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

54% of Australians skeptics of man-made global warming, 80% don’t donate to environment or vote for it

The devastating result of the latest CSIRO survey: 54% of Australians don’t believe the experts at the IPCC, and are not convinced that humans are the dominant cause of climate change. Starkly, only 28% of Liberal voters agree with Malcolm Turnbull. Amazingly 40% of Labor voters and even a quarter of green voters don’t accept the IPCC litany. Presumably they think humans have some effect but are not the major cause.

More importantly, even most of those who believe are not motivated. When it comes to spending money on the environment, 80% of Australians don’t voluntarily do it and 80% don’t care enough to change their vote because of this issue. Despite all the relentless propaganda, despite all the government funded groups being in lock-step, the trends are slowly falling for believers (from 2010-2014), though not “statistically significantly”. (Though longer term studies from 1990 to now show that falling trend).

The survey: CSIRO — Australian attitudes to Climate Change, 2015 PDF

Don’t miss below how a climate science professor reveals that most of the people he knows  just follow their political team’s fashions. How telling? Also below, see how the ABC spins this to meaninglessness to support the religion. It’s all so predictable.

Most Australians disagree with IPCC experts

CSIRO, Survey, Australian, Climate Change, attitudes, 2015

Left leaning voters are less skeptical, and more gullible

This graph of political views could be re-titled “the gullibility index”. Three quarters of Green voters believe mankind controls the weather. But three quarters of coalition voters aren’t fooled. Those who are more likely to take entrepreneurial risks, who face real competition, and believe in true free markets have a better grounding in reality. What a surprise.

CSIRO, Survey, Australian, Climate Change, attitudes, 2015

Most Australians won’t voluntarily pay money to environmental causes, nor will they change their vote

CSIRO, Survey, Australian, Climate Change, attitudes, Environmental activism, 2015

This survey is loaded, and still uses the ambiguous term “climate change” as if it means something. That said, it’s bigger and better than most others of its kind. But sadly it was still written as though man-made global warming is powerful, threatening, and worth doing something about. Usually, they even surveyed the same individuals over the years, and as many as half of them changed their opinion on climate change at least once. In other words, half the population is neither here nor there, and their views may shift depending on the weather, or what they heard on the radio the day before. As I’ve said all along, we are only one good prime time documentary away from ending the meme. No wonder the believers are panicky about counter opinions. More of the same propaganda is not going to increase the number of believers, but if the skeptic talking points get a public airing it’s all over.

University, media and public servants just follow their political team … as revealed by Prof Pitman

Peter Hannam of the Sydney Morning Herald headlines it CSIRO survey: Most Coalition voters reject humans to blame for climate change

Professor Andy Pitman reveals that most people around him just follow their masters, and don’t think for themselves. He projects this passive gullibility onto enrepeneurs, risk takers, self employed people and small business owners who are more likely to vote “right”, predicting they will be as passive as the public servants and media that he knows:

Andy Pitman, Director of ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science at the University of NSW, predicted that many Coalition voters will take their cue from the new PM and shift their views.

“To a substantial degree, when asked, a significant fraction of the public say what they think their preferred party says” on issues such as climate change, Professor Pitman said.

“My experience of the public service and right the way through to some media outlets, they absolutely listen to the vibe from the top and respond to it,” he said.

The university and media elite believe they think for themselves, but narcissistically and arrogantly assume that most Australians don’t. The reality of course is that it’s the university “thinkers” who follow the fashions in thinking more slavishly than anyone else.

The ABC spin doesn’t represent 54% of Australians

The ABC predictably cherry picks the last meaningless statistic that still “looks good” for believers and turns that into a headline (if only ABC journalists were trained to understand surveys?). If you don’t define a basic English phrase like “climate change” as scientific, literal, or a political slogan, and then ask an ambiguous question in a loaded survey, you can still get a response that can be spun to look as though people believe in a political meme, when a lot of them are actually just admitting they believe in ice ages.

The ABC segment where Brissenden and Keany fail to discuss the most politically point (that most Australians are skeptical of the IPCC and 80% don’t care enough to vote on environmental issues)  is called “The Full Story” — Orwell, Orwell, Orwell.

A testament to propaganda

The most gullible Australians have soaked up some uber alarming scenarios which are wildly high even compared to the IPCC projections. Nearly 10% of people somehow believe that in only 20 years time we might be 3 whole degrees hotter.

Let me know when Professor Andy Pitman or any author on the IPCC tries to correct this false belief.

CSIRO, Survey, Australian, Climate Change, temperature predictions, 2015

On the other hand, despite the propaganda, on rainfall, Australians are pretty evenly split.  After the endless drought ended, there have been too many floods and mothballed desalination plants in Australia for the public to believe the Tim Flannery prophesies that the dams will never fill.

 

CSIRO, Survey, Australian, Climate Change, rainfall predictions, 2015

Those loaded questions:

 It’s obvious from the phrasing that the survey writers can’t conceive of a reality where the Sun controls the climate, and warming and CO2 are beneficial.

“How much do you think each of the following groups is responsible for climate change?”

“Expected future increases in intensity of events in respondents’ region…”

 ”How much do you think climate change will harm…”

From the ABC interview: the CSIRO researcher herself says that believing this is driven by political leanings is an oversimplification. Despite that, I predict the ABC and the Fairfax press will continue to spread the message that almost all skeptics are ideologically motivated.

FRANCIS KEANY: “What about people’s political leanings?”

ZOE LEVISTON: “Again, if you look at it in isolation, you can see that there are patterns between people’s political orientation – even patterns in who people vote for and how they respond to climate change.

But if you look at things like deep seated world views, again, that human-nature interaction, that accounts for that variability we see in those more surface order things like political orientation.

So again, those connections or those relationships we see are explained by quite deep, fundamental orientations towards the environment and humans in general.

You know, I think it’s an oversimplification to say it’s driven by political leanings.”

Some questions are loaded to groom,
The unwary surveyed to assume,
Global warming is fact,
And that mankind must act,
To avert future climate-change doom.

–Ruairi

So many contradictions in the one survey

This survey resurveyed the same people and found a lot of individuals are flip flopping on views from one year to the next. The same people hold contradictory views. The answer probably is that the survey questions are biased, and as people get further into the loaded questions they respond more as believers which contradicts their earlier position on more neutral questions. 5,000 people did two or more surveys, but only 269 people did all five.

The researchers say they should be cautious in interpreting results. I say they should design better and more neutral surveys:

There are several reasons to be cautious in interpreting basic opinions on the causes of climate change as a
definitive ‘belief’. First, those who endorse the statement indicating climate change is just a natural
fluctuation in Earth’s temperatures, also later estimated that nearly half (46.7%) of all climate change could
be attributed to human activity. Second, this group also gave moderate to high ratings of responsibility to
entities such as big-polluting countries and multinational corporations for both causing and responding to
climate change. Third, those who endorsed the opinion statement that climate change was not happening
at all later estimated around a third (34.6%) of all climate change could be attributed to human activity.
This group also gave responses about perceived impacts of climate change not consistent with their
position: for instance, on average they thought different groups of people would experience at least some
harm from the effects of climate change. The case remains however that one’s basic opinion was clearly
related to behavioural engagement and support for adaptation initiatives. Taken together, this suggests
that people’s basic opinions do not represent a static belief, but rather might best be viewed as a
‘positioning statement’ that gives a broad indication of the perceived threat posed by climate change, and
the urgency and magnitude with which a person feels it should be addressed.

Basic opinions and attitudes toward climate change were relatively stable at an aggregate level, but this
masks considerable volatility within individuals over time. For instance, nearly half of the repeat
respondents changed their opinion at least once during the five surveys. Even between 2013 and 2014,
over a quarter of respondents (29%) changed their opinion. There are competing explanations for this
volatility: it may reflect limitations in the reliability of the measure, it may reflect uncertainty in the minds
of the respondents or changes in their own life circumstances, or it may reflect the influence of societallevel
fluctuations such as recent weather events, political events, and scientific findings. It is probably a
combination of all of these.

BACKGROUND

This report presents the findings of a longitudinal survey of Australians from 2010 to 2014. Conducted annually in July and August of each year, we surveyed a total of 17,493 Australians; 4,999 of whom completed two or more surveys, and 269 of whom completed all five. The surveys formed part of a research program investigating the ways in which Australians think about climate change, and the activities they are undertaking to mitigate or adapt to its impacts.

REFERENCE

Leviston, Z., Greenhill,M., & Walker, I. (2015) Australians attitudes to climate change and adaptation: 2010-2014. CSIRO, Australia.

 h/t Pat,  David B, Andrew McRae, bemused.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (69 votes cast)
54% of Australians skeptics of man-made global warming, 80% don't donate to environment or vote for it, 9.2 out of 10 based on 69 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/pe5xvvf

185 comments to 54% of Australians skeptics of man-made global warming, 80% don’t donate to environment or vote for it

  • #
    Dave

    .

    And Tristan Edis is VERY depressed in Australia about this result

    Well Tristan – take a Valium!

    270

    • #
      aussieguy

      LOL! Who wouldn’t be depressed! If you’re an activist and the majority of people in the real world don’t give two-crap about your causes!

      That “environmental causes” chart shows us…

      7 out of 10 Australians prefer not to be involved in eco-activism.
      8 out of 10 Australians are smart enough not to give their hard earn money to eco-folks.
      8 out of 10 Australians don’t vote based on eco-issues.
      9 out of 10 Australians choose not to plant trees, etc.
      Over 9 out of 10 Australians choose not to be a part of the eco-cult.

      …There is hope after all! LOL!

      This actually explains why they are overtly hostile to anyone who speaks out against their causes! They have a hard time getting public support to begin with!


      And its no surprise that the more politically Left one is, the more one believes in the Climate Change rhetoric. (This “movement” came from the Left and is actively pushed by the Left!)


      The most interesting is that 1 out of 4 Greens voters don’t blindly fall for the propaganda. They either don’t know, thinks its BS, or see it as part of the natural climate cycle…Now that is something I didn’t expect! The Greens voter-base is not in total conformity to the Climate Change cause!



      The most concern I have is with the CSIRO itself. Why are they playing “Game of Surveys” when they are supposed to be a “Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation”? This survey behaviour is more akin to a Social Science undergraduate OR one those Environmental think-tanks who try to whisper sweet eco-nothings into politician’s ears. Nothing to do with inventing cool stuff. You’d think they’d be more concerned with developing new solar, battery, or even nuclear technologies with our tax dollars! …Instead of worrying about finding out people’s political affiliations with Climate Change!

      I’m a little confused, I thought the CSIRO was supposed to be this Nation’s R&D department? Why are they getting involved in activism and politics on the taxpayer’s dime? …Seriously, an audit should be run. If one isn’t actually doing R&D and contributing to the innovation pool of the CSIRO, they should pack their bags and get the heck out!

      As a taxpayer, I want to fund technological innovation. Not activism.

      591

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘The most interesting is that 1 out of 4 Greens voters don’t blindly fall for the propaganda.’

        A quarter of Green voters are sceptical, its time to rejoice.

        Also, the 7.9% who said ‘climate change is not happening’ should be added to our side. Its clear they were angry and confused by the question.

        161

        • #
          MudCrab

          Unfortunately the other way of looking at that is that one quarter of Greens don’t give a toss about the environment and are only there for the party’s social reform.

          Watermellons, or in their case, more likely tomatoes.

          92

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        The most concern I have is with the CSIRO itself. Why are they playing “Game of Surveys” …

        And why are they using propaganda tricks?

        Have a look at the pie-chart. The “Not Happening” segment is more intuitively aligned with the “Natural Variation”, than it is with “Humans are causing it”. The “Don’t Know” segment should be between the two extremes.

        In constructing this presentation, somebody has decided to use the “Don’t know”s, to split the overall block of sceptic opinion. This is done to emphasise the 45.9%, who think humans are to blame, and hide the fact that 46.5% of those surveyed disagree that humans are to blame. Numbers don’t lie. But people presenting the numbers, in graphical form, surely do.

        370

    • #
      Glen Michel

      It may well be agood thing to say to poor Tristan ” I was a believer once: upon reflection I changed my opinion- for for no other reason than for reasons sake”

      110

    • #
      Rick Will

      The Trstan Edis link is now behind their paywall. This is how he opened:
      “A four-year CSIRO study of Australians’ attitudes to climate change shows a society that rates itself rather highly on matters of atmospheric physics when in fact it is pretty clueless.”

      Before it was paywalled I saw 5 comments and 4 of the 5 were very clear that they knew man made climate change was nonsense. That is quite a change from 12 months ago.

      140

    • #
      Ursus Augustus

      “Despite all the relentless propaganda…”

      The problem is for the alarmists is that members of our community is bombarded with marketing and political propaganda pretty well continuously and, except for the dimwits, are inoculated by it just like healthy carbon based organisms everywhere on the planet. Its a carbon thing I suppose and the data seems to show it.

      80

  • #
    john karajas

    If you want contradictions, the Greenies are constantly campaigning to close down wealth-producing industries that underpin our way of life yet they are forever proposing higher government expenditure. Talk about out of touch with reality and “our ABC” are forever running to them for political comment.

    521

    • #
      Dennis

      Their ABC costing around $1.3 billion a year to fund with taxpayer’s monies, no revenue from operations like commercial broadcasters must generate for their shareholders.

      And ABC employees ignore the Charter that requires them to adhere to the rules and to be bipartisan, no political bias allowed.

