t mention is that carbon dioxide levels have risen by nearly 10% in that time, from 365ppm in 1999 to the current 400. Not looking good for the idea of man-made global warming, is it?
      Floods are nothing new in the UK. For example, in 1912 (Norwich) 1917 (Somerset) 1920 (Lincolnshire) 1929 (Wales) 1931 (Boston) 1932 (Yorkshire and Nottingham) and 1939 the Fens. There are others – in 1942, the Lynmouth disaster in 1952, then floods in other regions 1960, 1968, 1976, 1987, 1995 and more.
      Stern’s generalisations about ‘four of the wettest years recorded in the UK have occurred from the perod 2000 onwards’ give a misleading impression. Presumably he is referring to the average UK rainfall figures, available from the Met Office. It must be noted that firstly, high average rainfall doesn’t automatically mean flooding anywhere in the UK, as can be seen on inspection of the figures compared with the flood years listed above.
      Secondly, taking an annual rainfall of 1200mm as high, inspection of the data shows that such values while uncommon are not unprecedented, and are seen on thirteen occasions over the decades since 1910. Values of over 1300mm are seen in 1954, 2000, and 2012.
      We have now reached the ridiculous situation where typical foul weather is referred to as ‘extreme’, and an ‘impact of climate change’.
      A close look at historical data and records that little has in fact changed.

      151

  • #
    Just-A-Guy

    Wow, Jo!

    I haven’t even got to the the middle of the article, and already I’m amazed at how spot on it is.

    Trully ‘ballsy’! Very welcome! Egg on your face, anyone?

    Abe

    160

  • #
    sophocles

    The only way to deal with any bully is to stand up to them. Even blog trolls.

    210

    • #
      • #
        Glen Michel

        Lots of jazz waves going down big time.Wish I could be there as a genuine outlier.

        10

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Growing up in a large school many years ago, I discovered that bullies are are simply insecure people. They bully others around to make themselves feel justified in whatever offense they feel has slighted them.

      Somewhere along my path of life I heard the way to beat a bully wasn’t to match their rage, but to exceed it. Go beyond what they think is acceptable rage, a take no prisoners approach, kill or be killed. I found they backed down 100% of the time. They themselves never want to get hurt, they just want you do accept their thinking.

      My experience; yours may vary.

      20

  • #
    JLC

    The PC brigade have been going too far for a long time now. At last, at long last, ordinary people have had enough and are beginning to stand up to them. It’s great to see. Long may it continue.

    161

  • #
    pat

    1 May: 9News: AAP: Brisbane to host World Science Festival
    Brisbane will next year host a world-class science festival, but instead of famous scientists, a former M*A*S*H star is being spruiked as the biggest drawcard.
    Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk announced on Friday the Queensland Museum would host the World Science Festival from March 9 next year, becoming the first city outside of New York to do so…
    But the only person confirmed so far for the event is actor Alan Alda, who played Hawkeye Pierce in M*A*S*H and serves on the festival’s board.
    “There will be some other very big names for the worlds of science and arts coming to Brisbane,” Queensland Museum director Suzanne Miller said…
    Ms Palaszczuk said the government had contributed $650,000 to secure the rights for the festival for three years at the museum, with the option to extend for another three years…
    http://www.9news.com.au/technology/2015/05/01/11/03/brisbane-to-host-science-world-festival

    since it began in 2008, the Festival itself doesn’t seem to have been focused on CAGW, but i feel that will somehow change in Brisbane. why am i already imagining John Cook & Ove Hoegh-Guldberg as the faces of the Festival?

    more reasons to be concerned. from their homepage, Climate Change seems to be the only category available in Archive form, found under “Watch” at the top of the page. i’ve tried replacing “climate-change” in the url below with various other topics, but all have come up blank.

    World Science Festival: Climate Change Archives (5 pages of multiple links)
    Climate Change: The Science of our Warming World
    The debate is long over. We are seeing, living, and breathing climate change, and this section is about what happens next. A scientific understanding of new realities. A deep dive into solutions aimed at mitigating the worst effects. And a spotlight on the innovators working every day on this existential challenge to the planet as we know it…
    7 April: Friends Like These … Make You Care About Climate Change
    If your Facebook feed sometimes becomes dominated by a friend or two constantly posting about ways you can ease the polar bear’s plight or combat ever-rising carbon…[Read More]…
    (Sidebar when i copied this earlier) Hotter temperatures are expected to lead to flareups of violence, with some scientists predicting an increase in rates of war, murder, riots, and domestic violence as the climate warms…
    (top tweet when copied earlier today) @WhyToVoteGreen
    Well done Church of England for divesting from coal and tar-sands – time now to quit all fossil fuels …
    http://www.worldsciencefestival.com/category/climate-change/

    ["i’ve tried replacing “climate-change” in the url below with various other topics, but all have come up blank."

    I can't tell what URL you mean. Both links work and are newsworthy. This apparently was trapped because of one word and I'm approving it after reading it over.] AZ

    31

  • #
    ROM

    In my younger years the “offendotrons” were known as highly offensive nosy busybodies who were always intent on sticking their unwanted noses deep into other peoples business and particularly internal family affairs of every shade.
    They were often distant relatives about whom many a salacious and embarrassing, for those days, story could be told.

    They were and still are completely full of themselves, not much has changed there, with deep and ernest instructions based entirely on their own personal beliefs and personal hang-ups, to others on how they should be running their business or family affairs in that much smaller and more localised world of those days

    Generally they were eventually told often after some deeply offensive actions to “f*** off before you get snotted”; ie; push off before you get belted one.

    In our more basic down to earth world of those post depression, post WW2 years sometimes they were sometimes escorted out to behind the woodshed and suitably chastised for their impertinence ie ; belted good and hard for their trouble which usually sorted that problem out on a permanent basis for all of those directly involved.

    Of course those nosy busybodies of yesteryear did not have the electronic social media to enable them to organise as they do today but other than that, the offendotrons of today are just another version of an age old, totally hypocritical human trait of believing that they in their over weening self importance and complete arrogance are infinitely more knowledgeable, smarter and wiser and considerate and knowledgeable about other persons feelings than the ones they are attempting to force into their own personal belief of how that person or organisation should publicly act and behave.

    The other criteria that identifies the offendotrons is that what they so vehemently prescribe for others does not of course apply in any way to themselves.

    They assume that the transference of their own particular brand and version of Political Correctness onto others is their absolute right and duty regardless of the wishes and the situation and beliefs of the recipient and supposed PC offenders or of the feelings and attitudes of the supposedly offended parties.

    Of course the offendotrons are so personally wrapped up in their own utter self righteousness and political correctness that they can never perceive this as a blatant hypocrisy applying most directly to themselves.

    Seems like those accused PC lacking individuals, organisations and corporations are now well on the way towards finding a wood shed version of the social media to sort the offendotrons right out and are doing it in the full glare of the viewing public.

    190

  • #
    James Murphy

    Wilful misinterpretation of facts in order to feel outraged (and/or victimised) is yet another symptom of an inadequate education (and an inadequate education system), and a severe perspective deficit.

    There are many medical isotopes with longer half-lives than the latest Twitter/Facebook outrage campaign…the difference being that medical isotopes serve a useful purpose.

    110

    • #
      tom0mason

      Are you trying to say that we willfully misinterpret the facts in order to feel outraged.
      Willfully, is that what you’re saying?
      Where’s your evidence, eh?
      Willful — indeed! I’m outrage at the idea!

      New Sarcentist Magazine says -

      In fact 97% of us are outraged that *YOU* called us willful!
      It’s now official and proven — here is the very Guardian link to a study by Cookie Monster et al that proves denier someone willfully lied. Just like those that say smoking doesn’t kill.

      How would you know anyway, do you have a PhD in psychology, or sociology, or what?
      We now have a petition page on Government-pay-attention-to-our-outrage.org and when we get thousands of name we’ll change the law and criminalize you!
      How dare you, how very dare you! It’s an outrage … Call us willful, anyway…etc, etc.

      51

    • #

      @ James Mason: Am I to understand you are referring to Twitter/Facebook Isodopes? ;)

      100

  • #
    JB

    If you place a galah in an aviary of doves it is the galah that attracts attention even though it does not constitute a majority. So it is with the PC crowd, so much noise so little support.

    190

  • #
    James Strom

    Thanks for posting this, Jo. When it actually becomes profitable to resist political censorship (PC), the tide will have turned. We may be close.

    140

  • #

    Over the top wonderful!

    40

  • #
    Fang

    “Please Mame! May I have some more of that!”

