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

The rise of fake skeptics who “change their minds” about climate change

Poor Nick Kilvert at the ABC again, finds climate yeti’s everywhere — that imaginary creature, the converted skeptic. This is an important missing link in the fictional narrative — obviously if The Evidence Is Over-bloody-Whelming, there will be a stream of people gradually awakening. Alas, Kilvert doesn’t realize the traffic is all the other way, an exodus,  and there is no single outspoken skeptic that has convincingly switched the other way. The best he can do is drag out the self-declared convert Richard Muller who got away with his skeptic facade for while,  until awkward quotes surfaced from during his skeptic days where he declared that fossil fuels were the “greatest pollutant of human history”.  He was outed five years ago, but alas, Kilvert apparently still hasn’t got an internet connection and didn’t think to look. If only Kilvert could have emailed me?

The headline:

“Once were sceptics: What convinced these scientists that climate change is real? “

To which I might say “Once were journalists: Why don’t these writers do any research any more?”

This is as good as it gets. Muller is the “star” convert. He and his whole team were doubting skeptics:

In 2010, Professor Muller from Berkeley University was funded to carry out a comprehensive study by a group of individuals who doubted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) data. They believed that urban heat islands, data-selection bias, and inaccurate climate models were being glossed over by scientists. Professor Muller and his team — all of whom doubted climate change was happening or that carbon dioxide was its cause — were shocked to find a correlation between carbon dioxide emissions and warming.

Not only was Muller a passionately unskeptical believer (see the quotes below) but Muller’s team at Berkley included his daughter Elizabeth Muller (who was no less than a Director of BEST). How skeptical was she? So skeptical that in 2008 she ran a consultancy called GreenGov™ which helped people figure out how to “reduce carbon footprints”. Elizabeth Muller was selling advice on reducing CO2 emissions, but apparently was “shocked” in 2012 to find that CO2 might matter. Not a good look for her either way.

These Richard-Muller-quotes have been known for years:

Richard Muller, 2003. “… carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.”

 Richard Muller, 2008: “There is a consensus that global warming is real. …it’s going to get much, much worse.”

Given what Prof Muller said in 2003 and 2008 you’d think he might have heard before that rising temperatures correlate with rising CO2? Even skeptics know that. But then he’s only a professor.

There must be a converted skeptic somewhere…

The second supposed convert is a man called Dr Anthony Purcell. Purcell explains post hoc that he had some “doubts” about high sensitivity (sounds like a scientist to me) but was converted, “shaken” when he read that Prof Frank Fenner, the famous virologist,  predicted humans would be extinct, perhaps within 100 years. Well that does it then, eh? Strange that he did his PhD on sea level change in 1997, but remained a silent skeptic til he read the OpEd in The Australian 13 years later.

Purcell claims sediments from 55 million years ago during the PETM “demonstrated first-hand that Professor Fenner’s prediction had a historic precedent.” Yet even a stupid beginner skeptic in their 7th post was able to surmise that resolution in 50 million year old mud might not be too decisive and google search to find papers like Sluijs 2007. (Which suggested the CO2 rose 3,000 years after the warming.) Purcell couldn’t find definitive cause and effect evidence from 1998, but only in data from 50 million BC.

To authenticate the pain of conversion we get sob stories. Purcell calls his father a “deeply entrenched climate denialist” and says his acceptance of the man-made catastrophe has “severely eroded” his personal relationships. No kidding. Maybe he could try not calling people names?

Digging deep, the third convert is Prof-Catastrophe-Karoly himself. Allegedly, 31 years ago, he had an open mind for long enough to write an abstract for a conference that favored natural causes, but changed his mind by the time he presented it. That’s it.

Since then, he has converted himself into someone who believes in “consensuses”, despite the radiosondes, the ocean buoys, the satellites and the ice cores and the entire philosophy of science.

He might be a convert, but if he was a scientist, he converted to something else.

Skeptics, please, the ABC want to know if you changed your mind. Do help them, and take a screenshot in case they lose it. :- )

 

Very few skeptics have cracked,
Even though some colleagues were sacked,
By consensus conformists,
From the legions of warmists,
All funded and government backed.