      120

    • #
      Robk

      And Greens say “a small Australia but more boat people”

      80

  • #
    Peter C

    Tristan link did not work. Not sad for Tristan

    30

    • #
      Peter C

      Delete!

      Should be 1.1#

      20

      • #
        Peter C

        And here was I, only yesterday, giving advice on how to reply correctly!

        —-
        Post a duplicate comment in the right spot and ask the mods to delete the first. We can’t move comments from one part to another. But we can delete them or snip. Cheers – Jo

        110

  • #
    Peter C

    80% don’t care enough to change their vote because of this issue.

    The next election might test that assertion in respect to former Liberal party voters. Do they care enough to change their vote?

    220

    • #
      James Murphy

      I think that would depend if there was anyone else worth voting for in their respective electorates. I have a feeling that informal votes may do better than some candidates in terms of numbers.

      141

      • #
        el gordo

        If the election is fought over climate change, with a debate on the issue, then the sceptics should win the argument given equal air time.

        I suspect Turnbull and Hunt would like to avoid that outcome, but Bill Shorten senses victory and is determined to push ahead no matter what.

        The PM is going to Paris to sprout hot air and make verbal promises beyond our present contribution, but they are empty words without foundation. So on their sojourn Hunt, Turnbull and Bishop will be paying lip service to stop the international community calling us a pariah nation on CC.

        The world will change dramatically over the coming years as global cooling sets in, but we need to reinforce the idea that natural variables dominate the system and humans are only bit players.

        170

        • #
          Glen Michel

          Agreed! If only adequate time can be given.Debate over!? What debate? Is Carbon Dioxide- or the human component- driving the the entire atmospheric/ oceanic setup. Nah… According to some it’s all about CARBON!

          60

        • #
          Bill

          Equal air time will never be given, add in the “media party” and you will see the same results as we did in Canada after a concerted 12 year campaign of hate against one man led to the election of a committed warmist as PM. As Trudeau has already committed to signing onto anything the parisites put before him, we are toast.

          10

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      A few elections ago, in New Zealand, somebody formed an Apathy Party.

      They had lots of supporters, but none could be bothered to vote.

      200

    • #
      David Maddison

      I am changing my vote to the Australian Liberty Alliance. They will remove all subsidies (where legally possible) from “alternate” power production. If people want to own or use windmills they can charge or pay market price for this expensive power or freeze. They also have excellent policies on “that other matter” that we can’t mention here which is also threatening to destroy Western Civilisation.

      200

      • #
        PeterPetrum

        Me too, David. If we had a group in the Senate who had true conservative views on such issues as free speech and now, as we know, “climate change”, it would be quite encouraging. The ALA manifesto on this issue is quite interesting. Without going back to their site to check I think they have a bob both ways in talking about the environment in that they are neither “believers nor deniers” on global warming, but rely on science, not computer models and are more concerned about real environmental pollution than the “other” issue.

        90

  • #
    Graham Richards

    All those who repeatedly engage with the warmists on environmental & other sciences are actually doing the work of the warmist fraudsters. All the talk of scientific work gives credibility to their theories. We do need defence strategies but the argument must now focus on the ulterior motives of the UN and it’s various agencies aiming for one world government and redistribution of western wealth which will see us return to the dark ages.

    Exactly how this should be tackled I’m not sure but it must start soon. I am not qualified to be involved but at least I can recognise the machinations of the UN. Some feed back from those more qualified would be appreciated.

    80

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The scientific unpicking of dubious science, the formulation of alternative hypothese, and the highlighting of propaganda dressed up as statistics (see my comment at 1.1.2), all attack the problem at its roots. Poison the roots, and the rest of the plant dies.

      Hypothesising over the motives and intentions of supranational bodies leaves us exposed to being called “conspiracy theorists”, “alarmists”, and “social terrorists”, or worse. It is an easy “shut-down” by those in authority, whereas arguing on the basis of science is not.

      Those folks, who have little science education, may not understand the finer points of a scientific or mathematical discussion, but they are invariably smart enough to understand the general principles being discussed, and notice that “the establishment” has no response to the arguments that we present, other than shouting, “Wrong!”, without explaining why, or resorting to Appeal to Authority, or Appeal to Majority, or other logical errors.

      Science is the manifestation of truth. Political opinion and policy are not.

      210

    • #
      gai

      Try a ‘Lesbian Flaming Liberal’ (Her self description) with her head screwed on right. This lady is very very knowledgeable.

      DEMOCRATS AGAINST U. N. AGENDA 21

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK2sZUs2l_U

      http://www.postsustainabilityinstitute.org/the-post-sustainable-future.html

      Here book is BEHIND THE GREEN MASK: U.N. Agenda 21

      51

  • #
    Andrew

    They say almost 20% voted how they did, based on an environmental issue. I’d suggest a fair few of those were ANTI-ecoloons, voting FOR the CO2 tax repeal. Noting a large swing to ALP when St Kevni promised to Axe the Tax.

    170

    • #
      Get Real

      As a former friend of the ABC and Labor voter I am appalled at the blatant bias in ABC science reporting. To hear supposedly educated parliamentarians talk of carbon pollution only exacerbated the cringe factor. These days when I vote I count the number of candidates and place that number against the green candidate. Labor is next with the second last vote. I vote this way solely on these parties adherence to the Catastropharian Church of Climatology.

      190

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        The early ABC news reported it as 75% of australians believe in climate change. Note the deliberate confusion of natural with man made.

        If the ABC meant 75% believe in man-made climate change that means over 98% of those polled were Greens. If you deduct the contribution by the Greens the result is that only 37% of normal people believe in man-made climate change.

        Since the Greens are highly unlikely to ever vote for the Government I wonder if Malcolm realises he is pushing AGW up hill?

        120

      • #
        Robert O

        It’s an interesting result inasmuch inspite of wall to wall coverage of any story supportive of AGW by the media in general and the ABC in particular, half of the people don’t believe it. Could have something to do with the “Hockey Stick”, the revealing Emails and the litany of failed prediction by the pundits.

        60

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    The very fact that the CSIRO has created and distributed this material shows where its’ priorities lie.

    NOT WITH SCIENCE.

    Why would any reputable scientific organisation be so revealing of its’ driving force as to run this Poll to gauge the attitude of the community to this topic except to aid some politician to cover the scientific reality.

    I would have been much more impressed with an article by CSIRO on the REAL behaviour and effect of human origin CO2 on world temperatures but unfortunately there would be nothing to write about.

    No! All they want to do is talk around the issue; not deal with it.

    It is a scientific Sword of Damocles hanging over them and IT WILL FALL!

    KK

    402

    • #
      Dave

      .
      Yes KK
      Totally agree – The CSIRO is supposed to be concerned with science

      Bio-metrics of peoples attitudes toward different issues should be left to POLLING companies

      Total waste of money by this organisation!

      291

    • #
      gnome

      I disagree Keith. I think the CSIRO are starting to smell some blood in the water and are slowly starting to change their tune. A year ago they would have concealed the fact that most people don’t think global warming is man-made: a year from now they will be able to point to this and say they were aware attitudes had changed.

      The collapse can’t come soon enough, and I think it is now time to go on the offensive against those who would try to enforce a reduction in the supply of plant food.

      Green baby, green. It’s the new environmentalism.

      221

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        Yep. That’s my take on the CSIRO’s activity too, gnome.

        The lefties in the organisation are worried. Smell the fear.

        When the public shift comes it will come fast.

        Those CSIRO “scientists” who have nailed their reputations to the green-left eco-loonies mast will be seen for what they are. Not scientists. Failed political activists.

        We know that already. The rest of the Australian population will soon find out how these disgraceful public service “scientists” have betrayed their profession and the Australian people.

        Bring on the day.

        130

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Then we need to make a register of all of the CSIRO scientists who have come out in support of the scam. You can’t shame them, if you can’t name them.

          160

        • #
          ian hilliar

          The same for activists like Andy Pitman Director of “ARC Centre For Excellence in Climate Science Systems, UNSW.” Don’t you just love that title. Self described “Centre For Excellence” has the same sort of ring about it as any self described ” Democratic Peoples Republic Of”…..which is how every tinpot dictatorship describes itself.

          10

  • #
    ROM

    Well Jo for once I will take issue with your conclusions.

    [ said with tongue in cheek! ]

    That survey Jo quotes is arguably so optimistic from the alarmist’s perspective, so pessimistic from the skeptic’s perspective that it is basically worthless.

    I got a bit curious again and it only took a few seconds to figure out how to get the true deep down genuine levels of belief in the “anthropogenic global warming disaster about to happen yesterday” meme as proven by the ability of a program to separate a “mark” from his money via selling him / her some carbon credits.

    Another few minutes on Google and here it is dated 22 Aug 2013 and the numbers are even less now!

    [ my bold ]

    Carbon offsets are nothing if not established in the market today. In fact, they have been available in Australia since pioneering airlines began to offer them to environmentally conscious passengers back in 2007. The cost of offsetting your individual carbon output in terms of aviation fuel based carbon dioxide emissions is also surprisingly low, with a flight between Sydney and Melbourne averaging around $1 on top of the ticket price. Even a flight from Sydney to the west coast of the US would only set passengers back around $13 extra.

    The natural assumption to draw, then, would be that many people would opt to offset their flight. But it remains a choice only taken by a minority of passengers, despite several mainstream carriers offering the option.
    Airlines insist that it is entirely up to the consumer whether they offset their flights and the accepted wisdom seems to be that by simply offering the option they are demonstrating their green credentials adequately – after all, there is no legislation that requires airlines to provide the offer.

    Each airline has a slightly different take when it comes to offsets, however.

    Qantas launched their Fly Carbon Neutral program in 2007, allowing passengers who book through their website a choice regarding the offsetting of their carbon emissions. The website automatically calculates how many kilograms of carbon your flight would emit, as well as how much you would have to pay to equalise this.
    Although opting to offset a domestic flight within Australia would generally cost less than the price of a coffee in Sydney’s CBD, only 5% to 8% of consumers actually click yes, according to a Qantas spokesperson.

    Only 5% to 8% of passengers who fly Quantas and that will have a higher proportion of the well paid and upper echelons of society who one would expect would be the greenest sector of the community, are prepared to put their wallets where their mouths are!

    The Rest ?

    Haven’t thought about it. 
    Aren’t capable of thinking about it.
    Can’t be bothered thinking about it
    Don’t want to think about it
    Couldn’t give a damn. Let somebody else worry about it. I’ve got enough of my own problems.

    Yeh I guess I’ll agree because the university/ CSIRO are doing the survey and they should know what they the hell they are talking about.
    They get paid enough to figure all this stuff out.
    The ABC and Fairfax are crapping on about it all the time.
    Sigh!!! Another bloody survey!
    —————
    And so ends today’s lesson in the futility of holding surveys that give a very different picture to the one where people are expected to hand over their hard earned for some vague nebulous cause which they themselves have never seen or experienced nor know anybody who has nor deep down ever expect to affect their own lives in any case.

    253

    • #
      Peter C

      With respect to purchasing Carbon Offset credits when one books an airline ticket. Apparently only 5% of customer s request to pay for carbon offsets!

      The Rest ?

      Haven’t thought about it.
      Aren’t capable of thinking about it.
      Can’t be bothered thinking about it
      Don’t want to think about it
      Couldn’t give a damn. Let somebody else worry about it. I’ve got enough of my own problems.

      Well maybe not any of those. Perhaps 95% of airline passengers do not sgree that CO2 from jet airplane exhausts has any effect of the Climate of the Earth.

      Maybe we should ask them.

      140

      • #

        On Australian domestic flights with Qantas and Jetstar the carbon credits are automatically offered with every purchase online. I think you even have to change the default to “no thanks” to avoid it. It could be that the 5% who buy them just weren’t paying attention, and it’s only $3.70 or so to offset a flight from Perth to Melbourne.

        130

        • #

          it’s only $3.70 or so to offset a flight from Perth to Melbourne.

          Over-priced by my reckoning.

          Per passenger fuel consumption on a “long haul” flight is about 3 l/100km per passenger. That makes it about 81 litres of fuel used. Burning jet fuel produces about 2.56 kg of CO2e per litre of fuel. i.e. per passenger CO2e emissions are 207 kg, putting their price of CO2 at nearly $18/tonne. That’s more than double the cheapest CO2e phoney money.

          Further; stratospheric CO2 produces nett cooling, so they should be paying you for flying instead of driving of taking the train. Even more when you take the red-eye.

          110

      • #
        Manfred

        I believe that most possess sufficient instinct when faced with a simple case of looting.

        When it comes to spending money on the environment, 80% of Australians don’t voluntarily do it and 80% don’t care enough to change their vote because of this issue.

        Indeed, most would surmise, and quite correctly, that they are already having far too much stolen from them in the ubiquitous name of the ‘environment’, whether materially, or in the form of the legislative stealing of their freedom.

        100

  • #
    pattoh

    All the more reason why the Nationals should grow up & face their only option – pull out of the Coalition & bring this GS/NWO PM who does NOT have a mandate before the people BEFORE he gives up the nation’s sovereignty in Paris.

    350

  • #
    ROM

    OOPS! Link to the above #7 post!

    http://www.travelweekly.com.au/article/Are-carbon-offsets-off-the-agenda/

    And goody!
    I’ve got a red thumb already so I must have hit a very sensitive nerve real damn quick.

    Thats if Red Thumb is literate and can read the post and its not just a involuntary reflex action of an uncontrollable manifestation of a climate change affected extreme mental imbecility.