    50

  • #
    doubtingdave

    JO you could have written this article to show the rise of the UKIP party here in Britain, a few years back they where seen as a tiny slightely bonkers fringe party then the ” OFFENDOTRONS” got wind of their anti euro and immigration policies and plastered their false outrage all over the msm,almost over night they became a force to reckon with.Ive personally no real interest in those issues but thanks to the “offendotrons” curiosity drove me to look at what ukip say in their manifesto on energy and climate and ive had a smile like a cheshire cat since so i know who im voting for in the upcoming election

    140

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Bravo, Joanne Nova!

    Bullying is brittle, it depends on an audacious bluff, but cracks up under pressure

    This is a lesson I had to learn the hard way back on the school playground many years ago. When I finally realized what I had to do and did it, it worked perfectly.

    Unfortunately, as you say, your position has to be rock solid. But there’s another consideration and that’s your power to defend yourself relative to the other guy’s power to harm you. It take a lot of courage for one man to stand up boldly against PC backed up by government force. The current situation in America is a case in point. I won’t drag this thread any farther into that mess but it can provide some food for thought. And I’ll say this, if enough people stand up it’s going to be another deal completely.

    In the meantime, more power to the plain old truth. More power to individual freedom. PC is mostly nonsense backed up by bullying.

    Re Tony Abbott — from clear across the Pacific his fear to go on forward in the direction he started is so obvious it’s like a searchlight shining on him. Whatever happens to courage that gets you started well and then peters out when the opposition comes on? What do you call that?

    70

    • #

      Roy—We may be at the point where doing nothing poses much more a threat. One may personally lose a business by standing up, but at the rate things are progressing, hundreds will lose businesses as the minorities use bullying and the government to punish anyone they don’t like and no one stands up. One stands a higher chance of losing everything right now by doing nothing—in the long term. If people can only look beyond tomorrow and see where this is heading, growing a spine will be seen as the only possible solution. Otherwise, get ready for the government to dictate every aspect of your life down to food eaten, child raising, what you read, etc.

      120

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Sheri,

        I understand completely. But remember, the American revolution was brewing for a long time before it became a critical enough matter for a core of leaders to form and start the formal rebellion against King George.

        And like you, I fear it may be too late to take back our country, at least not without a lot of pain. I fear for the world my grandson will have to live in. Or more accurately, I fear for him as he has to live in that world.

        80

      • #
        James Bradley

        C’mon you guys,

        America has a proud tradition of 3%ers since the revolution.

        Now more than ever they need to rise up against the 97% settled science.

        60

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          America has a proud tradition of 3%ers since the revolution.

          Now more than ever they need to rise up against the 97% settled science.

          James,

          Without a doubt, we were once such a nation. These days however, no. No way are we up to the challenge. But — and it’s still a big but — if things continue the way they’re going we may start back in the right direction. At least the present presumed Democrat nominee for president is working hard on self destruction. The failure of the left’s policies is becoming glaringly obvious. So if the conservatives can get their act together much might be accomplished.

          Most of us will only be able to support good candidates, wait and watch to see how it goes.

          Any way you stack it the road back, if there is one, will be long and hard.

          10

  • #
    Ursus Augustus

    “The Offendotrons” is good but I think “The Offensives” better as it works on so many levels and can support myriad variations.

    CAGW Offensives, Green-Left Offensives, Speech Offensives, Offensives Against Humanity, Regressive Offensives, Repressive Offensives, Intellectual Offensives, Offensive Intellectuals, etc

    71

  • #
    Tim

    “Appeasement has a price.”

    With the big climate change decisions, the LNP continues to sit on the fence – afraid to move decisively in any direction. They make gestures, but are unable or unwilling to make any real changes that might rock the boat with the globalists and their teams of [snip]. They are waiting for the voters to show them the numbers before they make a move. They need to counter all this ambivalence with some decisive action and grow some cojones.

    30

  • #
    Ted O'Brien.

    “Tony Abbott panders to the vested interests in the RET”?

    I thought that was Clive Palmer after his visit from Al Gore.

    However Tony Abbott never put Clive Palmer to the tests he should have by presenting legislation which CP opposed.

    50

  • #
    Ruairi

    To throw enough dirt that it sticks,
    Is how warmists employ dirty tricks,
    Then to shout out “denier”,
    Can often backfire,
    As a horse being goaded back-kicks.

    161

  • #
    michael hart

    …they pretend they represent “most people” but often they’re just the loudest five or ten percent of the population

    Reminds me of an American bumper sticker which said

    The “moral majority” is neither.

    70

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    Jo, how about these?
    Natural gas! The name says it all. Natural, clean-burning, energy without pollution. It is the natural solution to our energy needs, indeed. Our precious song birds are not killed and carelessly strewn across the landscape, our magnificent hawks, eagles, and other large birds are not driven to the edge of extension, and our essential pollinators so necessary to the web of life on earth are never harmed using natural gas as they are by wind power generators. Rare earths never poison our children and pollute our soil and water forever as do solar power generators. Yes! Natural gas in nature’s own power for now and for the future.

    80

    • #
      tom0mason

      ~~~~~~Idea for Advertisement ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Cut to view of beautiful sunny open rolling green fields…
      (birds singing, orchestral music (Beethoven’s Pastoral symphony?), with gentle rhythmic wooshing sound)
      [voice-over soft ]
      ¯
      “Feeling guilty about that gas-guzzing vehicle you drive is destroying the planet?”

      ¯
      (sound-effect — twang of metal hitting something soft, louder whooshing sound and music.)
      ¯
      Visual — Same view of sunny open rolling green fields, clouds of falling feathers, bird body falls through shot to the ground with a thud.
      ¯
      Camera pans to shot of blood covered wind turbine (concrete)base. Pans up as whooshing sound get louder, showing bloodied turbine blade.
      [voice-over --harder edged]

      “Are we killing nature to save the planet?”

      ¯
      Cut to shot of dead/dying bird (Loud whooshing sound drowning out orchestral music. No bird song.)

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      And cut — that’s a wrap!

      110

  • #
    Alexander Carpenter

    Totally OT, but do we know about Paul Dorian and his Vencore Weather website? Example:

    http://vencoreweather.com/2015/04/30/845-am-the-sun-is-now-virtually-blank-during-the-weakest-solar-cycle-in-more-than-a-century/

    Someone is actually paying attention to the sun, and I am sure he is popular with the more-established “skeptic” powers (and funders). May he and his work be useful to us all in our rebellion against the PC (would-be) tyrants and bullies.

    Maybe also grist for the BIG NEWS conversation…

    70

    • #
      Eddie

      Look at the Sun. Climate change is making it less active. All that heat we are depriving it off getting trapped here on Earth.

      70

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal in Oz

      Great link.
      Thank you.
      Cheers,
      Dave B

      40

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    Don’t speak too soon, Jo. The last I heard was that the advertisement had been banned from the London Underground, pending an investigation, by the say-so of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), which, according to its own website, is “the UK’s independent regulator of advertising”.

    So, no pesky politicians there – right?

    Well, not exactly. The name of the chairman of the ASA may ring the odd bell: Chris Smith. He was a Member of Parliament and a minister under Blair, so apolitical he definitely isn’t. You probably heard of him before when he was the monumentally incompetent head of the Environment Agency, when it was failing to respond to widespread flooding in England. (Turned out that it was all our fault, for not voting for Gordon Brown, or for sacrificing too few virgins to Tlaloc, or something. Nothing to do with his agency, anyway.)

    Welcome to Revolving-Door World, home of the British Quangocrat (Subhomo repellens).

    80

  • #
    Debbie

    The behaviour that Jo is highlighting is definitely best described as bullying.
    There is also a great deal of backstabbing and blatant patch protection.
    Poor behaviour all round.
    Those of us out here in the real climate/environment would just prefer to get off it and on with it.
    Australia is a large land mass with a relatively small population.
    We can’t really afford to keep carrying the dead weight of poor policy and dysfunctional regulatory systems.
    As a small example, there are over 300 people employed by the MDBA.
    Do the sums on what that’s costing the taxpayer for duplicating non results!
    They’re protected by legislation to bully regional communities.
    And just like all bullies….when they’re called out….they immediately blame someone else!

    80

  • #
    janama

    well the North Coast “event” is over. Despite their desperate attempt to create a repeat of the Sydney/Newcastle weather event with warnings of 135km winds and 400mm rainfall it turned out to be a typical north coast wet season downpour where the rain sets in for a couple of days and drops 150 – 200mm. The rivers rise and threaten flooding but never reach the danger level.

    The BoM was naturally a bit touchy as they had failed to predict the cyclonic winds and damage in the Sydney “event” so they weren’t going to caught out in the SE Queensland/North Coast “event” but unfortunately it didn’t turn out that way once again making them look incompetent.