–Ruairi

REFERENCE

Sluijs 2007, Environmental precursors to rapid light carbon injection at the Palaeocene/Eocene boundary, Nature 450, 1218-1221 (20 December 2007) doi:10.1038/nature06400 [Abstract]

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (90 votes cast)
The rise of fake skeptics who "change their minds" about climate change, 9.5 out of 10 based on 90 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/yaqlr3k4

124 comments to The rise of fake skeptics who “change their minds” about climate change

  • #
    Gordon

    Well I am a skeptic about most things. Especially BS, government, special interest groups etc. I believe the climate is changing all the time. I still find it hard to believe that so many can be so dumb. But…. what can I really do? The media is all left and loonie, the greens are all loonie, and the weather is going to change no matter what anybody does. It always has and always will.

    182

  • #
    Gordon

    Naomi Klein said it is about capitalism not carbon. The left simply wants to destroy capitalism, damn the environment. Christiana Figueres said the same thing. Question, why do governments all over the world tolerate this?

    453

    • #
      Dennis

      The admissions are widely known, Prime Minister Abbott said in 2015 that he would not stand for socialism masquerading as environmentalism, yet governments continue to push the socialism?

      334

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Why? Some thoughts that seem to being proven out over time:
      People might dispute this of course, I’m looking at whats happening around us to come up with this list.
      As always, feel free to disagree….such is the joy of our democracy whiloe it remains.

      - The Establishment seems to endorse & drive a hidden religious war against the rest of humanity – we see an unbalanced view of environment and climate, a one sided heavily censored and directed control of opinion via Establishment owned and controlled MSM, which appears to be heavily ideological, if not neck-vein bulging extremist….

      - The Establishment seem to be “Gaia” earth worshippers. There appears to be an unbalanced ( apparently religious ) emphasis on “protecting” the earth by slowly destroying the cornerstone of human civilisation, especially electricity supply. This endagers human quality of life and risks destroying families, society and may develop intractable Soveriegn Risk.

      - Gaia earth worshippers seem to be blatantly anti-Christian, as evidenced by pushing a pagan view of the world which puts the earth and animals before people.
      Christianity is the reverse of this.

      - The Establishment is heavily in bed with the UN, if not actually running it. Speaks for itself. The Establishment love socialism, as long as everyone else is doing it but not them.

      - The UN is an occult anti-Israel ( and therefore anti-Christian ) organization. Seem UN resolutions that support this.

      - The UN has provisioned the IPCC as the trojan horse to provide unproven scientific models. Evidence speaks for itself.

      - Most countries are happy to let UN treaties become cornerstones of many laws ( see many Australian Bills before parliament to see such examples )

      - Most countries are WILLING members of the UN. Watch th enews to see countries fawning over membership of said body.

      Ergo….

      253

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        You have done well Steve. To bring your points down further to the lowest common denominator, there appears to be a fundamental ying & yang at work. I’m sure everyone could come up with there own version, but for me it’s “Those who are with God” V’s “Those who are against God”.

        92

    • #
      David Maddison

      http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/24/global-warming-is-not-about-the-science-un-admits-climate-change-policy-is-about-how-we-redistribute-the-worlds-wealth/

      Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 candidly expressed the priority. Speaking in 2010, he advised, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”

      Or, as U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres pointedly remarked, the true aim of the U.N.’s 2014 Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

      153

      • #
        Manfred

        Thus far, you received two red thumbs for those quotes Dave. One has to wonder why someone would do that, given you merely report what was said by the high priests and priestesses of the cult.

        The CO2 – GMT association was always a UN Trojan Horse of the vilest and fiendish sort. I don’t think we’ll escape it until we’re either within an ace of irreparable economic destruction and the incipient demise of the illusion of a free society, or if war finally breaks out and the UN is removed, then eventually restored to the dual core aims of peacekeeping and aid.

        Meanwhile I noted from above that,

        Purcell calls his father a “deeply entrenched climate denialist” and says his acceptance of the man-made catastrophe has “severely eroded” his personal relationships.

        Good. I hope it is pause for reflection though I doubt it. But I couldn’t agree more. The subject compromises my personal life as it does my ability to conduct enjoyable unfettered free flowing discourse. It is also so heavily politicized it quickly reduces people to the lowest common denominator analysis – sneering. Remaining forever silent is no option. And even when one engages in a civilized, gentle, persuasive and informative discourse or simply raises obvious questions that drill gaping holes through a claim of meaningful theoretical association, the faith remains unshakable, and this often from people intellectually cultivated to think critically. They simply don’t and refuse to. It’s a most bizarre societal suspension of critical questioning and coherent reasoning, a hallmark of faith based thought and intellectual prostitution. After all, there’s a gigantic policy-based evidence crowd in the academic towers.