    172

  • #

    With a raft of these opinion polls coming out, it seems that the politicians have taken their shiny apple, greedily bitten off from the “Climate Extremist” agenda, and now they’ve found that there’s half a horrible maggot in the apple that’s left.

    230

  • #
    William

    Over in Fairfax land the chicken little alarmists have interpreted this survey as proving 75% of coalition voters are brain dead troglodytes.

    I think it is a coping mechanism for them as they are getting more and more shrill as we head towards Paris.

    230

  • #
    gnome

    Anyone who really cares about the environment wants CO2 levels to rise. Already, the world is greening because of CO2 being more available, and it can go a lot higher and still be noticeably beneficial.

    I fall into the one in five or so who do spend a lot of time and money on the environment, and I think it is only those who never get out of the big cities, who only travel by air, who never watch plants growing, who think CO2 emissions are harmful.

    A warmer world is a wetter world, and a wetter world with more CO2 will be a paradise. That is an aspiration we should be defending.

    352

  • #
    toorightmate

    I watched Network 10′s The Project tonight – only because Monsieur Aly was absent from the panel.
    They had Hugh Rimington and Jennifer Byrne (not sure that she had Auntie’s permission).

    One of the topics was why LNP voters have a greater proportion of people with climate sense than the ALP.

    The only clown on the panel who spoke stupidly about climate change was Rimington. Perhaps he has passed his “use by date”. Even Andrew’s wife declined from being stupid about the reasons (?) for global warming.

    Hugh even supported his “argument”(???) with a chart – which some left leaning piece of blunt timber had produced (covered about 30 years).

    82

  • #
    Gordon Cheyne

    It’s pointless doing a survey, asking what people think of “global warming” or “climate change” without defining what these terms mean.

    130

  • #
  • #
    gnome

    I saw Pitman on TV once. You think Matthew England is a pathetic creature who would be unable to cross the road without assistance- you should see Pitman.

    If they are the best the centre of excellence have the warmists should be very worried.

    122

    • #
      gnome

      (To be fair, ship-of-fools Turney comes across as normal, so Pitman and England obviously aren’t the best they have.)

      92

      • #
        Peter C

        (To be fair, ship-of-fools Turney comes across as normal

        You must be joking! UNSW Climate Change Department!
        Please explain.

        61

        • #
          gnome

          I only mean he looks like he would be unable to tie his shoelaces if he got drunk enough, just like a normal person. Pitman couldn’t get a beer in a brewery.

          40

    • #
      Jeremy

      Actually, the public should be worried. But it’s a bit late now.
      It’s money has already been tossed – at Pitman, England, and others
      like Karoly, Stefen, and Flannery, courtesy of the ARC.
      Want to know where it’s gone?

      https://youtu.be/U6T0Ni3-mlM

      00

  • #
    pat

    3 Nov: NYT: Chris Buckley: China Burns Much More Coal Than Reported, Complicating Climate Talks
    BEIJING — China, the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse gases from coal, has been burning up to 17 percent more coal a year than the government previously disclosed, according to newly released data…
    Even for a country of China’s size, the scale of the correction is immense. The sharp upward revision in official figures means that China has released much more carbon dioxide — almost a billion more tons a year according to initial calculations — than previously estimated.
    The increase alone is greater than the whole German economy emits annually from fossil fuels.
    Officials from around the world will have to come to grips with the new figures when they gather in Paris this month…
    The new data, which appeared recently in an energy statistics yearbook published without fanfare by China’s statistical agency, show that coal consumption has been underestimated since 2000, and particularly in recent years…
    Illustrating the scale of the revision, the new figures add about 600 million tons to China’s coal consumption in 2012 — an amount equivalent to more than 70 percent of the total coal used annually by the United States…
    (SPIN) The new numbers may mean that the peak will be higher, but they also raise hopes that emissions will crest many years sooner, Mr. Yang, the climate adviser, said.
    “I think this implies that we’re closer to a peak, because there’s also been a falloff in coal consumption in the past couple of years,” he said…
    The agency estimated, based on the new figures, that China’s carbon dioxide pollution in 2011 and 2012 was 4 percent to 6 percent greater than previously thought.
    But some scientists said the difference could be much larger…
    The revised numbers do not alter scientists’ estimates of the total amount of carbon dioxide in the air…
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/world/asia/china-burns-much-more-coal-than-reported-complicating-climate-talks.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1
    Correction: November 4, 2015
    Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article misstated the amount of China’s emissions in 2013. The country did not emit 4.2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide. That number referred to the amount of coal consumed that year

    oops!

    20 Aug: Guardian: Emma Howard: China’s carbon emissions from fossil fuels may be 14% lower than thought
    China’s carbon emissions from fossil fuels and cement production may have been overestimated by as much as 14%, according to a new analysis by scientific researchers.
    The report, published in the journal Nature, estimates that in 2013, China’s CO2 emissions totalled 2.49 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon, 14% less than previously thought. Over the period 2000-2013, it calculates that the difference is 2.9 gigatonnes, larger than China’s total forest sink – the amount of carbon it absorbs – between 1990 and 2007…
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/19/chinas-carbon-emissions-may-be-lower-than-thought

    50

  • #
    King Geo

    To quote George W. Bush – “make no mistake ………..”

    If the ALP try and sell the “de-carbonization story” to the electorate in next years Federal Election then expect them to be decimated at the Polls. Likewise for the Coalition – stick to the current policy. And a warning to the Coalition – become a signatory to the “UN Emissions Trading Scheme” at the impeding COP 21 Meeting in Paris then expect a severe backlash in 10 months time. The latest CSIRO Survey is a warning to the major Aussie political parties – the Aussie electorate largely have not been sucked in by the “AGW Hype” and don’t want vast sums of their hard earned tax A$’s sent to the UN to address a “non-problem”.

    100

    • #
      clive

      This is slightly off topic,but should be read by every-one here.
      Lord Monckton exposes U.N. ‘agreement’ to establish world government

      “Be afraid. Be very afraid. I have now read the late-October draft of the “agreement” that the U.N. will bounce all nations into ratifying at the climate conference in Paris at the end of this month. It is nothing less than a coup d’etat by the global governing elite. It is a charter for punishing prosperity, destroying democracy, finishing freedom and wasting the West.

      It is not only the freedom of the people (in those countries that still retain it) that is now under direct and grievous threat. The freedom of all governments to govern as independent, sovereign powers in the interest of their peoples is about to be taken away forever.

      The Paris “agreement” should be regarded by governments with at least as much caution as if it were called a “treaty.” The frank intent of the latest draft, now in my hands, is that the “agreement” should be at least as binding on the parties as a treaty.

      The provisions for enforcement of the will of the new global governing authority over Western nations that the “agreement” brings into being are severe and potentially costly, damaging and even fatal to the very notion of independent, elected, national government.

      The global-government ambition of the U.N., supported by most totalitarian regimes (who smell power at the expense of the Western hegemony) and by almost all Third-World countries (who smell Western money) is to establish a world government using the climate as the pretext.

      This quote from Ottmar Edinhofer of the IPCC “But one must say clearly,that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…..This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore”

      The word “government,” in the sense of a global governing power with real authority to impose laws and regulations, to collect pre-emptive taxes and fines, and to supervise and enforce compliance, appeared twice in the failed Copenhagen treaty draft of 2009.

      The phrase “governing body,” which appeared in the February 2015 first draft of the Paris “agreement,” has been quietly dropped in favor of the cloaking acronym “CMA,” standing for “Conference of the parties serving as the Meeting of the parties to this Agreement.” In practice, this means the permanent secretariat, to which the “agreement” gives real global governing power in all but name.

      The New World Order will enforce its will by a multitude of outrageous mechanisms that no democratic nation should endorse for a single instant. Not the least of these is the proposal to establish an international climate change court, craftily renamed a “tribunal” to make it seem less powerful than it will actually be. The text makes it plain that this “tribunal” will have powers against Western nations only. And they will be real powers, backed by what the draft agreement delicately calls “facilitation.” In plain English, this means enforcement.

      The notion of a climate court was originally proposed in the Durban climate agreement four years ago, but, though not one of the 2,000 journalists present at the conference bothered to report that or any other provision in the text, I publicized it, and there was such an international outcry that that proposal, along with two-thirds of the entire negotiating text, had to be abandoned at 24 hours’ notice once the daylight was let in on it. Now it is back.

      Every flea-bitten fly-speck of an island state gets the same vote as the United States. The Third-World countries that smell power and money – Western power and money – will drive this nonsense through, because the U.N. voting system tilts the decision-making heavily in their favor.

      Mr. Obama, with his scientifically illiterate and viscerally anti-American administration, will stand alongside the Third World as it uses the climate treaty to knife the West. So will the vapid Trudeau Jr. in Canada, the profiteering Turbull (sic) in Australia, and of course all the countries of the dismal European tyranny-by-clerk, which has already succeeded in taking away democracy from all its satrapy states, including Britain. The U.N. wants globally the power the E.U. wields regionally. And, this time, it is going to get it.

      After more than two decades of negotiation in various exotic locations (throughout which there has been no statistically significant global warming, and none whatever for almost 19 years), the word “option” appears no less than 259 times in the current Paris draft. “Option 1,” “Option 2,” etc., appear all the way through.

      On past experience, this is a sign that the secretariat has been maneuvering to prevent agreement being reached on anything other than a decision to transfer executive and decision-making authority on all matters marked “option” to the secretariat.

      It is an old dodge. After the statutory all-night-session, the negotiators, after due softening-up, will emerge with stubbly chins (and the men, too) to announce that they have agreed to transfer all power of decision-making on the “difficult” question of climate to the faceless, full-time secretariat.

      Throughout the draft, a dangerous ratchet mechanism has been built in, by which the Western parties commit themselves to pay more and more and more of their taxpayers’ money to the secretariat. On past experience of the U.N., practically none of that money will ever reach any Third-World country. It will be trousered by the fat-cat bureaucrats.

      All parties other than China, to which Mr. Obama unilaterally gave an exemption last December to prevent them from blowing the Paris treaty out of the water as they blew away the Copenhagen treaty in 2009, will be required to submit to humiliating “verification” of the extent of their compliance with their obligations to pay the secretariat vast sums, and to destroy their economies by an eventual total ban on burning coal, oil and gas.

      To consent to this chilling document, which reinstates at a stroke the totalitarianism we all hoped had been destroyed when the Berlin Wall came down, and this time makes it global and hence inescapable, would be sheer lunacy. How can governments be so stupid as to encompass their own destruction as well as the destruction of their national economies and of their people’s freedom?

      In parallel with my reading of the 50 pages of small print that are the blueprint for global totalitarian dictatorship, I have been looking very closely at the “science” that is the pretext for this coup d’etat by the classe politique. I have identified the central, ingenious, carefully concealed fraud underlying the false claim that there will be major global warming by the end of this century.

      I shall be going to Paris. There, I shall describe the fraud, provide all necessary evidence of it, and leave it to lovers of freedom everywhere to take that evidence, complain to their national investigating and prosecuting authorities, and have the small clique of malevolent, hard-left, profiteering scientists behind the scare rounded up and put on trial.

      One or two fraud prosecutions will be enough. All of the rest will rapidly scuttle for cover, and the climate scare will implode overnight.

      For freedom cannot and will not be destroyed. The creatures who now sense absolute power within their grasp will find – yet again – that we, the people, are more powerful than they know.”

      I realise that the Nats have an “Agreement”with the Libs,but I and most “Australians”don’t trust Turnbull and the Libs.He wants an ETS.and so do the Banksters at Goldman Sachs.

      00

  • #
    Keith L

    Pitman’s comments just remind me of my original idea that ignorance and arrogance go together and academia has cornered the market for both.

    151

    • #
      King Geo

      No doubt Charlie, when he shortly arrives on Aussie shores, will contact fellow “Warmist Pom” and so called Climate Expert Andy Pitman. At least Andy has far better academic credentials than Charlie regarding Earth’s Climate so who would believe a single word emanating from his Royal Highness regarding this subject matter? – let’s face it Charlie’s scientific knowledge on this subject matter would be comparable to fellow “Warmist” Pope Francis.

      50

    • #
      Leonard Lane

      Keith L. You are correct. I have just conducted a scientific poll of me and thee and the correlation between ignorance and arrogance is 1.0, a perfect relationship. The confidence in the results of this study is 100%.

      20

  • #
    Egor TheOne

    So only 46% are stupid according to CSIRO , a True B’lver administration !

    What is this Believe or Disbelieve Crap ? A religious question !…..More Medievalism !

    Since when is any Scientific subject belief based ?

    This smells like a political survey !….Since when do scientists run polls ??

    How about proof that our co2 output is driving and or will drive Dangerous Global Warming via greenhouse effect ?

    No proof ….not even likely because co2 has increased but global mean temp has not over nearly the last 19 years !

    Therefore , the original Hypothesis is dead …..Why is this Dead Horse still being Flogged?

    The science left this subject long ago …..its about money ,big taxes , big financial interests and sleazy political agendas !

    The science is weak at best and always has been , and hence the need for a massive propaganda campaign .

    If the Science was strong , there would be no need for propaganda !

    Since when do politicians tell the truth about anything , so if they are flogging it , you can bet it is another of a long line of BS .

    Yea , they are going to save the planet with a great big new tax ! How convenient that must be ….a politicians dream , the leftists way of paying for there extreme waste , while our weak coalition goes along with it with Abbott no longer PM .

    So many are under the illusion that only a PhD can assess the science when the answer is simply told in virtually one graph >>>> https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/clip_image002_thumb1.jpg?w=597&h=279

    No need to believe or not to believe , just check some basic graphs .