    So this morning the sun is rising into a calm blue sky with 1km/hr winds making the BoM forecast totally meaningless.

    Cloudy. High (80%) chance of showers, heavy at times and becoming less likely late this afternoon and evening. The chance of thunderstorms. Winds E/SE 35 to 50 km/h decreasing to 25 to 35 km/h in the morning then becoming light in the early afternoon.

    101

    • #
      Ian George

      Same happened in mid-Feb here on the NC with so-called Cyclone Marcia. Schools were closed but only nice gentle rain over a day and a half – some very minor flooding. 3 out of 3 predictions – wrong.

      81

    • #
      Glen Michel

      What they need is a bloke with stubby shorts a terry towelling hat and a ” Jacky Howe” shirt sitting at the BOM desk giving matter-of fact forecasts.This “unprecedented ” stuff has to stop.

      30

  • #

    Having grown up as a Kopite in Liverpool plain speaking has always come naturally.
    Re climate for example .
    The climate models on which the entire Global Warming delusion rests are built without regard to the natural 60 and more importantly 1000 year periodicities so obvious in the temperature record. The modelers approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense .It is exactly like taking the temperature trend from say Feb – July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years or so. They back tune their models for less than 100 years when the relevant time scale is millennial. This is scientific malfeasance on a grand scale.
    The temperature projections of the IPCC – UK Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them have no solid foundation in empirical science being derived from inherently useless and specifically structurally flawed models. They provide no basis for the discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a foundation for Governmental climate and energy policy their forecasts are already seen to be grossly in error and are therefore worse than useless.

    A new forecasting paradigm needs to be adopted.

    For forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling based on the natural solar activity cycles – most importantly the millennial cycle – and using the neutron count and 10Be record as the most useful proxy for solar activity check my blog-post at
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
    The most important factor in climate forecasting is where earth is in regard to the quasi- millennial natural solar activity cycle which has a period in the 960 – 1020 year range. For evidence of this cycle see Figs 5-9. From Fig 9 it is obvious that the earth is just approaching ,just at or just past a peak in the millennial cycle.
    I suggest that more likely than not the general trends from 1000- 2000 seen in Fig 9 will likely generally repeat from 2000-3000 with the depths of the next LIA at about 2650. The best proxy for solar activity is the neutron monitor count and 10 Be data. My view ,based on the Oulu neutron count – Fig 14 is that the solar activity millennial maximum peaked in Cycle 22 in about 1991. There is a varying lag between the change in the in solar activity and the change in the different temperature metrics. There is a 12 year delay between the neutron peak and the probable millennial cyclic temperature peak seen in the RSS data in 2003. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend
    There has been a cooling temperature trend since then (Usually interpreted as a “pause”) There is likely to be a steepening of the cooling trend in 2017- 2018 corresponding to the very important Ap index break below all recent base values in 2005-6. Fig 13.
    The Polar excursions of the last few winters in North America are harbingers of even more extreme winters to come there more frequently in the near future.

    91

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘I suggest that more likely than not the general trends from 1000- 2000 seen in Fig 9 will likely generally repeat from 2000-3000 with the depths of the next LIA at about 2650.’

      But where exactly are we?

      Large icebergs began appearing in the North Atlantic around 1250 AD and then, according to a new theory ‘an unusual, 50-year-long episode of four massive tropical volcanic eruptions triggered the Little Ice Age between 1275 and 1300 A.D.’

      The eruptions apparently set off a ‘chain reaction affecting sea ice and ocean currents in a way that lowered temperatures for centuries.’

      To convince the warmists that cooling is coming we need tangible proof that the sun is the main driver and not volcanic eruptions, but in the meantime your prediction that ‘there is likely to be a steepening of the cooling trend in 2017- 2018′ looks about right.

      20

      • #

        Look at Figs 13 and 14 at
        http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
        The peak of solar activity was at about 1991 during Cycle 22. Look at the break in the Ap index to modern lows in 2005-6. It certainly looks like the peak has passed.
        The general trends of the 1000 year cycle will of course be modulated by the decadal and centennial solar cycles and will not repeat the previous cycle exactly because in nature all other things are never equal.

        60

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘…and will not repeat the previous cycle exactly because in nature all other things are never equal.’

          Fair enough, but if cooling is about to begin we need to illustrate (to prove out point) what to expect. For example, increasing mass balance in NZ glaciers and the continued expansion of Antarctic sea ice would add weight to our argument.

          20

        • #
          el gordo

          The Wolf Minimum began in 1280 and persisted for 70 years until 1350, which pours cold water on the warmists volcanism for the start of the LIA.

          20

    • #
      Wayne Job

      Dr Page, The natural fluctuations in our solar cycles are indeed the cause of our temperature variations, the length and strength is predictable by natural processes. The giant gas planets in their perambulations and our solar systems alignments with the galactic core give us a calculation of a little over 11 years as a harmonic. This is the average length of our solar cycles. The alignments add or subtract to give the strength of the cycle, using this method we are indeed in for a cooling spell. Astrology it is not, astronomy maths and science only used, the harmony of the spheres in old parlance. Cheers.

      10

  • #
    TdeF

    Also the offendotrons logic is about business and retailing where any publicity is good publicity. If 99% of people hate you and 1% buy your product, you win big. You cannot do the same thing in politics!

    There, given that up to 50% of the people did not vote for you and of the 50% who did, 50% can disagree on your approach to an issue or solution to a problem, you often have only 25% support or less. Doing nothing and handing out money is the only surefire winner. Despite his incredible victory and his strength and skill and bringing the US into the war, even Winston Churchill was dumped at the very end in July 1945. Good try but no cigar. Strength is not everything, even performance.

    The opposition and a very left ABC and Fairfax and drama hungry commercial media are forever trying to get rid of Abbott and looking to play him off with Turnbull, Bishop and perhaps Morrison. They played the same game for years with Howard and Costello. If we want to stop the climate rubbish in Australia, we have to be united behind the only person who has consistently delivered. Abbott wants the climate scam gone, but the game is politics, not science. Do not confuse this with Green appeasement and believe the superficial media slant. Even last week The Australian editorial declared an ETS inevitable.

    70

    • #
      ianl8888


      Even last week The Australian editorial declared an ETS inevitable

      That editorial was even more dishonest than usual – full of straw men and non-sequitors. And as usual, any “letters to the editor” with accurate, pungent criticism are spiked. It’s no use pretending, the Oz is no more honest than Fairfax, just at odds with a competitor

      C’est la “meeja” …

      70

  • #
    Ross

    Earlier in the week I viewed a list of the top 100 universities set up around the world in the last 50 years. There a few Australian universities on the list.

    Today I see this

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/5/1/academic-demands-totalitarian-response-to-agw.html

    I now wonder how they came up with the list of the top 100.
    This would come close to hate speech in some countries.

    50

  • #
    Robert O

    The adage that the squeakiest hinge gets the most oil applies to politics and just think of the number of vested interests that ply the corridors of power seeking some advantage. Canberra is a town replete with consultants and advocates representing vested interests.The Renewable Energy Target is an example in point; although solar and wind may be useful to communities in the bush far away from transmission lines (with diesel back-up of course) why on earth would you base your main power supply on these low yielding intermittent sources- which only work for four or five hours daily, or when the wind blows- when a coal/gas/nuclear/hydro station will give you a continuous industrial grade supply? And why would base your future electricity supply on renewables when the basis for this is “carbon abatement” when it will achieve nil as there is no valid mathematically relationship between global temperatures and levels of carbon dioxide?

    The only answer I have is that reason has gone to the wind, and the lunatics are in charge of the asylum.

    50

  • #
    Sarah Bath 1975

    I would be interested to hear how deniers like you will survive once a Melbourne University Sustainable Society Institute and Australian Greens initiated and movement to introduce legislation similar to the Holocaust Denial legislation comes into effect. It will criminalize actions of those who public condone, deny or trivialise crimes of climate change. The likes of you and your readers and posters will be hauled before a court and either fined or jailed.

    I support this action because the chaff that you people throw around clouds the minds of the public and the reputable scientists from getting their message across to the public. Climate change is the greatest threat to humanity and when we have massive earthquakes, sea levels rising and droughts occuring we will no longer survive. I urge your readers to get onboard and accept the science as sprouted by those with credibility and perhaps start to contribute financially to ensure that the message is heard.

    If not then be prepared to suffer the consequences of this legislation.

    (Gosh, nice to know there are people, like you, who are against free speech,Against discussing the science freely and openly. By the way you used the word, that put your ugly comment into moderation.) CTS

    036

    • #
      handjive

      Sounds like you have no interest in hearing anything.