        It is all proving to be unimaginably destructive. To think of how the World might have looked had all the monies, livelihoods, innovations and futures stolen by this scam been devoted to prosperity, development, space exploration and the enrichment of all, particularly those hapless souls marooned in Africa, chained once again to the globalist ideological rock of enslavement. Hopefully they can bring themselves to lead the way and show the UN two-fingers, though judging from the recent posturing by Fiji (Fiji announces $50m ‘climate bond’ ahead of COP23 presidency ) this may prove unlikely.
        Hope springs eternal.

        50

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Its gets better……only Canada is foolish enough to keep flogging a dead horse, but look at the leadership….nuff said….

          http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/22/report-most-signatories-are-ignoring-or-abandoning-paris-climate-commitments/

          “Following President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, a number of other nations have quietly begun ignoring the Paris energy goals, according to a new report out of Canada.

          According to Lawrence Solomon of Energy Probe, a Toronto-based environmental organization, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is one of the only signers of the Paris agreement who is actually abiding by the exacting demands of the accord.

          Meanwhile, Solomon notes in an essay in Friday’s Financial Post, “most signatories are ignoring, if not altogether abandoning Paris commitments, undoubtedly because voters in large part put no stock in scary global warming scenarios.”

          “Trudeau now stands almost alone in sincere support of Paris,” Solomon writes. “The populist backlash — a revulsion at top-down governments laden with jet-setting politicians landing in posh places to preach restraint to the masses — has swept America with Trump’s election, Great Britain with Brexit, much of Europe, and Australia.”

          “In the process, global warming enthusiasts are being swept out,” he writes.”

          Last week, Australia rejected its Clean Energy Target (CET), a lengthy proposal that would have forced electricity utilities to rely on renewables and other low-emission sources for a substantial percentage of their production. The measure had been put forward as a way of complying with requirements of the non-binding Paris agreement.

          Earlier this month, the prominent Australian economist Judith Sloan wrote a scathing essay decrying renewable energy as the greatest “scam” being perpetrated against taxpayers and consumers, greater even than Ponzi, Madoff or Enron.

          While sinking enormous financial resources into propping up renewable energy prospectors, national governments are providing no perceptible benefits to their citizens, Sloan wrote.

          “With very few exceptions, governments all over the world have fallen into the trap of paying renewable energy scammers on the basis that it is necessary, at least politically, to be seen to be doing something about climate change,” Sloan writes, before providing readers with an avalanche of economic data to back up her assertion.

          Apparently, Sloan’s arguments and those of like-minded analysts prevailed on policy makers, and the country rejected the CET with its taxpayer funded subsidizing of renewables.”

          60

    • #
      Bill_W

      Jo,

      Don’t be too hard on Muller. He says he is not really a skeptic because he now says he is a lukewarm. Here are his six categories of climate beliefs. Notice that he places himself in the 4th out of 6th as far as alarmism. Notice also that he seems to be more favorably inclined to the the skeptical and lukewarmer positions.
      https://www.masterresource.org/mueller-richard/lukewarmists-qua-economists-say-keep-politics-out-message-to-richard-muller/

      22

      • #
        Peter C

        See the comment below the article by Harry dale Huffman.

        50

      • #

        Bill, Thanks, but no thanks. Muller allows/promotes himself to be used as the posterboy convert when he never was. It’s a fake news PR point he does not deserve, and it’s based on deception. He deliberately confounds the mere finding of a correlation (which is all BEST did and was nothing new) as if it had meaning in the cause and effect debate about whether our emissions matter. His achievements lie in the PR spin, not the world of science. What he found in BEST and the way he presented it, was entirely consistent with his faith of the theory as espoused in 2008 and 2003.

        162

        • #
          Bill_W

          He is still several steps above many in the field. And is willing to state things like his six categories, which most in the field are unwilling to do. Either they really think there are only two categories or as I suspect, they are afraid of getting thrown out of the club, publicly chastised, and losing their funding and pal-reviewers.

          31

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            He is still just pretending to be sceptical. He is no more sceptical than his daughter who does not pretend at all.