    The more you check for yourself , the more obvious it becomes that it is a scam , a racket ,a gross manipulation !

    There using cheap used car salesman tactics on us , and half the population nhas fallen for it !

    It is obvious ,regardless of any poles , that there is a considerable following of True B’lvers , otherwise Carbon Pollution Bill would not be learjetting around the Pacific counting clouds ,measuring 1mm per year SLR with a micrometer , and attempting ‘Jungle Dances ‘ .
    The Alp obviously thinks it will win them votes or they wouldn’t waste there time .
    His recent attempt to a lower voter age to young True B’lvers was another desperate attempt to arrest his diving pole numbers .
    Even Abbott had to publicly do somewhat of an about face , as even he is/was vote driven .

    If it is political , then it is not science .

    In addition it now has an easily manipulated mob mentality ….which is the real threat .

    When the Paris Pre-Enlightenment begins , the ‘Flog Level’ will escalate to unseen heights

    100

  • #
    Andrew

    I heard the ABC ‘report’ this morning when I accidentally forgot to switch of the radio when the news came on. When I heard the 78% of australians believe in climate change – I knew that number was wrong and I knew immediately someone was lying to me. I also thought it amusing that according to the ABC not enought liberal voters were true believers. It was farcical and it left me slighly saddened that I had not hit the off button in time to avoid hearing where my taxes get wasted every day.

    80

    • #
      Robert O

      Andrew, I believe in climate change as it always has and does and 100% of people should hold this viewpoint. However, this survey shows us that about half of the population don’t think man has much to do with it, moreover it’s natural. And quite a few think they can prevent 2 degrees C of warming by donating to “carbon” abatement schemes endorsed by the UN, the problem being this includes many politicians whose formal training is in the arts, economics or law, not science.

      20

  • #
    "Stevo" David Stevens

    This is one voter who has already told his Federal MP that he has lost my vote. Quite simply because ‘our PM’ (a bit like ‘our ABC’) seems incapable of grasping the reality that is daily demonstrated on Jo’s site (among others). All the fuss over a 15% GST overlooks the fact that we are already taxed too highly and if Mr Turnbull truly wants to save money he should cancel all Government funded travel to the pending Paris COP junket, and, pouring billions into the IPCC related ponzi schemes.

    120

    • #
      Robert O

      Stevo, if Aust. is to get out of its debt the answer is very simple: adopt some economic policies of Presidents Kennedy and Reagan. Cut taxes to the bone, get rid of all these commissions and quangoes, only have state depts. of health, environment and education, and let people and their enterprises get on with productive business without the roadblocks.

      50

  • #
    eliza

    Poll out of date anyway 2010-2014? Its probably much worse for the AGW crowd at this stage

    70

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      Eliza, the CSIRO is a public service organisation. It’s run by public servants. Its climate “scientists” are not real scientists. They just deliver that which they think the powers want them to deliver.

      Why would anybody expect it to have up-to-date figures?

      That, plus their activist political stance, is why the organisation’s credibility is shot.

      22

      • #
        PeterPetrum

        Their funding for this work was cut off at the end of 2014. Obviously someone could see the way it was trending and decided to stop while they were only a little bit behind!

        10

        • #
          Sceptical Sam

          If funding was cut as you say, that supports my point PeterPetrum.

          On whose say so was the funding cut?

          Was that decision taken within the CSIRO or did it come from the Minister’s office (directly or indirectly)?

          And further, if it were merely a budget expenditure control decision, I’m sure funding could be found from savings or underspends elsewhere in the organisation. But nope. You seem to be on the money. Some activist administrator or worse still, some activist “scientist”, could see what was coming and took action to mitigate the damage to their narrative.

          10

  • #

    The ideal way to promote effective Climate Skeptic political influence in Australia is for a Climate Change Skeptics’ Political party to be formed and it should run candidates for the senate in the up coming election. These survey results point to a big protest vote that would probably give this new party control in the senate which would ensure the blocking of all climate scam legislation from then on. This is the most effective way to fight this scam.

    70

    • #
      Egor TheOne

      sensible comment….a better name would be ‘the Anti BS Party ‘

      That would also take care of the RET the CCA and a host of other Climate Pigs with Snouts in the Tax payer funds trough and then defund the AlpgreensBC and give that pontificator Jones the Bum’s Rush Out !

      Don’t know if they would go for that in the lower house but a strong senate skeptics vote in the senate would definitely help skeptic policy in the lower house and weaken True B’lver clowns TurnBS and Hunt !

      Strong Conservatives would definitely vote for such a party , but not before the Paris True B’lver Totalitarians Hajj .

      And not 1 dollar to the United Nutters Global Green Fund would also be a priority .

      40

    • #
      clive

      ALA is the party who know this is a scam.

      20

  • #
    Ruairi

    Some questions are loaded to groom,
    The unwary surveyed to assume,
    Global warming is fact,
    And that mankind must act,
    To avert future climate-change doom.

    221

  • #
    A C

    “From the ABC interview: the CSIRO researcher herself says that believing this is driven by political leanings is an oversimplification.”
    Hmmmm?
    Is it just possible they have this round the wrong way as well and that scepticism drives political leanings rather than political leaning drives scepticism?

    80

  • #

    At the link below, the SBS(ABC) reports this CSIRO survey.
    Their news headline is:quote “A survey by the CSIRO shows that 78 per cent of Australians believe in climate change, but the cause seems to be linked to their political views.”
    They go on to say quote “While most attributed it to humans, there was a division along political lines.”
    On the contrary, in the survey, apparently most of those surveyed do not attribute climate change to humans. As it says in this article 54% in the survey are skeptics of man made global warming.
    How can the ABC/SBS get away with this blatant misrepresentation as also duplicated in their TV news report on the survey today as well? Their spin gives a false impression of the facts.

    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/11/04/australia-divided-climate-change-causes

    60

    • #

      Obviously climate changes but the issue is…… is this change caused by humans? When this is included in the survey question, obviously most people will say “no”.

      50

      • #
        doubting dave

        Robert , whats just as interesting about this survey is the questions not asked, gnome in comment #12 points out that a warmer world is a wetter one and with increased levels of co2 net beneficial. Why did the surveyors not ask respondents whether they think increased temperature due to climate change would be net negative or net positive? of course we know the answer to that , the alarmists control what is taught in our schools and the message through the mainstream media, and absolutely the last thing they want is for people to learn about the benefits of a warming world and co2. Ive noticed lately ( And Jo through her blog has helped lead the way in this) a shift in the skeptical debate to one that promotes the benefits of more CO2 rather than a debate centred around arguing the science and politics of alarmism , this is the last place the pushers of this green crap want us to go, and how we defeat them, the more we push the benefits out to the general population the lower the percentage of the believers in these surveys will get. Thanks

        40

  • #
    TdeF

    The media, universities and people on the left of politics all think for themselves and they have plenty of people who agree with them. They are all individuals. Besides, when did facts have anything to do with a point of view because everyone knows science is derived from consensus and peer review. If enough people agree with you, it must be right. Those who do not agree and ask questions are simply politically motivated deniers. The Science is in.

    50

  • #
    posa

    It really doesn’t matter what people believe. The key question is whether they’ll put their money where their mouth is and pay high taxes to discourage energy use.

    In the US, the NYTimes polls reported overwhelming disapproval for green taxes by a 35-65% margin.

    In any case Climate Change is a very low priority among people polled across the globe.

    80

  • #
    doubting dave

    Whilst i agree with you posa in that as you say “climate change is a very low priority among people polled” the surveys actually cause the respondents who are ambivalent, the sleeping majority, to consider the issue perhaps for the first time, which is an own goal by the alarmists as its to their advantage to keep the masses dumbed-down on climate change and its effects .

    50

  • #
    BernardP

    All over the world, political leaders are ignoring what their electorate think and going ahead with the fight against man-made global warming. Why? Because, in most caes, they have a personal belief in AGW and just *know* they are right. The pro-AGW movement has been very effective in instilling a sense of moral superiority in its followers. Thought leaders and most of the media not only reinforce that sentiment, but never miss an opportunity to portray climate skeptis with condescention.

    Even Dr. David Evans’ colossal work on a new climate model will likely be simply ignored, because the bandwagon effect he is trying to counter has taken a life of its own, impervious to rational/scientific arguments.

    121

    • #
      Yonniestone

      When the elected leaders manoeuvre to override the system that will dislodge their power, the opinions of others matter little.

      40

    • #
      gai

      Bernard, I think you have it backwards.

      The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. — H.L. Mencken 1918

      CAGW was a hobgoblin created by the ruling class as a method to herd the populace into agreeing to a unelected totalitarian world government. Only the collusion between the UN, MSM, governments, universities and learned societies have kept CAGW alive. It is a walking zombie that by rights should have died after Climategate. It should have died after the fifteen year Pause. It should have died after the models in AR5 were proved wrong by actual temperature data. It should have died when no Hot Spot was found. It should have died thanks to Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski statement before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and that of Dr, Roy Spencer and so many others. It didn’t because CAGW is on live support via the ruling elite.

      Earlier this year Christiana Figueres,Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and a disciple of Al Gore, said:

      “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution… democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China is the best model.”

      Now we have Bill Gates saying something similar.

      WUWT: Bill Gates Climate Rant: “Representative Democracy is a Problem”

      There are many more such statement here: http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html

      They all point to the fact CAGW is not and never was a ‘scientific’ debate. It has been political from the day it was conceived.

      131

      • #
        TdeF

        Well said. While CAGW was the original vehicle, vilifying carbon has become immensely popular because of the money and power it generated. For 20 years the unelected UN has been a rapidly growing (16% a year) shadow political organization which operates behind the political scene distributing favors and largesse. A Nobel Peace price for Global Warming does not even make sense, but is a symptom.

        This all started with the creation of the UN IPCC in 1988. How do governments control the weather? An Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change? The name should have been a warning.

        What a great little earner. Now bigger than Big Tobacco. Most recently fracking has halved oil prices and produced an unholy alliance between Oil producers and the Greens. Big Wind, Big Solar and the UN have now been joined by Big Oil in the fight to make energy much more expensive and stop nuclear. At the UN, tiny island states have joined the fight for cash regardless of the fact that there is no sea level rise.

        So who cares whether CAGW is true? Climate Change is huge and the inconvenient failure to warm has not stopped anyone. Conspiracy? Who needs it? Big Carbon and the Green movement is now one of the world’s biggest industries, posing as caring environmentalism while it condemns the poor to eternal poverty. 100,000+ stakeholeders in CAGW are descending on Paris. At our expense.

        Keep them scared. Besides it is all about the poor and the environment and the evils of capitalist democracies.

        101

      • #
        Egor TheOne

        Accurate Comments !

        A global Scam with Mob mentality !

        The PitchForkers are racing up the hill to the the Evil Castle of Democracy to cast out the capitalists before Global doom descends upon us all !

        Only great big new taxes can save us ( more fleecing ) from inevitable doom !

        As Godfrey Bloom ex MEP said ” they have to keep inventing scenarios as this global warming to scare us into paying more and more taxes , that somehow we are being taxed pro bono , that paying taxes is somehow good for us ”
        He has pointed out that the average Member of the European Parliament ( mini NWO wannabes) gets paid over 100,000 pounds plus expenses but only pays 12% income tax .

        We now have the ‘Unelected Nutters’ modeling themselves as the new global version of the Eurozone using the CAGW fiasco as the vehicle for major change to World Totalitarianism .

        Where the unelected self proclaimed elite ( dictators ) determine the misery level for the rest of us .

        It is ‘our own fault’ , we the sheep trusting the wolves to keep us safe ….too few of us are prepared to do anything about it , otherwise this present CAGW medievalism would have been put to the sword long ago , and its pretenders and propagators rightfully introduced to rubber rooms and/or lengthy prison sentences with sledge hammers and rockpiles to ponder upon the philosophies of life !

        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1838857/posts

        The Modern Face of Totalitarianism – Godfrey Bloom MEP
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_jYV3lk7Os

        60

        • #
          Egor TheOne

          Paul mad Malthusian Ehrlich ……rubber room candidate .

          Albert a convenient Liar Gore…….sledgehammer / rockpile candidate.

          Some Trivia……..Ehrlich advised/mentored Gore !

          60

  • #
    Svend Ferdinandsen

    “Nearly 10% of people somehow believe that in only 20 years time we might be 3 whole degrees hotter.”
    I believe it is a qualified guess, if BOM continues the same way.

    41

  • #
    Ross

    This should not be a surprise to anyone who reads reasonably widely. The UN did a large poll asking people to rank about 15 things of concern to them ( education , housing etc.). Climate Change came LAST.
    The US polling companies have done polls asking how much people would be prepared to spend on AGW related issues —same result as Australia.
    The Swiss voted in a referendum not to increase ETS ( or their equivalent) taxes.

    So it is the CSIRO, Prof Pitman , Fairfax and ABCs of this world who are out of step.

    The politicians need to wake up soon, because if any of the extremes measures that are proposed to be pushed through at Paris are successfully agreed to then the voters will be asking some very difficult questions.
    So I agree with BernardP and Yonniestone above but maybe I’m not quite so pessimistic.

    50

  • #
    handjive

    The Age, Jan 17, 2004: The IPCC (and CSIRO) relied heavily on the Mann paper in coming to their global warming conclusions.
    ~ ~ ~
    ABC, 15 Jan 2013, the computer models …
    “As the UN’s chief science body meets in Hobart today to update the latest climate modelling, the CSIRO says forecasts show Australia will have to cope with less rainfall, longer dry periods and crops struggling to grow in changing conditions.