      Send one of your climate scientists over to jonova for a debate where they will be heard.

      But you won’t.

      120

      • #
        scaper...

        It does not need to send scientists here because it claims to have a degree in environmental science from the University of Kellogg’s, is unemployed (a parasite),
        [snip -- skip the insults] and is [snip].

        This thing is a text book example of an ‘Offendatron’…and [snip too]

        83

        • #
          Glen Michel

          Classic Eco-zombie type.A chip off the collective.They’re massed produced around NE NSW from the HIVE! Automatons you can be sure.

          81

        • #
          Sarah Bath 1975

          scraper, you have been reported. I choose not to work as should many people. Why should I help some multinational profit when I can live off a subsistance from the government. It is unfair some people get paid more than others. If we all got the same income there would be no poverty.

          Again your homophobia has been reported and the fact I choose a same sex relationship is my business. Just because you like in a 1950′s relationship is your business, quite frankly I am sickened by the “breeders” getting preferential treatment while the majority suffers,

          [Scaper has been snipped because irrelevant insults are not OK. Otherwise, this comment looks satirical to me -- too over the top. Perhaps Sarah Bath is real, perhaps not. Remember Alene Composta? But given the topic of this thread, I think we should all thank Sarah Bath for coming. ] Jo

          02

          • #

            Wow, not only does Sarah not understand climate change, she is clueless on economics. On the other hand, perhaps EVERYONE should go home and see how that works out for Sarah when there’s no one to steal money from to support her. I’m liking that idea a lot.

            Actually, if we all got paid the same as everyone else, we could all be in poverty. Check out North Korea or Haiti. Math and economics are apparently not your strong points. Never fear, if everyone adopts your ideas, poverty will run rampant, wars over goods will occur and that paradise you envision will eat you alive. (If you don’t understand that multinational profit is what pays you sit on your behind and do nothing, well, it’s pretty much hopeless. We’re looking at a poster child for Atlas Shrugged here.)

            20

          • #
            Just-A-Guy

            Sarah Bath 1975,

            You said this here:

            Why should I help some multinational profit when I can live off a subsistance from the government.

            And this below:

            I prefer to spend my time helping the dispossessed against corporate greed.

            False dichotomy. These are not the only two options. You could work for a non-multinational entity and earn your keep. Many people do so and still manage to volunteer part of their time to help the dispossessed.

            Your subsistance from the government is not paid from money that belongs to the government. That money comes from the disposessed when they were . . . well . . . dispossessed. That money also comes from taxes that everyone, including the poor, must pay in order to subsist themselves. So you want to help the dispossessed by taking from the poor and dispossessed. Shamefull, yes?

            You said:

            It is unfair some people get paid more than others. If we all got the same income there would be no poverty.

            Naked assertions. Where is your proof of these two claims? Oh, wait. There is no proof because humanity has already tried these hypotheses . . . and failed. Miserably.

            It’s very simple really. No need for rocket science here. Even if all people get the same salary, there still needs to be a system for governance. Those that govern will have full control and, as is well known, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Again, humanity has ‘been there, done that’. Doesn’t work, and never will, because . . .

            Human beings are different both biologically and intellectually. So it is very fair that each individual get paid according to their abilities. We are individuals, not robots.

            You preach communism, nothing more. And you do so while living at the expense of others, many of which are worse off than you.

            Grow a spine and then . . . Go get a job.

            Abe

            30

          • #
            Just-A-Guy

            Sarah Bath 1975 and Jo,

            You said:

            . . . quite frankly I am sickened by the “breeders” getting preferential treatment while the majority suffers.

            In their cloistered little fantasy world, the “non-breeders” consider the term “breeders” as insulting as the [snipped] comments from scapers post. I don’t need to even see what was snipped because “breeders” is the worst thing to call normal people in the eyes of the “non-breeders”.

            In the real world, human beings evolved through breeding. That’s the way nature works. If you don’t want to “breed”, then don’t. That’s your business. But leave the rest of us “breeders” alone to our ways. Those that got us here in the first place. Breeding.

            And you do not represent the majority of human beings on this earth. Not by a long shot.

            Stop lying. To yourself, and especially to everyone else.

            Abe

            30

            • #
              Just-A-Guy

              Mods,
              [re last comment -- Fixed that.. - Jo]

              What was missing from the last post when I accidentaly sent it off were these last two statements, and a question.

              You, Bath, reported scaper… and got his comment [snipped]. Yet you, Bath, were allowed to insult us “breeders” without censorship. Who gets the preferential treatment?

              Abe

              20

      • #
        scaper...

        A quick Google search indicates this thing is a troll of the lowest order. Gee, must have been some mean drugs in Fitzroy on 25/26 Feb, 2013.

        From the Bolt blog, early in the morning.

        I realise NONE of my comments will be published because as you proove time and time again only those why agree with your venom are published.

        The HATE MEDIA have not given us fair go and the likes of the neocons always get airtime.

        Seriously when was the last time you have actually examined let alone commented on any of our policies.

        Surely you agree that a reduction of the defence force will see more funds for other more productive programs, such as renewable energy, a sustainable hericultural program for example (remember cattle are the second largest contributor for Green house gasses in the world)

        Surely you agree that in a democracy you, as a journalist, at least have to pay equal attention to the up and coming force in Australian polictics.

        Then around twenty minute later on the Ackerman blog.

        How dare you. I suggest you have a look at our polling because after the next eelction we are on track to increase our number of seats. Show some respect to Ms Milne please. More than likely she will be allocated a ministerial position.

        Ths HATE media is getting beyond a joke and wuite frankly we would very much like to see an equalization. Perhaps it is needed to ensure that more progressive voices are heard over the white noise. Another reason why neocon opinions should be banned so that the progressives at least get airtime. Case in point if climate denialism was outlased then public opinion would change because competent sensible policies can be heard.

        We would like you to show some respect, Your bias is outstanding. Not once did you report on the mysgony of the chief neocon and abuse in his university days did you.

        I trust you wont publish this comment because it doesnt accord with the neocon ideals you preach

        Milne getting a ministerial position? HAHAHAHAHA. Such a delusional sub-human.

        121

      • #
        scaper...

        Oh, the links…here and here.

        60

        • #
          scaper...

          From the Pickering post, in the last half hour.

          As it is a criminal offence to deny the holocaust and it will be a criminal offence to deny climate change or speak out against the science so to should it be an offence to speak out about a persons beliefs.

          [snip]

          90

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            She’s pure North Korea at heart. I do wonder if she really did do a university course. Can’t imagine her sitting in a classroom learning.

            20

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        I think your all missing the point Im sorry.

        Sarah is a made up personality, very probably by someone even more radically sceptical and right wing than any of us and is doing his or her best to give greens an even worse image than they have manage to develop for themselves.

        This is clearly contrived.
        https://twitter.com/sarahbath1975

        I applaud your efforts Sarah keep it up.

        30

        • #
          Matty

          Why the 1975 ? Could that be the last time this Ecoworrier saw a real bath ?

          20

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          Farout, she ticks every box doesn’t she.

          I have an environmental science degree, currently in a same sex relationship, unemployed and a vegan. I volunteer in the community and active member of Greens

          Sarah; You’re a minority voice in Australia. Understand that your thinking is not inline with most every other Australian and ask yourself why that is…

          20

    • #

      Kristel Nacht, Sarah? The sound of hard
      won Western democracy being smashed by
      eco-fascist storm troopers? End of free
      speech? Summary arrests?Is THAT what you
      want?

      100

    • #

      Sarah Bath 1975, you say here:

      The likes of you and your readers and posters will be hauled before a court and either fined or jailed.

      The jails won’t be big enough, or numerous enough, and anyway, not even you will live long enough to see ANY of them jailed. You have your green dreams. We’ll go with the reality.

      It’s those people who think like you who will have us all back in the dark ages, quite literally.

      Amazing how you want to jail free thinkers. It sorta sounds familiar somehow.

      And Sarah, trust me on this. Legislation like that will NEVER be passed.

      Tony.

      110

      • #
        ROM

        Sarah Bath 1975 @ # 38

        Thank you Sarah Bath1975 for your comments at # 38.

        You see I often come across comments on skeptic blogs such as Jo’s here, where the commenters regularly describe the fanacticsm and nakedly open hate towards those who dare to question ever so slightly and gently the cult like beliefs of the global warmers. A level of hate so openly displayed by the believers of the climate catastrophe cult when somebody even suggests that perhaps this global warming thing is not at all it’s cracked up to be and in fact might not even exist or if it does might be quite beneficial to the planet and all it’s life forms including mankind.