            30

  • #
    Zigmaster

    When one considers the benefits both in adulation and financial reward bestowed upon warmists it’s staggering that only these few rather pathetic examples can be found. On the other hand there are heaps of examples of people who despite it being to there personal detriment in terms of reputation, financial remuneration and even physical safety have genuinely seen the light and become outspoken sceptics.
    It tells me there are many great human beings out there who are prepared to sacrifice their own comfortable lifestyles and positions to work for the greater good.
    Global warming alarmism really is own of the greatest moral ( and financial) issues of our time and where you sit on this argument defines how you are as a human being.

    393

  • #
    Yonniestone

    The warmists were always going to attempt a “climate PSYOP” at some point when others started doubting, they picked a good candidate in Muller with his background in physics anyone who searches Wiki will find this page which makes for an interesting layout of information that always correlates to climate change in some way, the average person looking at this wouldn’t notice the misdirection of facts designed to fool the public of an almost “innocent discovery” of great importance.

    243

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Yes, its a classic Intelligence tactic of using operatives to infiltrate and undermine a position … aka poisoning the well….

      122

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        I look at the language…”shocked” is emotive, which kids of gives the shell game away as a manuafctured incident.

        Does this sound familiar-ish?

        “I’m just shocked, Mr Speaker, just shocked I tell you….”

        41

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      I remember well when Muller started up his business. He was outed by many people at the time as being a Trojan. He suckered Anthony Watts into participating in one of his studies, only to be backstabbed by Muller rather quickly.

      113

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        “By their fruits you shall know them….” ( Matt 7:15 )

        Jesus was talking about spiritual things, but could as easily apply to a mans character….

        61

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 7:16Ye shall know them by their fruits.

          7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

          7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

          Jesus was referring to any, and all false prophets.

          40

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    Question, why do governments all over the world tolerate this?

    Because government is institutionalized coercive force. They see that as the most powerful tool they have to assert their will. By using it, they become inherently totalitarian and will strive to suppress any opposition to achieving their goals.

    As government power and reach grows, government increasingly sees any of its subjects as sacrificial goats to be used, abused, and discarded without giving it a moment’s thought. The bit about “its for the children”, “the poor and disadvantaged”, or “public interest” is nothing but a smokescreen to cover what they actually are doing.

    Capitalism on the other hand, says each owns his own life to do with what he chooses. It uses production of values as a bases of persuasion and trade. The use of coercive force is only for defensive purposes for protection of life and property. This is in direct contradiction to the natural tenancy of government who sees all others as THEIR property.

    212

  • #
    Eric Simpson

    “Kilvert doesn’t realize the traffic is all the other way”

    Yes. And that sheds light on the reason why warmists run from debate. In debates .. they lose. The more somebody hears the actual evidence instead of the leftist media propaganda the more likely they are to switch to being a skeptic. So, the traffic goes totally the other way. Not a good sign for alarmism.

    303

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    Nicely done. Great wordsmithing, Jo.

    221

  • #
    Dave in the States

    True skeptics usually have a better understanding of the “science” and are more scientifically literate in general to begin with than most believers.

    However, believers tend to assume the opposite. Those in the media believe it is just a matter of the messaging to help people see light. They assume that when confronted with a few shallow examples of “evidence” that the skeptic should be converted. When that doesn’t happen, then they assume it must because the skeptic is just dismissing the science, or has an alternate motive due to his/her politics.

    Usually when the casual observer begins to seriously examine the science in greater depth they become skeptics.

    302

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      The coup d’état happened when they created the IPCC. Everything since that time has been appeal to authority.

      Even the scientific papers, houses and establishments didn’t bother to look into the matter whatsoever. They simply assumed that the hundred or so scientists who worked on the IPCC paper produced the best possible science. Whereas 90% of those who worked on that paper, worked on the consequences and costs of climate change, not the science at all. Of the small number of people who worked on the science, many of them left the IPCC in disgust and published their disgust.

      The more establishments who follow suit, the harder the nut is to crack. It’s appeal to authority all the way down. Judith Curry says exactly the same thing about her “Road to Damascus” conversion.

      61

  • #
    TdeF

    Very funny. Fake news and fake history and quite unbelievable Damascus moments of conversion to the truth, especially Karoly.