    Crop yields
    Across parts of Queensland and over the border into northern New South Wales around Moree, it is predicted crop yields could fall, and the quality of cotton will be affected.”
    ~ ~ ~
    29 Oct 2015, observed reality …
    New South Wales still expected to record above average grain harvest, despite early heatwave

    “In the north of the state, for example around the Moree district, they will be enjoying their best harvest for three years.

    “Overall, across the state, I expect volumes to be slightly above average.

    “All the harvest receival points are very busy and we have hired a lot more casual staff this year compared to previous years, with 700 workers in the south and around 700 workers in the north,” she said.
    . . .
    How ‘wrong’ can you be before you are held account in 97% Doomsday Global Warming science?

    81

  • #
  • #
    Alle Auverte

    OT: Who is thinking of visiting Paris for the Climate Summit ? (30Nov-11Dec).
    Was wondering when is the best time & what worthwhile events their may be for attending.
    (Chris Monckton’s despatches from Copenhagen, Cancun, Durban & Doha:) have rather inspired me)

    60

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘IT’S a miracle. Most Australians are now global warming sceptics, despite years of being misled by the media.

    ‘A CSIRO survey of more than 5000 people has confirmed it, even though warmist reporters tried to spin it.

    ‘For the first time since Al Gore’s 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth claimed man was heating the world to disaster, Australians who believe this scare are outnumbered by those who don’t. True, a worrying 45.9 per cent of Australians do still think man is mostly to blame for what warming we’ve seen over the past several decades.

    ‘But those believers are now outnumbered by people who think this warming is natural (38.6 per cent) or not occurring at all (7.9 per cent) — which means sceptics total 46.5 per cent. The rest don’t know.

    ‘In fact, even 19 per cent of Greens voters are sceptics. Yes, the shift is that huge. What a tribute to the good sense of Australians.’

    Andrew Bolt

    71

  • #
    Robdel

    To really turn this around, we need an even larger percentage of sceptics. Otherwise the MSM are stacked with people who ram their blinkered views upon the public. The war is far from won, but at least it is a start.

    40

  • #
    David Maddison

    The fact that nearly half of the sheeple think it is happening due to humans is testament to how dumbed down Australian society has become. We are no longer a thinking or reasoning people.

    51

  • #
    warcroft

    I just want to share how different a view point can be for the same results.
    Take this thread over on Reddit:

    Fifty-nine per cent of Labor voters believed climate change was caused by humans, compared to 28 per cent of Liberal supporters.

    Some highlights:

    Wow, that’s a pretty large % of wrong people.

    Appalling and we should be ashamed of our education standards.

    So? Who cares if they’re wrong? 75% now believe climate change is a real thing. That’s good! It means action becomes a relevant discussion.

    On the denial side, there seems to be two camps. The slowly shrinking camp flat out denies that global warming is happening. It’s going to be a while until that camp is entirely gone, but for now it’s shrinking.

    The other (IMHO) far more dangerous camp admits that climate change is happening, but claims that it’s entirely natural, and out of our control.

    Regardless of the cause of climate change we only have one way to rectify it, human intervention. If we agree it’s real and affecting us, our only recourse is to intervene as humans.

    Those last few had me baffled and I was thinking about it overnight and hoping Id find a Jo Post on the topic this morning.

    So, lets ignore facts and scientific evidence for a minute and just look at peoples beliefs…

    If humans were the cause of climate change then the warmists believe that something needs to be done before irreversible damage is done to the planet. Ok, fair enough.

    However, according to the people in this topic, regardless of the cause of climate change, if it is happening then something needs to be done and only us humans can do something about it. Even if climate change is natural. Even if if the planet is supposed to do that.

    This makes these people completely contradictory.
    If humans caused climate change then we need to stop it from happening. However, if climate change is natural then we still need to stop it from happening. Human intervention to try and stop the planet from what it is naturally supposed to do! Will that not have a “damaging and irreversible effect on the planet?”

    They have been lead to believe that ANY form of climate change is bad and must be stopped!

    Humans cause it? Humans must stop it for the sake of the planet.
    The planet is naturally doing it? The planet must be stopped from doing it for the sake of the humans!

    50

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘The planet must be stopped from doing it for the sake of the humans!’

      Oxymorons the lot of them and Gaia is much amused.

      40

  • #
    Neville

    Great to see an alternative Paris climate conference asking the hard questions of the UN Sec Gen, AGAIN.

    The Paris Climate Challenge

    In 2009 we laid down the Copenhagen Climate Challenge, when we asked UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to answer 10 questions about climate. We’re back to ask the same and more questions, and challenge the climate ‘consensus’ in Paris at COP 21 with alternative climate hypotheses. If you have something to say in Paris, we still have places for a few more speakers. Take some time to navigate our pages, you can leave a comment if you’d like to say something in response to the articles backing up our 10 questions to Ban Ki-Moon below.

    His Excellency Ban-Ki Moon,
    Secretary-General, United Nations,
    New York, NY.
    United States of America
    8 December 2009.

    Dear Secretary-General,

    Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ – the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.

    Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth’s orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.

    We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate.Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.

    Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:
    1.Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;

    2.Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
    3.Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
    4.Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
    5.The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
    6.Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
    7.Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
    8.Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
    9.Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
    10.Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.

    It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do.

    Signed by:

    Science and Technology Experts Well Qualified in Climate Science

    Science and Technology Experts in Other Related Disciplines

    101

  • #
    Martin

    “The ABC spin doesn’t represent 54% of Australians”

    More importantly, it doesn’t represent the truth.
    So why are we paying for it – to the tune of a Billion dollars p.a.?

    100

    • #
      Egor TheOne

      We’re paying for it because we are stupid !

      Ex minister for self propaganda TurnBS needed it to oust Abbott !

      As the minister responsible for it , the AlpgreensBC ,he did nothing but appease its Chief Clown , Marxist Scott…. 800,000 tax payer $ per year .

      He fails in the ABC charter of non political bias , but nothing happens .

      800 grand per year to do as you feel like or nothing at all !…..double the PM’s wage !

      Where can I get a job like that ??

      50

  • #
    pat

    if the public only knew about the threats to the National Grids, 100% would be demanding an end to the CAGW nonsense:

    5 Nov: Guardian: National Grid in urgent call for companies to reduce electricity usage
    Company uses last resort emergency powers for first time, only lifting request after 40MW of extra power made available
    National Grid has for the first time used “last resort” emergency powers to tell companies to reduce their electricity usage in an effort to avoid the risk of blackouts.
    It asked firms to reduce their power demand immediately, issuing a so-called demand-side balancing reserve (DSBR) notice to companies that have signed a contract to say they will take part in the demand reduction scheme…
    Earlier on Wednesday, National Grid issued an urgent request for energy companies to make more power available after multiple breakdowns at UK power stations…
    Severn Trent sold power to the National Grid at £2,500 per megawatt hour during the afternoon, industry sources confirmed, compared with the typical price at that time of about £60…
    National Grid said last month it had the right tools to avoid blackouts this winter, which has been predicted to be unusually cold. Its contingency plans include the DSBR and the supplemental balancing reserve (SBR), asking energy companies to keep mothballed power plants on standby.
    ***The company said on Tuesday that its chief executive was stepping down after 10 years…
    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/nov/04/national-grid-issues-urgent-call-for-extra-power

    ***stepping down is not good enough. people must be held to account for allowing the grid to be neglected while CAGW games are being played with the energy supply.

    100

    • #
      Ross

      Pat

      The key bit missing is saying “winter has not really started yet !”

      50

    • #
      TdeF

      As reported last week, the failure of Victoria to supply coal based power to adjacent South Australia meant long and widespread blackouts as there was no wind power at all for hours. The state which has invested the most per capita in wind and desalination finds both are utterly useless. Thanks Greens.

      130

    • #
      clive

      We have seen what happens,when the Inter-connector from Victoria went on the “Fritz”and South Aust had major black-out” last week.This is what happens when you rely on “Renewables”for your “Energy”
      “Left Wing Looneys”strike again.

      20

  • #
    pat

    MSM worldwide have picked up the China burning much more coal than previously reported story – the biggest CAGW story of the day – not a word from ABC/Fairfax.
    instead, from Fairfax we have:

    4 Nov: AFR: Angus Grigg: India won’t save Australian coal producers
    Hopes that rising Indian coal demand would insulate Australian miners from slowing consumption in China has been knocked down as “superficial analysis” by new research, which also casts doubt on the prospects for LNG.
    In a report delivered at its Shanghai conference on Tuesday, Bloomberg New Energy Finance said India’s thermal coal imports would peak next year and it was on track to be self sufficient by 2023…
    Australian coal exporters have been badly hurt by falling demand in China this year, as the economy slows and Beijing begins to tackle its chronic air pollution…
    Bloomberg believes 67 per cent of all new electricity generation capacity in Asia will be renewables by 2040 with solar and wind dominating…
    In China this shift will be more pronounced with new renewables and nuclear capacity being triple new coal capacity…
    http://www.afr.com/news/world/india-wont-save-australian-coal-producers-20151103-gkq272

    from ABC we have:

    3 Nov: ABC: VW emissions scandal fast tracks zero-emissions car, ‘revolution’ on the way, says UN chief
    (UN Climate Chief, Christiana) Figueres said China has shown “undisputed leadership” in efforts to combat climate change over the last two to three years, helping the United States take a bolder position…
    “The United States is actually playing catch up to China,” Ms Figueres said…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-04/vw-emissions-speed-zero-emissions-vehicles-un-climate-chief/6910072

    60

  • #
    handjive

    Make that 44 million.

    > ABC, July 11, 2011: Gillard reveals carbon price scheme

    “The scheme is projected to cut 159 million tonnes of carbon pollution from the atmosphere by 2020 –
    the equivalent of taking 45 million cars off the road.”

    > news.sky, 04 Nov, 2015: VW: 800,000 Cars Could Have False CO2 Levels
    “The car giant, already mired in scandal for cheating on nitrogen oxide emissions tests, now warns of a carbon dioxide issue.”
    . . .
    The farce is strong in this one.

    60

  • #
    Alle Auverte

    The Financial Times too, is leading on today’s front page with emergency measures for UK power Grid to avert Winter Blackouts, with cheap Diesel generators from China & unregulated emissions.

    70

  • #
    pat

    we just had Newsweek with this unbelievable SPIN:

    2 Nov: Newsweek: Zoe Schlanger: Antarctica Is Gaining Ice. Here’s Why That’s Not Actually Good News

    and now this from Time!!!

    4 Nov: Time Magazine: Justin Worland: Why China’s Coal Burning Confession Isn’t Entirely Bad News
    In the wake of China’s announcement that it had consumed far more coal than previously reported, critics are sure to raise concerns about the country’s reliability in the fight against climate change.
    But ***experts say*** the real reason China underreported the amount of coal it’s burning is probably more a matter of bureaucratic inefficiency than underhanded plotting…
    Experts attributed much of the previously unreported coal consumption to broadly scattered plants and factories that the national government may have difficulty regulating.
    “This has been coming for awhile,” said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists…
    LINK: China Shows It’s Getting Serious About Climate Change
    China has ramped up its efforts against global warming in recent years…
    Other measures have sought to decrease reliance on coal…
    China—the world’s largest emitter—has portrayed itself as committed to action on the issue and some ***experts*** say Wednesday’s announcement underscores that position…
    But in the U.S. the announcement will almost certainly fuel conservative critics…
    http://time.com/4100263/china-coal-consumption/

    wow.

    20

  • #
    pat

    3 Nov: WSJ: Holman W. Jenkins, Jr: The Next Climate Scandal?
    House Republicans hunt for evidence that temperature records are politicized.
    Lamar Smith, the Texas GOPer who runs the House science and technology committee, has been seeking, voluntarily and then not so voluntarily, emails and other internal communications related to a study released earlier this year by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The study, by adjusting upward temperature readings from certain ocean buoys to match shipboard measurements, eliminated the “pause” in global warming seen in most temperature studies over the past 15 years.
    Let’s just say, without prejudging the case, gut instinct has always indicated that, if there’s a major global warming scandal to be discovered anywhere, it will be found in the temperature record simply because the records are subject to so much opaque statistical manipulation. But even if no scandal is found, it’s past time for politicians and the public to understand the nature of these records and the conditions under which they are manufactured” …
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-next-climate-scandal-1446594461

    71

  • #
    • #

      This gives me the distinct impression that they have absolutely no idea what China is doing.

      Just yesterday that rabid Greenie Fergus Green (apt name, considering) in an interview on ABC with Michael Brissenden, when asked about how the Chinese were constructing new coal fired power plants hand over fist, he replied that coal consumption figures were way way DOWN, so those plants were just sitting there unused, patently incorrect, as I showed at the 2 comments here.

      One says way overestimated, the next says way underestimated, the next says coal burning way down.

      They have no clue, even when it comes to trying to get the right thing to say in the lead up to Paris.

      Anger China? Appease China? Make them look good? Make them look like the villain?

      What to do?

      Tony.

      60

  • #
    Dennis

    At Andrew Bolt’s blog at the Daily Telegraph there are posts arguing that he is lying about no warming since 1998. The blog is on the same subject as this one. Here is an example;

    Andrew Bolts claims there has been no warming in 18 years, which is an outright lie. On the subject of climate, Andrew Bolt cannot be trusted to present facts accurately here.
    For all you Bolt acolytes, have a read below. Assuming you dont think it is all a conspiracy to install a one world govenment, then it is impossible to read the temp data and still believe his tosh about no warming in 18 years.