        Now in my innocence and having spent my life in Australia where there was always a culture of giving everybody a fair go I hadn’t personally come across such ferocious openly expressed hate and such open total bigotry ever before until I read your comment at #38 although I have read enough and know the history of such unbelievable hate and the consequences for at least a hundred millions of ordinary people during the 20th century alone, a truly horrific level of hate similar to what you have just expressed here on Jo’ s blog towards a fellow men, women and children who might not necessarily agree with the hater’s own beliefs or perhaps are nothing more than just different in colour, religious beliefs, ethnicity and etc..

        Your post at # 38 will no doubt like it was for myself, be quite an eye opener in the worst possible sense for what you profess to believe in, to the literally hundreds of viewers and lurkers who take a look at Jo’s blog offerings every day.

        And just for a bit of relativity and the possibly very seriously bad impact you may have with your openly bigoted hate speech on the large numbers of lurkers and viewers here I looked up a couple of site’s statistics on the Alexa rankings and compared JoNova’s standing against your Australian Greens web site’s statistics along with the main climate warming Climate Science site that actually reports on real actual climate science Real Science
        .

        Alexa rankings today; [ they vary considerably from day to day and the lower the numbers the higher the rankings ]

        JoNova ; Global ranking 130,140
        ………………………….. Australia …… 6,610
        .
        Australian Greens ; Global ranking ; 198 779
        ………………………………… Australia ; ….. 6,203

        Of course if we take a look at the Alexa Global rankings of JoNova’s compared to the Australian Greens then it becomes absolutely laughable comparing the two sites especially when taking into consideration the immense difference in the available resources for each party.

        The Australian Greens web site globally ranks close to 70,000 places behind Jo’s blog or percentage wise, JoNova’s blog Globally, is half again as popular as the Australian greens site according to the Alexa statistics

        For what purports and claims to be a major Australian Political Party that intends to take power in Australia to have a ranking in Australian web sites of 6203, only 400 places higher in Australian rankings than a one woman run Climate Skeptic web site that is only funded by the small amounts of donations that her readers are prepared to send her compared to the lavish funding that any claimed to be a significant Australian Political party enjoys would have to be one of the most defining attributes of the very low respect, the absolute disdain and contempt that most of the Australian public holds for the Australin Greens party and their hardline leftist authoritarian, dictatorial, bullying threating contempt they so readily and openly exhibit as we see in your Sarah Bath’s comments at # 38

        And as for the main climate science warming site now run by a highly ranked employee of America’s NASA with direct access to all climate related research, here it is.

        Real Climate ; Global rank ; 217 979

        With all the resources of NASA behind it Real Climate can only manage to be two thirds as popular as JoNova’s skeptic site.

        Says it all Sarah Bath75.
        You’e a loser destined for the dustbin of history and the mourners will be few indeed.

        160

      • #
        ianl8888

        The conference that the video recorded was held 3 years ago (2012)

        So, one wonders who sat on that recording for 3 years and why release it now ?

        80

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘Climate change is the greatest threat to humanity and when we have massive earthquakes, sea levels rising and droughts occuring we will no longer survive.’

      Humanity has adapted and survived hotter and cooler times on this planet, although at times its been a close run thing.

      At the moment we are on the tail end of the Holocene Interglacial and the future looks bleak, so its in our best interest to pump out as much CO2 as humanly possible.

      81

    • #
      Ross

      ” Melbourne University Sustainable Society Institute and Australian Greens initiated and movement to introduce legislation similar to the Holocaust Denial legislation comes into effect.”

      Have I missed something –Has the Australian government in Canberra been over thrown and Australia is now ruled from Melbourne University Sustainability Society Institute. when did this happen ?

      90

    • #
      Ian Hill

      All bluff and nonsense Sarah. I’ll willingly suffer the consequences. Jo knows how to contact me.

      80

    • #
      Debbie

      What TF is ‘crimes of climate change’?????
      How does this ‘Australian Greens initiated’ legislation define ‘crimes of climate change’ ??????
      Who/what would be put in jail for such events as massive earthquakes, SLR & droughts?????
      That has gotta be one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever seen…ever!
      Tony is correct….legislation in the manner you have described it would never pass…so please don’t hold your breath Sarah.
      In the type of government you are espousing…I think those of your attitude would be the first behind bars.
      Lucky for you, we respect the right to free speech and different political perspectives in Australia.
      Unbeknownst to you perhaps, most of us also care about the REAL environment.
      You appear to believe that only cloistered academics and the Greens care about such things and therefore everyone else is complicit in something called ‘crimes of climate change’ and should be jailed???????
      I actually feel a bit sorry for you.
      I suggest you might think about yanking your head out of whatever paradigm you have got it jammed inside and come and look at what’s really happening out here in the REAL Australian weather/climate/environment.

      100

    • #
      Robert O

      Sarah, I think there is very little evidence to link earthquakes with climate change, and a lot to do with movement of the tectonic plates which continue to move irrespective of political opinion. San Francisco has had several large quakes and is due for another in due course as it sits on the San Andreas fault. And as to rising ocean levels any student of ancient history should realise that the old Roman ports scattered the Mediterranian are now many km. from the ocean. Did the land rise, or the sea level drop? Perhaps a little of each, but we know it was much hotter then than it is now, so what’s the problem? The climate has changed and will continue to do so which is the normal sequence of events.

      90

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Thanks Sarah we appreciate the feedback, unfortunately “us people” will continue on with our evil ways and hope to destroy everything you know and loathe, namely a free society and existence on this planet.

      Hey is your username a literal fact of when you last had a bath?

      50

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Oops it should read ‘hope to uphold’ not destroy, must proof read my smarta$$ comments before posting, stupid Yonnie….

        30

    • #
      James Bradley

      Hey, Sarah,

      I’m pleased you posted because yours is exactly the type of responses that I am collecting for a piece tentatively titled ‘Climate UFO’s or Daleks the Musical (Mass Climate Hysteria or Scripted Scare Campaign)’.

      So, thankyou.

      FYI to Jonova regulars, Sarah Bath is a troll who comments for shock value and notoriety in the Green fringes.

      I’ll need to research her real name again because I’ve forgotten it, but she was a Green candidate in one of the Melbourne electorates during the 2013 federal election. Credentialed only as a Centrelink recipient, no employment history, known agitator and environmental activist. Failed as a Green candidate. The photo for her avatar is actually her photo shopped mirror symmetry, but a unique dental structure identifies her.

      70

      • #
        Yonniestone

        “but a unique dental structure identifies her.” Oh yes I see the green fangs now, perfect for bloodsucking on the public throat.

        30

    • #
      James Bradley

      A quick search reveals a Sarah Bath as a Member of the Fitzroy Greens – the same environmentally conscious group that are responsible for this environmental atrocity:

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

      80

    • #
      Carbon500

      Sarah: I notice that you haven’t produced any figures whatsoever to back up your views that we are heading for a man-made climatic meltdown.
      Where are your references to historical records comparing what has happened in the past with the present day? I think that you should stop placing your trust in the media and the supposed science and examine closely why others don’t think that we’re heading for a climatic disaster.
      A lot of those people have a good solid scientific and technical background, and to call them ‘deniers’ is simply absurd. Scientists from all manner of disciplines investigate the natural world, and opinions on any given subject can vary widely.
      Scientists are not a group of people offering wisdom set in stone for the benefit of mankind. Science is fluid, and findings and inferences are subject to changing views as time passes and knowledge accumulates.
      As a final thought, just for interest, do you know what the current level of atmospheric C02 is? What exactly is meant by ‘pre-industrial’? If not, you definitely need to start reading – and stop being so aggressive.

      60

    • #
      john karajas

      Hi Sarah

      Just for the record earthquakes are caused by the movement of the earth’s tectonic plates not by increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I pity you actually, you sound unbelievably stupid. Or are you putting on an act? If so, great comedy routine.

      40

    • #
      tom0mason

      ¯
      ¯
      This personna or egoist is a fake, just Google — SarahBath “Sarah Bath” “Sarah Bath1975″ —

      None are real, whoever ‘Sarah Bath1975′ is they are just winding you up to feed their ego.

      No reply will be forthcoming to any comments as the ego never stays for a reply. Reading and logic is too difficult for a faker like ‘Sarah Bath1975′ who or whatever they are.

      Ho-humm, another few minutes in the blogospherium.

      40

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Gotta be a wind up. No one is really that stupid are they ?

      80

      • #
        el gordo

        Sarah is typical of the green/left cadre, they know nothing of the science and hate ‘deniers’ with a vengeance.