    All make their regular living from their complete lack of skepticism and their total belief in man made stuff. In their science, evidence is what you make of it. One man’s hurricane is another man’s proof of Climate Change. It beats me how you can tell Irma was a Climate Change hurricane.

    Science is skeptical. If you accept something without convincing and even multiple proofs, you are no scientist. As for consensus science, what is that? You believe because others believe?

    When I ask Google about ‘The Science’ I get

    The science of Nature
    The science of ‘being nice’
    The science behind why some people love animals
    The science of parenting

    and

    The Science of Climate Change.

    It’s that sort of science.

    171

    • #
      Dennis

      Seance of climate change maybe?

      101

    • #
      Manfred

      Brave man TdeF boldly asking Google about ‘The Science’! It is a never ending adventure that thing called Google-science

      New York City area could soon see massive floods every 5 years
      By Randall HymanOct. 23, 2017 , 3:00 PM

      This year’s Atlantic hurricane season was off the charts by nearly every measure, and new climate modeling suggests that New York City may be headed for weather that could make superstorm Sandy look routine. Flooding from hurricanes will intensify with sea level rise, and what was—in preindustrial times—a once-in-500-years flood may occur once every 5 years by 2030 scientists report today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

      Sigh. Groan.

      40

  • #
    Dennis

    The list of warnings and predictions that have failed to materialise is long, e.g. that the Sydney Opera House would be submerged by 2000, yet the MSM continues to accept these fairy tales and publish them.

    I recommend the book written by journalist Paul Sheehan, The Electronic Whorehouse, to gain a better understanding of what the media has become, including “advertising presented as news”.

    123

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Well the top of the opera house sail would have become a prized spot to sit and fish… there is always an upside…. :-)

      61

  • #
    Ruairi

    Very few skeptics have cracked,
    Even though some colleagues were sacked,
    By consensus conformists,
    From the legions of warmists,
    All funded and government backed.

    –[Posted. Thanks! - j]

    421

  • #
    turnedoutnice

    Unless paid to do so, no professional scientist can accept the 5 major radiative physics’ mistakes in Climate Alchemy, also the GISS fraud in 1976 that paved the way for the Charney Report.

    72

  • #
    robert rosicka

    As someone commented when I posted the link to this fake news yesterday , there obviously is no money in being a skeptic but a whole gravy train if you believe .

    Another shift in thinking from the flat earth brigade who are getting desperate, if you can’t beat them , join them , another cunning Baldrick plan .

    143

  • #
    David Maddison

    I don’t like calling the believers in science “sceptics”. Surely the actual science which sees no evidence of AGW should be the mainstream view and not given a special categorisation? Those that “believe” in AGW and who ignore the scientific method and invent data to support an invalid hypothesis should be the ones given the special categorisation? Whatever they are they are certainly scientists or even honest.

    133

    • #
      David Maddison

      Last sentence was meant to read:

      Whatever they are they are certainly NOT scientists or even honest.

      162

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        One of the tactics the Left love , is hijacking words and twisting the meaning so its used against those who would oppose the Left.

        I guess when you get people like Leftist denizen Saul Alynski literally dedicating his “Rules For Radicals” book to The Devil ( Lucifer ) , we shouldnt be too surprised ….

        132

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo FYI

    “Answering The “97% Consensus” Question”

    https://realclimatescience.com/2017/10/answering-the-97-consensus-question/

    62

  • #
    Another Ian

    Seems to have missed this

    “delingpole-now-400-scientific-papers-in-2017-say-global-warming-is-a-myth”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/24/delingpole-now-400-scientific-papers-in-2017-say-global-warming-is-a-myth/

    82

  • #
    Another Ian

    Definitely O/T

    A nickname problem our federal treasurer doesn’t have!

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2017/10/willyporno.html

    And comments

    31

  • #

    That’s such an old hustle. Beginning in the 1980s fashionable communists and nationalsocialists heaved weary sighs and candidly “admitted” to having admired Ayn Rand “when they were younger.” The implication, spread during the death-throes of communism, was that no adult could take seriously ideas in books that sell half a million copies a year decade after decade.