    The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for September 2015 was the highest for September in the 136-year period of record, at 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average of 15.0°C (59.0°F), surpassing the previous record set last year in 2014 by 0.12°C (0.19°F). This marks the fifth consecutive month a monthly high temperature record has been set and is the highest departure from average for any month among all 1629 months in the record that began in January 1880. The September temperature is currently increasing at an average rate of 0.06°C (0.11°F) per decade.

    The year 2014 was the warmest year across global land and ocean surfaces since records began in 1880. The annually-averaged temperature was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F)

    RANK
    1 = WARMEST
    PERIOD OF RECORD: 1880–2014
    YEAR ANOMALY °C ANOMALY °F
    1 2014 0.69 1.24
    2 (tie) 2010 0.65 1.17
    2 (tie) 2005 0.65 1.17
    4 1998 0.63 1.13
    5 (tie) 2013 0.62 1.12
    5 (tie) 2003 0.62 1.12
    7 2002 0.61 1.10
    8 2006 0.60 1.08
    9 (tie) 2009 0.59 1.06
    9 (tie) 2007 0.59 1.06

    Source – NOAA

    —————-
    The 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998. The year 2014 ranks as the warmest on record.
    source – Nasa

    218

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      NASA has so adjusted those figures that they are worthless.
      Starting from a belief that carbon dioxide causes warming they have had to change the figures to match that belief, then they turn round and point this out and are believed by the gullible.

      For an example James Hansen wrote in 1981 that 1980 was only 0.15℃ cooler than 1944. It was 0.2℃ warmer the last time I looked.
      There is no doubt that warming occurred from 1850 in Europe and parts of Nth. America. The rapid retreat of most glaciers is surely evidence. There was further warming from roughly 1910-1940, again with glaciers retreating. Global Warming theory states that any warming will start with minimum temperatures rising first. NASA has eliminated that and the rise of the minimum temperatures now starts in 1964. So the first 80 odd years of global warming didn’t involve any warming – according to NASA anyway.

      And by the way, the rise since 1998 has been 0.09℃ with an error range of ±0.10. In other words it might have warmed and it might not have, even on NASA figures.

      142

    • #
    • #
      AndyG55

      “Andrew Bolts claims there has been no warming in 18 years, which is an outright lie.”

      NO IT IS NOT. !

      Your reliance on the fabricated mess that is GISS and HAdCrut shows you to be a low information scammer.

      RSS and UAH clearly show that there has been no warming for about 18 and a half years, except of course by the massive data manipulation by Gavin etal at NOAA.

      There has in fact been NO CO2 based warming in the whole of the satellite era. The El Nino around 1998 added 0.26C to the global atmospheric temperatures.

      The slight warming from 1979 to 1997 has been almost completely cancelled by the slight cooling since 2001.

      Even the current El Nino is barely causing a bump in the temperatures. The La Nina that follows will take us back down to 1979 levels in about 2 years time.

      2014 was NOT the warmest year.

      September 2015 was not the warmest September.

      And in Australia, on a year to end of Sept basis, 2015 is actually 20th out of 37 years in the satellite record.

      And even is we have warmed a small amount, we are still nowhere near the temperatures of the first 3/4 of the Holocene or the temperatures of the MWp and RWP.

      We are in fact only just above the COLDEST period of the last 10,000 years, in what could be described as the Current slightly warm period.

      All your scary ranting is based on zero-knowledge and is based purely in the realm of PROPAGANDA BS !!

      132

    • #
      AndyG55

      whoops , sorry, Dennis .. I though it was you posting that ridiculous propaganda crap.

      You’re just reporting it,

      I’m sure you know its as much BS as everyone else here knows it is.

      81

      • #
        Dennis

        Thanks Andy, as you acknowledged, I am merely the messenger.

        I am well aware of the fraud.

        30

      • #
        Hat Rack

        You have my sympathy Dennis. Can’t believe how many people have mis-read your post.

        However, nice that AndyG55 had the courtesy to publicly acknowledge his mistake.

        30

    • #
      Robk

      Dennis,
      I refer you to the post on this site in October about the critique done by “the French Mathematical Calculations Society”. Go to the actual paper referenced there and get a good handle on how silly the concept of a global temperature is.

      62

    • #
      gai

      The ERROR bars on the NOAA data are WAY WAY too wide to actually be able to tell what year is the warmest. Only the satellite data has the required accuracy.

      The USA surface station data is supposed to be the best in the world and error wise it sucks. Over 70.6% of the USA weather stations have an error greater than 2°C.

      Since each thermometer and each time of day is unique the statistics of large numbers can not be used to reduce this error to less than the error of the worst readings. That is [w]e become more certain that the mean Xbar, is an accurate representation of the true value of the quantity x the more we repeat the measurement but in the case of temperature we can not actually repeat the measurements so can not reduce the error.

      For the USA the weather stations have been surveyed and classified.
      Class 1 is 1.2% of the stations error with an < 1°C

      Class 2 is 6.7% of the stations with an error = 1°C

      Class 4 is 64.4% of the stations with an error >= 2°C

      Class 5 is 6.2% of the stations with an error >= 5°C

      Where the symbol >= means greater than or equal to.

      Climate Reference Network Rating Guide – adopted from NCDC Climate Reference Network Handbook, 2002, specifications for siting (section 2.2.1) of NOAA’s new Climate Reference Network:

      Class 1 (CRN1)- Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover 3 degrees.

      Class 2 (CRN2) – Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation 5deg.

      Class 3 (CRN3) (error >=1C) – Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.

      Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) – Artificial heating sources within 10 meters.

      Class 5 (CRN5) (error >= 5C) – Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.”
      LINK

      61

    • #
      James Bradley

      Sorry Denis,

      It seems as the CSIRO’s statistics put you in the minority – and the RSS data makes you a liar.

      62

    • #
      James Bradley

      Oh and Denis,

      IPCC only counts back as far as 1950 because even the IPCC can’t justify the type of mind bending statistical gymnastics you’ve created.

      Apologies for spelling your name incorrectly – I would have corrected it, but at a glance it’s oddly suitable.

      52

    • #
      Egor TheOne

      Yo Dennis ,

      If there is still warming , then why the name change from ‘Global Warming’to ‘Climate Change’?

      Your High Priesthood chose that name change of its Religion ,not us sceptics !

      I prefer to call it what is …..BS !

      Your claim that this century (only 16 years)has produced some of the warmest years is not in dispute .

      The relevant point is that ‘Global warming has not occurred for nearly 19 years now’, is !

      Even the biased IPCC has concluded this .

      I cannot see how you can argue this point when viewing this very telling graph >> https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/clip_image002_thumb1.jpg?w=597&h=279

      Your claim of 2014 being the hottest is plainly false when viewing the the data line drop below the average trend line .

      2014 was one of the cooler years with 2010-2011 being the hottest year since 1998 ,which is obvious with even just a quick glance at this RSS satellite record ,one of 2 of our most accurate temp measurement systems we have ……the other being UAH which shows very similar .

      These measurements are an average of all global surface area both land and sea except for polar regions , unlike your reference to land based only and fudged/manipulated/homogenized highly suss figures quoted by a known True B’lver !

      During this time , the last 19 years ,1/3rd of all human co2 has been emitted , but without additional warming .

      So co2 is not driving temperatiure …..it is that simple !

      No need for multi thousand pages of IPCC irrelevant waffle……the co2 warming Hypothesis fails……end of story ,Game of BS over !

      Back to the drawing board .

      And as for the other load of BS ….’the heat is hiding in the deep ocean ‘ ,No it Ain’t >>
      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/clip_image024_thumb.jpg?w=603&h=427

      The science is indeed settled ….our co2 causes nothing or at worst almost nothing …and any increase natural and/or man made is beneficial for all plant life at levels between 1000-2000ppmv .

      Conclusion …all the CAGW / CACC / BS Rorters should be held accountable and made to pay for this obvious deception !

      CO2 Regulation: The Essence of Immorality
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9bEOB3x0dQ

      https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-AXhzg12yOI8/VIP_CPD2B9I/AAAAAAAAgac/c9dcHdYUnGU/w907-h587-no/endenhofer.png

      ‘Man-made global-warming hypothesis’ is dead in the water – Godfrey Bloom MEP
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvXMBwANyvY

      41

    • #
      nightspore

      I’m living in a place that is a kind of ‘canary in the coal mine’ since it’s on the edge of the North Atlantic on the east side. Over the last ten years there has been a very noticeable cooling – in fact, even before reading about it, I knew that the N. Atlantic must be getting colder. From what I can tell, overall it’s been getting colder on the other side of the Atlantic as well. In short, I have seen nothing to suggest that temperatures in the real world in any way resemble these highest-on-record claims. So unless the parts of the world that I’m familiar with have somehow detached themselves from the world climate system, I’d say that warmist claims like Dennis’ above are sheer delusion.

      20

      • #
        gai

        Agreed, I am also living on the North Atlantic. NOAA shows a big warm blob in the ocean nearby but you couldn’t tell it from the temperatures. It feels like I am back in New England! We have barely hit the nineties in the last three years.

        10

  • #
    • #
      gai

      WOW, so at least one senator has their head screwed on correctly!

      Thanks for the information Dave. Now we all need to get on the phone and call, fax and e-mail our Senators and Congressmen!

      40

    • #
      gai

      One should also remind your Senators of the 1997 Byrd-Hagel Resolution
      .

      The Senate’s 1997 Byrd-Hagel Resolution warned the Clinton Administration not to enter into any global warming treaty that leaves out developing nations or hurts the American economy.[1] The unanimous 95-0 resolution, passed prior to the creation of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, is still U.S. policy today and should serve as the overarching guidelines for discussing any new climate treaty.

      Byrd-Hagel and Kyoto

      Before the American delegation headed to Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 to negotiate a global warming treaty, the Byrd-Hagel Resolution clearly spelled out where the Senate stood.

      Specifically, the resolution states that the U.S. and other developed nations should not enter into a treaty requiring reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and other greenhouse gasses unless it “also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for developing country parties within the same compliance period.”

      The resolution also states that the U.S. should not enter into any treaty that “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.” Clearly, the Senate was concerned that a global warming treaty may do the nation more economic harm than environmental good.

      The Kyoto Protocol violated both of these provisions. It gave exemptions to China, India, and other developing nations, so only developed signatories were obligated to reduce their emissions. And its provisions would have seriously damaged the American economy. An Energy Information Administration study at the time projected costs of U.S. compliance between $100 and $397 billion annually.[2]

      Nonetheless, the American delegation, led by then-Vice President Al Gore, agreed to the Kyoto Protocol. However, President Clinton never submitted it to the Senate for the required ratification, knowing full well that he could not possibly get the two-thirds support needed for a treaty that so unambiguously flouted Byrd-Hagel. Neither did President Bush, or for that matter, has President Obama.

      As Byrd-Hagel remains U.S. policy today, the Obama Administration should formulate a Copenhagen [Paris] strategy that adheres to its provisions….
      http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/11/senates-byrd-hagel-resolution-should-guide-global-warming-discussion-in-copenhagen
      .

      30

  • #
    pat

    PwC’s Celine Herweijer on renewables in video below: renewables great market sector to invest in. in the developing countries, $6.4 trillion market for the renewable space within the next ten years. it’s absolutely the nirvana to have a global carbon price, but not the reality in the short to medium term.

    4 Nov: ClimateChangeNews: Video (3mins37secs): PwC on the business case for a Paris climate deal
    Coal is in the firing line, renewables are a great market and carbon pricing is a growing theme, says Celine Herweijer
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/11/04/video-pwc-on-the-business-case-for-a-paris-climate-deal/

    4 Nov: ClimateChangeNews: Ed King: CEOs to the rescue: Can business save the world from climate change?
    PwC says private and public sector has tools to limit warming to below 2C danger zone, if COP21 in Paris delivers green investment framework
    All business wants for Christmas is a global carbon price, a long term climate goal and regular UN reviews to ensure all countries are pulling their weight.
    The 200-strong body represents some of the world’s top banking, energy and manufacturing businesses, counting Kellogg’s, L’Oreal, Infosys, Chevron, BP and Shell as members.
    It’s a loose coalition, but one that carries clout, given the trillions of dollars members have to invest…
    According to research from PwC published on Tuesday, without this level of engagement from CEOs, efforts to tackle climate change are as good as dead…READ ALL
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/11/03/ceos-to-the-rescue-can-business-save-the-world-from-climate-change/

    10

    • #
      clive

      The “Developing”countries don’t want “Renewables”they want”Reliable”energy.Wind and Solar won’t cut it.

      20

      • #
        gai

        They want cold hard cash, at least their dictators do, These are leaders who really don’t give a hoot whether the hinterlands get reliable electric or not just as long as THEY get oodles of $$$ and a modern city to live in.

        That is the actual problem we are facing. We have the peons (you and me) and the cash sucking Paris-ites. Unfortunately it is the cash sucking Paris-ites who make the deals. And the deals are always all about sucking more $$$ from the peons.

        (Yes, I am cynical. Global warming does that to a person.)

        20

  • #
    Andrew Richards

    Some years ago (I think 2006/07) I was seated next to Andy Pitman during a lunch to promote CAGW theory hosted by the reinsurer Munich Re. I had questioned the Munich Re presenter on the subject of a solar driver for global warming (he discounted it as a possibility but didn’t say why he discounted it) to which Pitman leaned across and, in what seemed like a somewhat admonishing tone said (words to the effect) that the IPCC had discounted it therefore it wasn’t an issue to consider any further.