        Having swallowed the green blob mantra with gusto, they became the Klimatariat’s foot soldiers on the blogosphere, but they rarely stand and fight.

        Sarah come back and bring some of your associates, we are in need of fresh blood.

        10

        • #
          tom0mason

          el gordo,

          IMO sarah whoever is just a software autobot and as such has no thoughts or imagination. Just a bit of coding with an absence of person or personality. Still it blurted out the text it was given efficiently before leaving.

          Almost certainly a twitterbot/f’[snip]book automatons with the same name prowls those communication channels, randomly twittering it’s message to anyone that hits the correct trigger words. The biggest problem with both [snip]‘er/f’[snip]book is that this autobot looks and reacts as one of the more intelligent types on those particular media.

          [Sometimes it's not clear what triggers the moderation filter. I applied some edits to solve the apparent objections. "Twit" is a very uncomplimentary term and it looks like you intended a pun on that word and one other. Sorry if I changed your meaning.] AZ

          (I approved the suspected bot comment, for the singular purpose of showing how bad it is,otherwise I never would have approved it) CTS

          20

          • #
            tom0mason

            No probs AZ,

            Oddly it just show my point of how automatic systems (here it’s the Automatic moderation filter action) just act or react without a thought. Just like our Greenie Autobot.

            10

            • #
              el gordo

              So you are saying Sarah won’t be coming back … sigh. You can see how starved we are for a debate when a robot gets so many add on comments.

              In her absence I’ll play devil’s advocate: the hiatus in temperature proves that CO2 does have an ameliorating effect.

              10

          • #
            Sarah Bath

            ED:
            Your assertion that I am some twitterbot or other bot is just insulting. As other neocons have pointed out yes I ran for a Greens preselection for Yarra (Fitzroy) last year. I have been to university and I choose not to work. I prefer to spend my time helping the dispossessed against corporate greed. Please do not refer to me as a bot.

            13

            • #

              Actually, with your attitude, there are more appropriate terms for you than bot. You’re a poster child for Atlas Shrugged and why people should not put up with such obnoxious, greedy and selfish behaviour anymore.

              20

            • #
              Just-A-Guy

              Sarah Bath 1975,

              You said:

              Please do not refer to me as a bot.

              Of all the things that you were criticised for, this is what you chose to object to?

              You must wear all of your other flaws as badges of honor. That speaks more to who you are and what you represent than any of the nonsense you wrote.

              You also said above:

              . . . quite frankly I am sickened by . . .

              On this we can agree! We too are sickened by what you represent. Thing is, us rational adults, us “breeders”, also find you to be pitied.

              Contradiction here? No, not at all. Just part of being mature adults. We pity you as a person for not wanting to grow up. We’re sickened by your outlook on life and the actions you take to promote that outlook.

              Abe

              30

            • #
              el gordo

              ‘… I prefer to spend my time helping the dispossessed’

              That is highly commendable and in the decades ahead you should have plenty of opportunities in that regard. Sarah, please read this.

              ‘The Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC) announces today that the predicted new cold climate will soon begin to end the historic era of growth in US and global agricultural output that began after the end of World War II. Specifically, as a result of recent events on the Sun and changes in the Earth’s climate, the SSRC again warns that record crop yields and volume in the US and Canadian corn, wheat, and soybean belts are about to end. The SSRC expects the first substantial damage could be observed at any time but certainly within the next ten years.’

              http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html

              20

              • #

                Sarah won’t be helping anyone if this happens. She will be confused and angry that somehow the climate gods/scientists betrayed her. Plus, unless she can find a way to blame cold on CO2, which actually was happening in the 70′s ice age predictions, she will be paralyzed with fear and shock that nature turned upon her. She will be all for herself and ignoring anyone else who is needy. I can predict this with 100% certainty, which trumps the IPCC’c 97% big time.

                30

            • #
              tom0mason

              I refuse to reply to a mere automaton, please send the puppet master.

              20

            • #
              Jaymez

              If you choose not to work in paid employment and are self supporting, then that is fine. If you are on welfare but are able to work then you are the one dispossessing those who work and pay taxes.

              There are plenty of examples of societies which tried to abolish private property and capitalism and have all ended in failure, and usually the murder and oppression of the people. We saw it with Stalin, Ho Chi Min, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Castro, the Kim Jongs and others. There is no one trying to escape from the countries like Australia (your idea of a society rife with corporate greed), to illegally enter a communist country.

              If you can’t see the good sense and logic in an economic system which revolves around private property and personal incentive, we couldn’t expect you to see through the false claims of CAGW.

              40

    • #

      This is surely a joke. “Sarah” is a climate change skeptic parodying the totalitarian tendencies in the global warming religion. It’s funny that so many commenters fell for it.

      10

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      When I was just a little Rereke, I used to amuse myself, by poking thin sticks into the holes in an ants nest.

      Of course, doing this dislodged some dirt in the nest, which the ants then needed to remove, which they did.

      Over a period of several days, and weeks, I could keep on doing that, and the ants would keep on removing dirt.

      Eventually, of course, the whole nest would start to collapse under its own weight.

      Socialist lesson there.

      That is what Sara Bath likes to do, and does so professionally, on behalf of an unwitting Government that pays her via Centrelink.

      She indulges in a diluted form of agitprop. Her original comment extracted forty-two forty-three comments, two of which were hers, complaining about other people’s comments. She refers to that as “Reporting” people. Very Stalinist.

      It matters not whether she/he/it is a bot or a troll or a transgender hyper-moron, the entity known as Sara Bath should be ignored.

      30

  • #

    In 1980 Ronald Reagan won the US Presidency largely because the Incumbent was seen as a failure. He won re-election in 1984 by the largest margin since Washington largely because voters felt he believed in his principles.
    The most convincing evidence is that the opposition won a strong majority in the US House of Representatives, all of whom well up for election. His (Republican) Party lost the House every two years from 1954 through 1992.
    Principles well articulated and strongly clung to usually constitute leadership, dedication and serious analysis. Tell Abbott. Tell each other. Truth can win if told clearly, firmly and often.

    70

  • #
    handjive

    The Road to Paris, 2015:

    You can already hear the sounds of the goalposts shifting. (rtcc.org)

    There’s a reason for this.
    Many blame heightened expectations for the collapse of the 2009 UN climate summit in Copenhagen, the previous attempt to reach an ambitious global agreement.

    Hence, there is an attempt being made to lower expectations for COP21 so that the outcome can be couched as a success even if it fails to achieve an ambitious and legally binding agreement.

    An alliance of vulnerable developing countries including the Least Developed Countries, Small Island Developing States, and the Africa group have argued for the target to be made 1.5C.
    . . .
    How can any current environmental policy/law be legal if the goal is not/never been settled?

    Any politician who quotes a 2 degree target is now leading people astray, knowingly.
    Is this not fraud?

    70

  • #
    A C

    The best news of the week!

    Thank you.

    30

  • #
    pat

    LOL. doing the “moral” thing, sort of.

    1 May: BBC: Church of England to sell fossil fuel investments
    It will sell investments worth £12m in firms where more than 10% of revenue comes from extracting thermal coal or the production of oil from tar sands.
    The Church said it had a “moral responsibility” to act on environmental issues to protect the poor, who were the most vulnerable to climate change.
    The Church manages three investment funds worth about £8bn…
    This is but a ***fraction of its total investment portfolio and some are already calling for the church to go further by divesting from all fossil fuels. But the church takes the view that engaging with fossil fuel companies is productive for other forms of energy, such as oil and gas, which may be needed as the world moves towards a low-carbon economy…
    The Church of England does not ***directly invest in tobacco, pornography or payday lenders.
    Two years ago, it emerged that the Church had indirectly invested in Wonga (Payday Loans) – which the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, admitted to being “embarrassed and irritated” about. It has since ended that investment.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32544480

    ABC’s headline has $23m, but text appears to have USD equivalent of $18m.

    1 May: ABC: Church of England sells off $23 million of investments in fossil fuel to help curb climate change
    One of the world’s wealthiest religious institutions, the Church of England, says it has divested about $18 million in investments in thermal coal tar sands companies to promote a transition to a low-carbon economy…
    The Church of England is followed by 80 million Anglicans worldwide and holds total investments worth about $13 billion which are used to pay clergy pensions and fund the church’s work.
    While some is invested in funds, the church also has direct investments of more than $19 million in Royal Shell, BP Plc, Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton…
    The announcement comes ahead of Pope Francis’ release of an encyclical setting out Roman Catholic doctrine on environmental issues, which is expected to make waves on the global warming debate.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-01/church-of-england-divests-investments-to-curb-climate-change/6437174

    how easy is it to impress the MSM when there’s the pretense of CAGW concern?