    91

  • #
    PeterS

    Healthy skepticism is a MUST in any field of science. It’s clear that it’s an extinct species when it comes to climate science. This alone, and there are other reasons, in my mind at least proves that climate science is an oxymoron. I do understand why those honest scientists who perform research in climate studies don’t pounce on the perpetrators of the fake aspects of climate science. They are scared of losing their funding and hence their jobs. Of course that makes them cowards and hypocrites, but then again that’s part of being human so I don’t blame them too much. It’s unlikely enough of them would ever get together and mount a sort of “class action” against the falsifiers of climate change. That’s a shame as it is yet another sign that modern science is being corrupted more and more. I wonder how far it will go. Perhaps we will see white magic and witchcraft as science subjects in Universities.

    41

  • #
    manalive

    31 years ago, he [Karoly] had an open mind for long enough to write an abstract for a conference that favored natural causes, but changed his mind by the time he presented it. That’s it …

    Thirty years ago, even according to the ‘adjusted’ temperature data, there was no evidence of any post-WW2 warming — supposedly the ‘human fingerprint’ on the GAT trend according to the IPCC.

    102

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    I tried to comment at the ABC, but comments are closed. Probably just as well, because after reading a few dozen of the comments from the true believers I stopped because I didn’t want to be sick all over my keyboard. Seriously, some of these range from mildly to seriously misinformed, to seriously deluded, to completely whacko. No hope of ever reaching them. Thankfully there are millions who don’t swallow the ABC line (and hook and sinker).
    Ken S

    202

    • #
      William

      The Fairfax echo chamber will probably run a similar story sooner or later. But if it is by their environment editor, Peter Hannam, then there won’t be any comments allowed.

      50

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Cant imagine why they wouldnt want the house of cards huffed upon…..?

        Its a joke….as is the FairFaux media…

        30

    • #
      Maverick

      I actually felt sad reading the ABC comments. There are psychopaths posting who want to kill off billions of people in the 3rd world to reduce C02 using chemical means. There are depressed people posting that people should “deny themselves pets”. There was one tortured soul with at least a little bit of understanding that their solar panels were not plucked from a hemp garden and now lie awake all night wondering if the aluminium and glass in their existing solar panels can be recycled when they wear out. This same person also hints at a conspiracy because his $10 electric kettle from Target does not seen to last as long as he thinks he should.

      Skeptics are never going to be able to reason with such people because our arguments are far too advanced. They only understand rebuttal in terms of polar bears, pets, recycling the glass from old solar panels and electric kettles – oh and why its not quite reasonable to murder billions of people.

      We will just have to wait until the mob suddenly turn for the right hand gate and rush in. What the tipping point for this turn is, I don’t know. In the meantime we just have keep circling on the quad bike. One will break and the rest will follow.

      71

  • #
    Popeye26

    “the ABC want to know if you changed your mind.”

    NO THEY DON’T!

    08:26 AEDT on 26th Oct 2017 and comments are ALREADY closed.

    So much for balanced and fair debate – oh – sorry – we’re talking ABC aren’t we! :-(

    Cheers,

    101

    • #
      Dennis

      ABC fully funded by taxpayers, not supposed to compete with the private sector that is not taxpayer funded, but does, employs highly paid presenters who have better conditions of employment than private sector taxpayers: pension, full paid maternity leave, etc.

      ABC Charter is ignored more often than not.

      And ABC employees do not pay real taxes, the “tax” deducted from their salaries and otherwise paid by them from their private sector taxpayer funded salaries is not new revenue. They do not contribute to the budget expenses of running this nation. At best what they spend could be regarded as economic stimulus.

      In my opinion too many public servants including politicians have lost sight of their employment roles, public service.

      102

      • #
        Rob

        This seems to be a recurring problem whatever nation you call home. Our media will refer to them as “the nations leaders”, our school systems will also propagate this view beginning with our young so they grow up believing that the elected are people they should follow and be subservient to. It isn’t surprising that those in power believe it is so, they put a lot of work into creating that image of themselves.

        But these people are not our leaders, they are public servants who are supposed to follow the will of the people who elected them. Instead they have managed to convince themselves and the masses supporting them that it is the other way around and that we are to serve their whims and wishes.

        Once one understands that the mess they have created makes much more sense. They, i.e. those we put into power, see themselves as elite and above the laws, rules, and so forth that they create for us. We, i.e. the people who elect these narcissists and gave them their power, are of little concern to these public servants as they no longer consider themselves to be servants but an elite to whom we should bow and acquiesce.