    You’re correct Jo, the man is arrogant, narcissistic and wholly unskeptical. I would only add that he is also a complete knob.

    152

    • #

      It’s the role of the IPCC

      … to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, …

      i.e. they are by definition not interested in other explanations of climate change. Pitman wasn’t being truthful in stating that the IPCC dismissed it; the IPCC routine ignores it and all other natural factors.

      Andrew Richards wrote:

      I would only add that he is also a complete knob.

      He’s one of many knobs who think that we can control climate.

      121

  • #
    pat

    re PwC’s Celine Herweijer:

    Columbia Uni Earth Institute: Alumni Profile: Celine Herweijer, PhD ’06
    By any standard, Celine Herweijer’s rise in the world of climate policy has been meteoric…
    Columbia University’s International Research Institute for Climate and Society, together with the United Nations, had begun to explore the idea of climate index insurance. By employing climate models to gauge weather-related scenarios, scientists could diminish investment risks for both farmers and insurers.
    “Insurance agencies were just starting to pay attention to climate change, looking at both risks and opportunities for new products and markets,” Herweijer explains…
    Inspired by this intersection of science and policy, Herweijer worked on some of the earliest pilot projects at the UN Division for Sustainable Development in 2005…
    PwC’s climate change capacity is truly immense: Their global network of climate change and international development experts comprises over 800 people in more than a hundred countries who support governments, donors, international organizations, the private sector, and NGOs on issues from policy development to fund management, project implementation and impact assessment.
    Examples of their work include managing large-scale donor funds for the United Nations program on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD+), and advising governments on how to move toward a low carbon and climate resilient future…
    With Herweijer’s efforts, PwC was recently selected to manage a five-year, £55 million flagship program funded by the UK and Dutch governments referred to as the Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN). Herweijer currently acts as CDKN’s chief strategy adviser. The CDKN supports leaders and decision makers in developing countries to design and deliver climate-compatible development policies…
    Today, Herweijer’s work mainly consists of traveling to Washington DC, Brussels, or developing countries, meeting with top decision makers and experts, and scoping out strategic collaborations. She is a key adviser to the G-20 and World Economic Forum’s business-expert taskforce around adaptation, a member of the Munich Climate Insurance Initiative, and a private sector representative of the World Bank’s Climate Investment Funds…
    Since 2011, Herweijer has been a visiting senior research fellow at the London School of Economics’ Grantham Institute for Climate Change…
    http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/alumni-profile-celine-herweijer-phd-%E2%80%9906

    ???to the frustration of civil society!

    4 Nov: ClimateChangeNews: Megan Darby: What has happened to Nigeria’s climate pledge?
    President Buhari has yet to sign off submission of Africa’s most populous country to a UN Paris deal, (???)to the frustration of civil society
    It is a question exercising Jibo Nura, a climate researcher and campaigner, who wrote to top federal officials this week demanding answers…
    That tardiness also drew comment from Stephane Gompertz, French climate diplomat for the region, last month.
    ***“It is a pity,” he told West African news service Climate Reporters in Abuja. “Nigeria is a country which has great potential in renewable energies. So, Nigeria should set an example for other countries.”…
    Atayi Babs, editor of Climate Reporters, is not optimistic about the quality of advice he can expect…
    Oil and gas provides around 35% of Nigeria’s GDP, according to OPEC, making it a strategically important sector…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/11/04/what-has-happened-to-nigerias-climate-pledge/

    20

  • #
    Rico L

    I found a new way of talking to alarmists -

    When pushed to talk about CAWG, I ask the question, what was the hottest day last week?

    Very few people can remember. I always follow up with – are you sure? This always casts doubt.

    At that point I walk away.

    61

  • #
    Peter C

    Published in The Age today, letters to the Editor!

    The Abbott effect

    The damage Tony Abbott did in his short term as prime minister is graphically illustrated by a CSIRO survey showing that most Coalition voters reject anthropogenic climate change (The Age, 4/11). Given the overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue, it appears that comments by Mr Abbott about climate change being “crap”, coal being “good for humanity” and wind turbines being “visually awful” may have been uncritically absorbed.

    Malcolm Turnbull appears to have a much better grasp of science but it remains to be seen whether he is capable of persuading those Coalition voters who still deny human-induced climate change to abandon flat earth theory in favour of rational scientific analysis.

    Andrew Laird, East Malvern

    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-age-letters/head-20151104-gkqk6p.html#ixzz3qa3boNAj
    Follow us: @theage on Twitter | theageAustralia on Facebook

    Who absorbs comments uncritically? Who thinks Andrew Laird?

    60

  • #
    STJOHNOFGRAFTON

    Sort of on topic, but worthy of a dose of peppermint oil:

    Is Fart Sequestration research up for funding grabs soon? See : http://www.heraldsun.com.au/technology/science/kangaroo-fart-theory-could-help-research-into-livestock-methane/news-story/102e3e2f65d1ecc0db8b8ed96b698a63.

    30

  • #
    Rick Will

    The CSIRO story has been picked up at Macroeconomics:
    http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2015/11/csiro-survey-climate-change-skeptics-nonsense/#comment-2419625

    It opens with:
    “The CSIRO, which really needs a loon pond broom put through it for this research, has released its annual “attitudes to climate change” survey. The results are interesting in a number ways. The headline result has the community strongly behind the notion of climate change:”

    The comments there are about equal but that is a change from 12months ago when skeptics were very thin on the comments.

    60

  • #
    pat

    4 Nov: Financial Times: UK’s high-wire act on power supplies laid bare
    Kiran Stacey and Christopher Adams
    ational Grid urged a group of heavy users, including businesses, factories and hospitals, to switch to back-up power or to reduce demand to meet the sudden lack of supply. Consumers responded by taking 40 megawatts of demand off the grid — partly by switching to back-up generators…
    Coal-fired plants are being closed at a rapid pace, ahead of a 2023 deadline for compliance with new EU rules on air quality…
    The problem has been caused in part because electricity prices are too low to provide incentives to suppliers to build new capacity which can be used at short notice, such as gas…
    Ministers have responded by giving subsidies to companies to build extra reserve power over the next 15 years, but the Financial Times revealed on Tuesday that much of this is set to go to highly polluting diesel power…
    Tom Edwards, an analyst at Cornwall Energy, said: “National Grid is prepared for this eventuality, but the problem is that it will be the consumer who pays for it in the end.”
    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/a44bae1c-82fe-11e5-8e80-1574112844fd.html#axzz3qaqN4niZ

    4 Nov: Financial Times: UK turns to diesel to meet power supply crunch
    Britain is set to grant hundreds of millions of pounds in subsidies to highly polluting diesel generators as a way to help solve the energy supply crunch facing the country over the next 15 years.
    Analysis of publicly available figures shows that companies have registered to build a total of about 1.5 gigawatts of diesel power under a government scheme to encourage back-up energy for the grid. The figures have been analysed by the Financial Times and experts at both the Institute of Public Policy Research and Sandbag, an environmental think-tank.
    If all of those registered are successful in their bids — which analysts believe is likely — it could cost the taxpayer £436m, provide enough energy to power more than 1m homes and emit several million tonnes of carbon a year…
    The subsidies on offer are so appealing that even solar-power developers, which have recently had their own subsidies cut, are building diesel generation on their sites as a way of maximising their returns. Lark Energy, a solar-power developer, is bidding for subsidies to build 18MW of diesel generation on its Ellough project in Suffolk, for example.
    The UK is facing serious energy-supply difficulties over the next few years as old coal plants are taken offline without new power plants being built to replace them…
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0f664c78-821b-11e5-8095-ed1a37d1e096.html#axzz3qYg1uodi

    60

    • #
      AndyG55

      TonyinOz must be ROFLHAO.

      He knew this was going to happen.

      We all KNEW this was going to happen.

      And diesel generators……. no “carbon pollution™” there, now is there ;-)

      Sooo hilariously funny!! :-)

      62

      • #

        What gets me about all this is that each Northern Winter it gets just that little bit worse in the UK. Surely someone must be asking questions, or even scratching their head. Someone, anyone.

        When the penny finally drops, there’s going to be an awful lot of very angry people, and a lot of people looking for somewhere to hide.

        I can see the blood draining out of politician’s faces when they’re told how long it will take to get a ‘real’ power plant up and running, and then they’ll be right on the phone immediately ….. asking how much parliamentary superannuation they have, and how soon they can access it.

        Tony.

        90

        • #
          Dave

          .

          And UK Wind has been a shocker since Sunday
          13,000 MW installed – never risen above 900MW
          All those $ down the drain

          France & the Dutch supply 3,000 MW constantly now

          How can they not see the danger?

          60

  • #

    ABC
    … stands for …
    Always
    Broadcasting
    Climatecult

    ‘State’ broadcasting proves that the ‘State’ refers to the clique which has hijacked the universities and state bureaucracies that their approved alumni infest after graduating, and NOT the electorate.

    51

  • #
    pat

    4 Nov: Washington Times: Ben Wolfgang: Bernie Sanders, environmental activists look to end drilling on federal lands
    Presidential contender Sen. Bernard Sanders joined with other liberal lawmakers and environmental activists Wednesday to introduce new legislation that would prohibit more oil-and-gas drilling on federal land — a proposal proponents admit has no chance of becoming law under current Republican leadership in Congress…
    Mr. Merkley and Mr. Sanders conceded their legislation has virtually no chance of clearing the Senate, but they argue it’s a key step in motivating grass-roots environmental activism and putting further pressure on the Obama administration to shut down fossil-fuel development.
    “Hopefully this keep it in the ground movement … will reverberate across the planet and create other, similar movements around the world,” Mr. Merkley said.
    But critics say the bill would derail America’s path to energy independence, would deprive the federal government of desperately needed tax revenue and also could drive up energy prices for consumers.
    “We do not anticipate a committee hearing, we do not anticipate a committee vote, we do not anticipate a floor vote in this situation,” Mr. Merkley said. “The grass roots are going to have to rally to make this an issue.”…
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/4/sanders-activists-look-end-drilling-federal-lands/

    5 Nov: Guardian: Suzanne Goldenberg: Bernie Sanders backs new climate plan to curb US fossil fuel extraction
    Senator co-sponsors Keep it in the Ground Act in bid to ban all new fossil fuel leases on public lands, something activists view as a gap in Obama’s climate plan
    Wednesday’s initiative has almost no chance of becoming law. But it accomplishes two important goals for environmental campaigners: underscoring Obama’s reluctance to tackle the supply side of climate change; and keeping climate change on the political agenda ahead of next year’s presidential elections…
    Democratic party operatives meanwhile exhibit growing confidence that climate change will emerge as an important wedge issue in the 2016 presidential elections, casting their Republican opponents as ***anti-science and detached from reality because of their refusal to acknowledge the existence of climate change or deal with its consequences.
    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/04/bernie-sanders-climate-campaign-fossil-fuel-extraction

    20

  • #
    Egor TheOne

    It seems that there are also many sceptics in the USA ,also , countering El Presedente O’Bummer’s draconian True B’lver round – up policies .

    http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/26/lawmakers-probe-taxpayer-funded-academic-who-wants-obama-to-prosecute-climate-change-skeptics/

    40

  • #
    pat

    Hannam earns his daily CAGW bread:

    5 Nov: SMH: Peter Hannam: Australian corporate giants sign up for action on climate
    More than a dozen of Australia’s largest companies including BHP Billiton, Westpac and Origin Energy, have signed up to take long-term action on climate change…
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/un-climate-conference/paris-2015-australian-corporate-giants-sign-up-for-action-on-climate-20151104-gkqk2c.html#ixzz3qZQg4Nyl

    5 Nov: SMH: Clancy Yeates: CBA vows to go green with new policy to tackle climate change
    The Commonwealth Bank has promised to put more emphasis on climate change when it is lending money and investing, as it acknowledged the need for greater investment in renewable energy to combat global warming.
    The country’s biggest bank on Thursday released a two-page policy signed by chairman David Turner that supported efforts to tackle climate change and limit temperature rises to no more than 2 degrees.
    National Australia Bank, the country’s biggest business lender, also supported international efforts to limit global warming to no more than 2 degrees.
    However, it is not clear how CBA’s policy may affect its lending to large fossil fuel projects – if at all. CBA is one of the country’s largest lenders to the resources sector…
    Nikola Casule, Greenpeace Australia’s Pacific climate and energy campaigner, argued the bank had left the door open to investing in Australian coal mines without considering the environmental impact as long as the coal was burnt overseas…
    http://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/cba-vows-to-go-green-with-new-policy-to-tackle-climate-change-20151104-gkr7bi.html

    41

  • #
    pat

    just for fun.
    CAGW poster child, the Maldives, might have trouble deciding who to send to Paris! Richard Branson and Cherie Blair take sides!