    41

  • #
    pat

    illustrated by a scary chimney black smoke pic:

    1 May: UK Independent: Hazel Sheffield: Church of England pulls out of fossil fuels, but where does it invest its cash?
    That’s right – the church is a business, and business is not all that bad. It takes £1 billion a year, most of it in collection from worshippers. Over £160 million comes from the Church Commissioners who manage assets of £6.1 billion, achieving a staggering 15.7 per cent return in 2013, according to the last data available.
    Two years ago the Church came under fire because one of its investment portfolios included the payday lender Wonga. It’s cleaned up its act, promising no ***direct investment in tobacco, military supplies, guns, gambling, alcohol, pornography and human cloning.
    So where do those 15.7 per cent returns come from?..
    The stock market and other investments account for most of the Church’s investments. It picks big companies like Shell, BP, Vodaphone and GlaxoSmithKline, as well as investing in UK government bonds…etc
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/church-of-england-pulls-out-of-fossil-fuels-but-where-does-it-invest-its-cash-10219386.html

    41

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Does it matter?

      They get truck loads of tax free cash from the hordes of sheeple trapped in variations on prehistoric superstitions. Anything they make in investment is just gravy on the harvest of the stupid. Appearing to adopt a moral position that aligns with same gullibility is just good business sense.

      21

  • #
    pat

    2 May: Daily Mail: Steve Doughty: Church of England Bishop provokes anger by saying the biggest moral issue affecting the world is…CLIMATE CHANGE
    Rev Nicholas Holtam says climate change is world’s most urgent problem
    Championing of global warming provoked protests from Church members
    Critics say the CofE’s moral compass ‘has gone awry’ in light of comments
    Andrea Minichiello Williams, a member of the CofE’s general synod, said issues such as extremism, divorce and persecution should not be overlooked.
    ‘No one in this country understands what the Church is saying any more,’ she said. ‘The bishops don’t talk about Christianity.
    ‘They sound like the secular world speaking.’
    Ruth Lea, an Anglican churchgoer and economist for the Arbuthnot Banking Group, said the sell-off was pointless. ‘It is a political gesture of trivial environmental impact,’ she added.
    ‘The CofE’s moral compass has gone awry. Have they noticed what is happening in the Middle East, in Syria, or over migration in the Mediterranean?.
    ***’The idea that climate change is the most pressing moral issue is just bizarre.’…
    It was his second pronouncement on climate change within a day. Earlier, in response to a Vatican paper on the subject, he said that ‘the world’s poor suffer the most severe consequences of climate change, a problem to which they contribute little.’
    He added: ‘Our fossil fuel use is equivalent to releasing the energy of 400,000 Hiroshimas into the atmosphere every day. It is simply not credible that we can introduce an externality of that scale into the atmospheric and oceanic systems that make life on earth possible without seeing serious consequences.’
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3064906/Church-England-Bishop-provokes-anger-saying-biggest-moral-issue-affecting-world-CLIMATE-CHANGE.html

    nothing to do with religion, of course:

    1 May: Daily Mail: PA: Church in fossil fuels exodus
    Tom Joy, director of investments at the Church Commissioners, said the church wants to be “at the forefront of institutional investors seeking to address the challenge of energy transition”…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3063768/Church-fossil-fuels-exodus.html

    31

  • #
    pat

    Guardian gets religious:

    1 May: Guardian: Adam Vaughan: Church of England ends investments in heavily polluting fossil fuels
    Move by church’s £9bn fund to divest £12m from tar sands oil and thermal coal reflects more interventionist stance and sets lead for other institutional investors
    Bill McKibben, a prominent environmentalist who has previously chastised the CoE for dragging its feet and not heeding calls by the Anglican archbishop emeritus Desmond Tutu that organisations divest, applauded the new policy.
    “This is the first great turnaround in the divestment fight, an institution which initially refused to move and then, in good Christian fashion, saw the light. “Much credit to the CoE – they’re studying the signs of the times, as the good book says, and starting to show their concern for the poorest and most vulnerable parts of humanity and of creation,” he said…
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/30/church-of-england-ends-investments-in-heavily-polluting-fossil-fuels

    Bloomberg/Fairfax have God on their side:

    2 May: SMH: Bloomberg: Thomas Biesheuvel: Church of England dumps coal as fossil-fuel divestment campaign spreads
    It appears coal mining isn’t God’s work.
    The Church of England will dump its holdings in coal and oil-sand producers and has ruled out backing companies with exposure to the most polluting fossil fuels, joining the movement that wants investors to help fight climate change…
    The move by the church, created by Henry VIII’s split from the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century and still headed by the Queen, is a victory for environmental activists seeking to stigmatise oil and coal companies in the way South Africa and tobacco companies have previously been targeted…
    Prince Charles, who will become head of the Church of England when his mother dies and has long campaigned on environmental issues, has ensured his private investments and charitable foundations do not have any fossil fuel holdings, the Financial Times reported on April 26…
    “The ethics of today are so often the legislation or regulation of tomorrow,” said James Bevan, chief investment officer at CCLA Investment Management, which manages money for the Church of England. “we are going to have regulation and ultimately legislation that will stop a lot these companies doing what they are doing.”
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/church-of-england-dumps-coal-as-fossilfuel-divestment-campaign-spreads-20150501-1mycmh.html

    31

  • #

    The Breitbart article is too optimistic. The posters have been taken down, and the Advertising Standards Authority have banned them. Political correctness is still the dominant culture in the UK. The Labour Party is planning to make “Islamophobia” illegal.

    60

  • #
    pat

    UNBELIEVABLE!

    30 April: WaPo: Chris Mooney: Pope Francis has given the climate movement just what it needed — faith
    This week — and it still feels strange to write this — the major climate change news story came out of the Vatican…
    All of this is enough to make environmentalists, members of a traditionally secular movement, nearly rhapsodic. After a history of being rather too technocratic and wonky, there seems to be a growing realization in green circles about the importance of an alliance with the world of faith.
    This has been a long time coming…
    Books have been written about it, and one of its major spokespeople — Katharine Hayhoe, an evangelical climate scientist at Texas Tech University — was named one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people last year.
    And then there’s the 2014 biblical epic film “Noah,” whose director, Darren Aronofsky, called its subject the “first environmentalist.” It grossed more than $300 million worldwide with a message about the relationship between faith and saving the planet…
    Despite all that, having Francis on board takes it all to a much higher level (pun intended). The reason, as David Roberts of Vox has written, is that it makes the climate debate moral, not scientific or technocratic. And when issues are moralized, people feel before they think and refuse to compromise. It may not be what we strictly call “rational,” but it is politically powerful…
    Obama II on climate change, though, has often adopted a moral framing, making sure to talk about “our children,” our “grandchildren” and “future generations.”…
    Why have environmentalists (and their scientific allies) been so focused on talking about policies like cap-and-trade, on tracking emissions targets and parts per million, rather than moralizing the issue?
    Here, I think we need to turn to the research of social scientist Jonathan Haidt of New York University, famed for his insights about the different moral triggers and motivations of liberals and conservatives…
    The moral emotion that is probably most relevant to the environment is what Haidt would call the “care/harm” foundation, and what many of us would simply call compassion or empathy. Recent research suggests that this emotion drives people toward environmental causes. There seems to be a deep connection between caring about other humans and then extending that to nature…
    Another part of the moral message, as Yale Divinity School professor Teresa Berger told me recently, may involve “the pope condemning sins of exploiting the Earth.”…
    They know this is the most powerful chance in a long time to make people care, and to create political will.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/04/30/pope-francis-has-given-the-climate-movement-just-what-it-needed-faith/

    51

  • #
    pat

    back in the real world, not a hint of religion:

    30 April: Reuters: Barbara Lewis: EU carbon talks next week could clinch reform deal
    (Additional reporting by Susanna Twidale in London, editing by David Evans)
    European Union talks next week could clinch a deal to shake up the world’s biggest carbon market after a change of position by the Czech Republic removed a major obstacle to an early start for reforms.
    The EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) is meant to be central to efforts to cut carbon emissions, but a huge surplus of carbon allowances caused by recession means they are not worth enough to drive a switch from highly-polluting coal to greener fuels.
    Negotiations between the European Commission, the European Parliament and member states on Tuesday will aim to agree the legal text on when to launch a Market Stability Reserve (MSR) to hold some of the surplus permits in reserve.
    Diplomats said it was possible the talks could deliver a final deal, although another round was scheduled for May 26…
    After the Czech Republic changed position, member states agreed on a start date of Jan. 1, 2019, according to a text of Wednesday’s deal seen by Reuters, while the European Parliament had said the MSR should already be operating by Dec. 31, 2018…
    “It’s all on the table. The major parts of the deal are struck,” Marcus Ferdinand, an analyst at Thomson Reuters Point Carbon, said…
    On Thursday, prices hit a two-month high of 7.64 euros ($8.53…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/30/us-eu-carbon-idUSKBN0NL1TZ20150430