    4 Nov: Financial Times: Maldives president declares 30-day state of emergency
    by Victor Mallet in New Delhi
    Dunya Maumoon, foreign minister, said the emergency decree, which initially lasts for 30 days, was “a pre-emptive and precautionary action by the government in the light of several security threats that have emerged in the last week”…
    Hamid Abdul Ghafoor of the MDP said (President) Yameen had lost control of the country. “His paranoid regime lurches from crisis to crisis. Yameen has jailed or threatened every opposition leader, placed criminal charges against 1,700 opposition activists, and is now turning on his own by jailing the vice-president. For the good of the nation, it is time for Yameen to resign.”…
    Amal Clooney, the human rights lawyer, and Sir Richard Branson, the entrepreneur, are championing (jailed former President) Nasheed and have called for targeted sanctions against the regime…
    (Current President) Yameen’s government has hired Cherie Blair, wife of the former UK prime minister Tony Blair, and her Omnia Strategy law firm.
    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/dc8cadf2-82dc-11e5-8095-ed1a37d1e096.html#axzz3qaqN4niZ

    40

  • #
    AndyG55

    A nice list of questions for the climate SCARERS. from… http://pcc15.org/

    Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:

    1.Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;

    2.Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;

    3.Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;

    4.Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;

    5.The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;

    6.Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;

    7.Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions, is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;

    8.Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;

    9.Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;

    10.Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.

    COME ON climate clowns.. I challenge you. :-)

    61

  • #
    AndyG55

    A cartoon from Josh re the UK’s subsidies for diesel powered electricity. Funny !! :-)

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/image29.png

    30

  • #
  • #
    pat

    a load of…

    5 Nov: ABC PM: French ambassador to Australia says Malcolm Turnbull is good news for Paris climate talks
    David Mark spoke to Mr Lecourtier, who said France was looking for some clear results in Paris.
    CHRISTOPHE LECOURTIER: The first one being that we don’t want the Paris agreements to be a mere political declaration because we have too many political declarations without any consequences, so we want this agreement to be a binding agreement…
    CHRISTOPHE LECOURTIER: First of all of course we have learned the lessons of Copenhagen, but also we see that the world is changing, conscience is growing and we are pretty confident that some countries and especially the United States and China will be two very strong drivers during the conference.
    DAVID MARK: We know the world was watching very closely when the Abbott government abandoned the carbon tax, the price on carbon.
    What’s Australia’s role going to be at this meeting?
    CHRISTOPHE LECOURTIER: I myself have been always confident that in Paris Australia would be on the right side of history because it’s history.
    DAVID MARK: What do you mean by that?
    CHRISTOPHE LECOURTIER: I mean I’ve never seen Australia as a country that would try or fight against an agreement, an ambitious agreement in Paris.
    We had at the time a lot of talks behind the scenes, behind the curtain with the previous prime minister and his staff.
    Now of course, things have changed because the new Prime Minister is probably even more committed to making Australia a front-liner…ETC
    http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2015/s4346192.htm

    20

  • #
    Michael

    Its a pity the large numbers of greenie extremists has turned Australians against the genuinely environments with sound scientific based individuals and groups- many who do valuable work and research. Still quite a few of them throughout the country.

    20

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    54% of Australians skeptics of man-made global warming…

    Now if we can get to,

    80% of Australians skeptics of man-made global warming…

    And duplicate that across all of civilization…

    Sorry, I’m not awake yet I guess. But isn’t it a nice dream?

    40

  • #
    el gordo

    Albo, Tanya may fall to Greens

    The Greens could win the Labor strongholds of Grayndler and Sydney if the party received Liberal preferences at the next election, according to a Parliamentary Library analysis of proposed new federal electoral boundaries.’

    Oz

    30

  • #
    pat

    5 Nov: SMH: Gareth Hutchins: Climate change missing from full Trans-Pacific Partnership text
    The final text of a huge 12-country trade agreement has confirmed the “worst nightmares” of environmental groups, with no mention of climate change in its lone environment chapter and weak enforcement mechanisms, Australian academics say…
    Last month, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull called the deal “a gigantic foundation stone” for the economy which will deliver jobs and growth while avoiding aspects that would have seen increased costs to the taxpayer for medicines…
    Matthew Rimmer, Professor of Intellectual Property and Innovation Law at the Queensland University of Technology, told Fairfax Media it looks like US trade officials have been “green-washing” the agreement.
    Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, pictured with Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, last month called the deal “a gigantic foundation stone” for the economy.
    Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, pictured with Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, last month called the deal “a gigantic foundation stone” for the economy. Photo: Andrew Meares
    “The environment chapter confirms some of the worst nightmares of environmental groups and climate activists,” Dr Rimmer said…
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/details-of-transpacific-partnership-finally-released-20151105-gkrivo.html

    6 Nov: ABC: Francis Keany: Trans-Pacific Partnership critics concerned about environment, IP clauses in trade pact’s fine print
    Dr Rimmer said the chapter on environmental regulations is also lacking detail.
    “It seems to me remarkable that the environmental chapter in the Trans-Pacific Partnership doesn’t even mention the phrase climate change,” he said.
    “It’s kind of like Voldemort in the Harry Potter series, it’s a taboo phrase in the Trans-Pacific Partnership.”
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-05/trans-pacific-partnership-trade-pact-detail-released/6917292

    20

    • #
      gai

      “It’s kind of like Voldemort in the Harry Potter series, it’s a taboo phrase in the Trans-Pacific Partnership.”

      Not surprising since Japan suffered greatly last winter and China thinks CAGW is idiotic. Vietnam also got snow, a rare event.

      20

  • #
    pat

    6 Nov: Guardian: Emma Howard: Climate change concern among Chinese citizens plummets, research finds
    However, more than two-thirds of Chinese people support global deal to reduce emissions, part of marked support seen in all but one of 40 countries surveyed
    The Chinese were the least concerned among 40 nations surveyed.
    Only 18% of Chinese citizens are seriously concerned about the issue, a drop of 23 points since 2010, the US Pew Research Center report published on Thursday shows.
    Nevertheless more than two-thirds of Chinese people support a global deal on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the research states…
    On average, 54% of the 45,000 people who participated globally expressed serious concern.
    Bruce Stokes, the co-author of the report, said there was “frankly, no explanation” for the drop, but suggested as a possible reason that “there must not be as much public discussion about climate change in China as there are in other parts of the world”…
    In Australia, where emission reduction targets are lower than some comparable developing countries, 31% of rightwing Liberal party supporters expressed serious concern, compared to 65% of leftwing Labour voters…
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/05/climate-change-concerns-chinese-citizens-plummets

    5 pages: 5 Nov: Pew: Global Concern about Climate Change, Broad Support for Limiting Emissions
    U.S., China Less Worried; Partisan Divides in Key Countries
    By Bruce Stokes, Richard Wike and Jill Carle
    http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/11/05/global-concern-about-climate-change-broad-support-for-limiting-emissions/

    link to “Topline Questionaire PDF” in right column at above link. all questions concern “global climate change” not AGW.
    the tiny numbers who don’t believe CC exists suggests people know CC is a constant – see various questions that include a column for “Climate change does not exist (VOL)”.

    loaded question:

    ***Q43. I am going to read you a list of possible effects of global climate change. Which one of these effects concerns
    you most?

    ***no positive effects are included.

    00

  • #
    pat

    5 Nov: ClimateChangeNews: Ed King: Walking tall: Expect tears as UN climate chief eyes Paris prize
    Christiana Figueres has led the UN’s climate body for five turbulent years – and finally the diminutive Costa Rican has a global deal in her sights
    If they succeed then by 2100 the burning of oil, coal and gas at scale will likely be history. Countries will rely on wind, solar, nuclear for energy, along with technologies as yet unheard of…
    As president of the COP21 summit, France’s polished foreign minister Laurent Fabius will be soaking up the applause.
    Look for the smaller woman on his right. If recent years are anything to go by, she’ll be wearing a short, bright jacket. She’ll be clapping, smiling and probably crying.
    That’s Christiana Figueres…
    The fear of implosion was evident in her first speech as UN climate chief, on 2 August 2010. Citing Christopher Columbus and Nelson Mandela, she appealed to envoys for trust.
    “We must progress in the full knowledge that we cannot cross the ocean on a single gust of wind. But, if we don’t raise the sails higher now, we may never discover a safer, more stable world,” she said…
    Figueres walks a delicate line. The UN is a player in this process, but it can’t be seen to directly influence the outcome of talks…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/11/05/walking-tall-expect-tears-as-un-climate-chief-eyes-paris-prize/

    5 Nov: ClimateChangeNews: Alex Pashley: Decarbonisation risks sidetracking Paris pact, says ex-UN climate chief
    Fossil fuel phase-out this century is an ‘impressive sound bite’ but could harm chances of an agreement, says Yvo de Boer
    (Alex Pashley’s travel to Paris and accommodation was paid for by IFRI (French Institute of International Relations))
    A commitment to phase out coal, oil and gas this century is not vital in a new global warming accord, the UN’s former top climate official has said…
    “I personally am not a big fan of long term goals,” the now director of the Seoul-based Global Green Growth Institute said in an address at think tank IFRI.
    “They have a tendency to distract from short term priorities. They open up a host of very complicated negotiations on the formulation of the goal.”…
    The Dutch official, who steered talks from 2006 to 2010, said they should instead prioritise a mechanism to ramp up ambition every five years and hold countries to their promises.
    Countries have pushed back on having their pledges scrutinised, but de Boer said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could do the job. Rich countries should also be held to their commitments of financial and technological support for the developing world…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/11/05/decarbonisation-risks-sidetracking-paris-pact-says-ex-un-climate-chief/

    00

  • #
    pat

    5 Nov: ClimateChangeNews: Megan Darby: Piketty: Tax flyers to raise climate adaptation funds
    French economists moot €180 levy on business class tickets to protect vulnerable from climate impacts
    A €180 (US$196) levy on business class tickets and €20 on economy class would raise the estimated €150 billion a year needed for climate adaptation.
    That is one proposal by French economists Lucas Chancel and Thomas Piketty to address global inequalities between high-polluting individuals and the victims of climate change…
    Piketty – author of Capital, a bestseller on wealth inequality – and Chancel outline huge disparities in people’s carbon footprints across the world. One tenth of people are responsible for 45% of global emissions…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/11/05/piketty-tax-flyers-to-raise-climate-adaptation-funds/

    00

  • #
    pat

    5 Nov: Vancouver Sun: Kelly Sinoski: Climate change warning labels may be coming to gas pumps
    First, it was smokers who were faced with graphic images of blackened lungs on cigarette packages. Now, Metro Vancouver motorists are the target as some cities in the region consider posting dire warnings about climate change on local gas pumps.
    The idea has already gained the support of councils in the City of North Vancouver, West Vancouver and Port Moody, who say such warnings, accompanied by photos such as snowless mountains and flooded local streets, will get people talking about the environment. The campaign, promoted by an organization called Our Horizon, has also received support from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, which passed a resolution this year “that all vendors of retail petroleum products in Canada be legislated to provide warning labels on all pump handles.”
    “The idea is we want to put labelling on gas pumps or on nozzles. … We want to make it mandatory to say fossil fuels contribute to climate change,” said City of North Vancouver Mayor Darrell Mussatto. “We think this is the issue of our time. We want to explore it and see how far we can go.”…
    http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/climate+change+warning+labels+coming+pumps/11496417/story.html

    OurHorizon: Executive Director: Rob Shirkey
    Rob Shirkey is a recognized global authority on the subject of climate change warnings on gas pump nozzles. He has given lectures on the topic across North America and has been featured in media all over the world…ETC ETC
    http://ourhorizon.org/executive-director/

    00

  • #
    pat

    is Flannery living in Canada these days?
    video isfull of unchallenged nonsense. renewables are cheaper; everywhere Tim goes, people know what climate change means to them; one of the big things in Australia’s inner cities is cycling has really taken off. people are fitter.

    5 Nov: Vancouver Sun: Video: 23 mins: Atmosphere of hope for climate change
    This week’s Conversation That Matters features Professor Tim Flannery, the former Australian Climate Commission on changes in behaviour and the advances in alternative energy production that have him believing in the possible. This is episode 58 in a series of videos by Stu McNish.
    http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/video+atmosphere+hope+climate+change/11496248/story.html?__lsa=f80a-e38d

    rally below held during National Convention of Canadian Union of Public Employees. guess they supplied most of the attendees.
    claims 1,500 attended. looks less.
    Klein: we got out the Tories, now the work begins. renewables renewables. we want green jobs that are unionised and pay a living wage:

    5 Nov: Vancouver Sun: Video: 2mins: Hundreds attend Vancouver climate change rally
    Speakers including former diplomat Stephen Lewis and author Naomi Klein applaud change in Canada’s government but urge citizens to apply pressure to attack climate change.
    http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/video+hundreds+attend+vancouver+climate+change+rally/11496012/story.html?__lsa=f80a-e38d

    00

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘In short, most of the forcing predicted by the IPCC is either an exaggeration or has already resulted in whatever temperature change it was going to cause. There is little global warming in the pipeline as a result of our past and present sins of emission.’

    Christopher Monckton

    00

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘We have the absurd scenario where we’re asked to believe that a group of scientists decided that they’d find it easier to get funding to investigate something invented, and that rather than make actual discoveries, they’d rather just take this funding and spend their time making stuff up.’

    Ross Leigh (AIMN)

    00

  • #
  • #

    Well my vote is determined mainly by the environment and human and animal welfare – I even hug trees (only if they’re my friends, of course).

    That’s why I vote against the Greens and Labor. They want to restrict atmospheric plant food, starve 600 million poor and countless wildlife, and erect costly, resource-heavy monstrosities that kill birds and bats. I vote for the planet – I vote anti-Green.

    (So those of you who ridicule animal lovers and environmentalists – please stop! Just explain the truth so they will be on your side.)

    01

  • #

    [...] far too cosy with big green. A recent poll in Australia shows nothing has changed, Australians are still very skeptical of the need for carbon pricing. But politicians seem to have different ideas. If the cross party [...]

    00