    1 May: HuffPo: President Obama Must Confront His Own Climate Denial
    by Kassie Siegel, Director, Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute
    Even as President Obama rightly deplores global warming’s threats to human well-being and our planet’s web of life, his administration is opening up more public lands for dirty fossil fuel production and weakening international efforts to cut planet-warming pollution.
    President Obama pushed every country going to this year’s Paris climate talks to propose a greenhouse gas reduction goal. But then the president himself announced a weak national plan that scientists say just won’t reduce our pollution enough to help prevent catastrophic warming.
    Under the Obama national plan, America would still be spewing at least 5 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas pollution a year by 2025 — far more than entire continent of Africa emits now. And to make matters worse, the plan is just a goal, not the enforceable commitment that we need…
    Hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land have been leased for coal mining. Onshore oil production on public and tribal lands has increased more than 80 percent since 2008, according to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell. Ninety percent of new wells on federal land are now fracked.
    The administration even allocated 810,000 acres of U.S. public land for oil shale and tar sands leasing in the Colorado River Basin — a grave blow to the climate, since these are among the dirtiest, most carbon-intensive fuels on earth.
    Our oceans are also fair game. Secretary Jewell recently pledged to open “vast areas” of the ocean to oil drilling. She has put Arctic drilling back on the table, backed oil exploration along the Atlantic coast, and is opening up tens of millions of acres in the Gulf of Mexico for new drilling and offshore fracking…
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kassie-siegel/president-obama-must-conf_b_7187134.html

    31

    • #

      pat quotes this in the second part of the above comment: (my Bolding here)

      President Obama pushed every country going to this year’s Paris climate talks to propose a greenhouse gas reduction goal. But then the president himself announced a weak national plan that scientists say just won’t reduce our pollution enough to help prevent catastrophic warming.
      Under the Obama national plan, America would still be spewing at least 5 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas pollution a year by 2025 — far more than entire continent of Africa emits now. And to make matters worse, the plan is just a goal, not the enforceable commitment that we need…

      A weak national plan that scientists think is not far enough.

      WEAK!

      What the!

      I actually went and did some analysis of what his, umm, plan calls for, and it’s painfully obvious that no one else has done this sort of analysis.

      It’s a plan which calls for reductions even greater than what the original Kyoto asked for.

      There’s no chance this plan can be achieved, and if this is supposedly weak, then there’s even less chance a stronger plan would work.

      Sometimes, I actually despair that people, (and these are supposedly Scientists) have no concept of doing analysis like this.

      I spent longer on this than I have on anything I have ever done, because, while looking so innocuous and even achievable, it just kept working out so impossible to achieve.

      I know it’s long, and involved, but unless you get the whole picture, you also might be tempted to believe that it could actually be ….. doable.

      It is not only NOT doable, it is absolutely impossible to even get within a bull’s roar, without grinding the U.S. to a complete and utter standstill.

      The link is to the introductory Post, and it was so long, I had to divide into two separate Posts, and the link to each of those Posts is at that Intro.

      Tony.

      Kyoto Revisited – President Obama’s Pledge For Paris – Intro

      70

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Off Topic.
    Living in Newcastle in the wake of recent devastating storm activity, caught a sound bite on local abc radio promoting one of their daytime presenters. The sound bite was from a previous show where the host was interviewing someone about the recent storm activity,- she asked with words to the effect of- “How would you describe the recent weather” I’m sure to encourage a doomsday reply, short pause then the reply, ” I’d call it a storm!”how crestfallen the interviewer must have been.

    70

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      ABC radio is populated by shameless alarmists who would work a question about climate change into an interview with a school child about the quality of lunches at the tuckshop.

      30

  • #
    pat

    27 April: EcoSystemMarketPlace: Kay Sater: New Credit Card Aims To Spur Individual Carbon Offset Purchases
    Would you like some carbon offsets with those fries?
    It may seem like a silly question, but if Sustain:Green has its way, some of the money generated from the purchases made by its customers – even French fries – will find its way into the voluntary carbon markets…
    Sustain:Green CEO Arthur Newman previously worked on Wall Street and focused on the cap-and-trade market in the United States and the use of carbon offsets to offset carbon footprints as a former partner for Carbon Capital Advisors. He cites this experience working with large organizations in the carbon market as inspiration for the development of the credit card…
    He notes that offsets have not been marketed to consumers in a successful manner.
    “Some airlines offered offsets after you purchased a plane ticket, but we feel that in a price sensitive purchasing transaction like airline tickets, this the wrong time to be asking a consumer to spend more money,” he said.
    Additionally, the ability to purchase offsets from different companies based on different verification standards can be confusing to those not well-versed in the nuances of carbon offsets. Questions about transparency and what was being purchased may have also stymied the market…
    While offsets aren’t free for Sustain:Green, they have gone as far as they can to make purchasing offsets free for its customers. “The difference with the Sustain:Green card is that we are giving these offsets away for free as a reward,” Newman said “People are not charged additionally for them, and there is no annual fee for having the card. Additionally, the rewards are automatically tied to spending.”
    To do this, the card, which is financially backed by Commerce Bank, offers what works out to be the equivalent of 2.7% cash back on purchases, not including the 5,000 pounds that users receive upon the first purchase. But instead of consumers receiving cash back to purchase individual offsets, the money will be used by Sustain:Green to purchase offsets through the American Carbon Registry (ACR). ACR is a nonprofit enterprise of Winrock International focused on developing carbon offset standards and methodologies, and also serving as a clearing house to register, verify, and oversee offsets projects, and issue offsets from projects…
    As more consumers sign up for and start using the card, Sustain:Green will “fill up a ‘bucket’ of money to provide seed funding to get projects going.” Once the bucket is full enough, Winrock International and ACR will suggest projects for Sustain:Green to invest in. Cardholders will also be allowed to suggest projects that will be vetted by ACR, and then all the information will be put up on the Sustain:Green website and cardholders will be able to vote for projects they want to fund.
    The card has the other added environmental benefit of being biodegradable…
    The new card is marketed as biodegradable, but compostable may be a better term. “It takes about six months to biodegrade, and just has to come into contact with soil bacteria, all you have to do is cut it up and bury in the dirt,” he (Newman) said…
    Sustain:Green partnered with Mata no Peito, a coalition initiative to support organizations and communities to protect and replant forests throughout Brazil. Mata no Peito is funded through the retirement of Nike carbon offsets, the originators of the project…
    http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/dynamic/article.page.php?page_id=10926&section=news_articles&eod=1

    20

  • #
    Raven


    Great post.

    My pick . . . and one of the best come-back lines I’ve seen in a long time:

    They claim one thermometer can measure 200,000 cubic kilometers of water to a hundredth of a degree . . .

    Question without notice:
    How do I derive the math for this?

    50

  • #
    Eugene WR Gallun

    Wish I’d said every word of that. — Eugene WR Gallun

    30

  • #

    Pope told to get on his encyclical and peddle the hell out of town. :-)

    Pope Francis wants to … leave the planet poorer, less healthy, drudgery for a lifestyle, and lacking creature comforts. If these goals are achieved, a day will come when the Vatican renounces Pope Francis’s intervention into the global warming debate as was done on Church’s treatment of Galileo.

    40

  • #
    Correllio

    Brilliant stuff, Jo. Well said.

    30

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    Yup the loudest few % of the population. Although its probably less than that, its the loudest % of active lobbyists of a few % of the population. Its a handful of childish ratbags that cannot deal with the fact that despite claiming to represent everyone, they actually represent almost no one.

    Nick Mckim was good enough to demonstrate the level of debate hes prepared to engage in this week in the Tasmanian Parliament. His constituents get such great value.

    https://www.facebook.com/TasLiberal/photos/a.10152060065300412.1073741827.68225180411/10153173345555412/?type=1

    I think the best comment was “push harder”, although I doubt there is anything worth damaging in there.

    40

  • #

    BTW, totally O/T, but I just found this article about climate orthodoxy on American campuses – you might have already seen it – http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2011/09/global_warming_the_campus_non/

    20

  • #

    [...] sig (även om man inte håller med i sak) och som kan följa upp sin ståndpunkt med goda argument. JoNova har en del förebilder från den australiensiska [...]

    00