        The only thing they will understand is losing their positions of power and prestige and “we” the people are the only ones who can make that happen. Unfortunately most of “we” the people have become too lazy and complacent to kick these public servants to the curb or demand their imprisonment for failing to serve us as they swore to do.

        “We” did it to ourselves.

        61

    • #

      Has anyone got the time to search other ABC news stories with the same timestamp and see if their comments are also closed?

      51

  • #
    el gordo

    CO2 cools the stratosphere and the troposphere warms, this is accepted wisdom but is it true?

    40

  • #
    Asp

    Now that it is quite evident that the global warming non-debate is losing its fizz (though 97% of the sheep may not yet be through the fence), there appear to be noticeably more ‘pollution is killing the world’ articles and programs in MSM. Or am I imagining things?
    Because the global warming myth was never based on science, but designed to promote a predetermined social outcome, it will be interesting to observe how the puppet masters will morph the agenda to retain their gullible audience.

    112

    • #
      Dave in the States

      Conflation of pollution and AGW is rampant, because it is effective upon the scientifically illiterate and those who only catch sound bites here and there.

      52

    • #
      James Murphy

      Lithium batteries are the next big cash-cow. Push the pollution line, and clean up on government subsidies…
      That’s not to say that there isn’t genuine air pollution which needs desperate attention, but we all know none of the biggest mouths in this business actually care about the environment.

      92

      • #
        Dennis

        The must do objective of the 1970s was Environmental Protection Agencies and related anti-pollution legislation and penalties which has been a success in most developed countries, including closure of truly dirty coal fired power stations often located in suburban areas and new cleaner power stations being located outside of the population centres.

        Sydney Harbour is another example of successful pollution and environment protection, it is now almost pristine in parts that earlier were toxic.

        But it seems “carbon pollution” has escaped the EPA net.

        30

    • #
      robert rosicka

      Well I’m sure the ABC is sticking to they’re propaganda quota of 2.5 climate scare stories a day .

      51

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘Because the global warming myth was never based on science….’

      It seemed to work in laboratory experiments, but not in the convective atmosphere. Modelling based on flimsy evidence has falsified the hypothesis, that CO2 causes global warming, as evidenced by the hiatus in temperatures for two decades.

      On the other hand, there is still the question of ‘sensitivity’, does CO2 cause a little warming?

      There should be obvious signals of ‘positive feedback’, but they are nowhere to be seen and ‘negative feedbacks’ are plentiful. It looks like the lukewarmers are on a hiding to nothing.

      Arguing over slight temperature variations was masterful strategy by the Klimatariat, but its of no value in predicting climate change. From where I’m standing global cooling has begun, yet the masses remain blissfully ignorant of the scientific paradigm shift unfolding.

      The revelation that industrial CO2 is good for the planet may come as a shock, but no more than the impact of discovering that humanity is descended from gracile apes. There were lots of jokes at the time and hopefully it will be the same on this occasion.

      81

      • #
        sophocles

        el gordo asked:

        does CO2 cause a little warming?

        A provocative question. The Warming Hysterics would say: Yes! But Allmendinger in his elegant experiment, discovered that CO2 actually caused a slight cooling. [Fig 35] and:

        Surprisingly, and contrary to any former knowledge, any gas is warmed up, while the difference between air and pure carbon-
        dioxide is minor-that which delivers the first empirical evidence that «greenhouse gases» do not exist. The second and definite evidence is delivered by the here first mentioned warming-up experiments of air and of pure carbon-dioxide in the presence of thermal radiation, which even revealed a temperature reduction by carbon-dioxide, apart from the fact that the carbon-dioxide content of the air is so low that it can be neglected

        So there we have it:
        - there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas
        - and CO2 cools, not warms
        - the concentration of CO2 is so small as a trace gas, it can reasonably be ignored.

        There is a second paper A Novel Investigation about the Thermal Behaviour of Gases under the Influence of IR-Radiation: A Further Argument against the Greenhouse Thesis written from the same experiment which I’m currently reading.
        He hands out some stick for misuse of three gas laws:

        The natural laws which were used for constructing the theory were confined to the temperature law of Stefan-Boltzmann (1), Planck’s distribution law (2), both being solely valid for black bodies, and Beer- Lambert’s absorption law (3), being unequivocally valid solely for visible light, and not compellingly for IR radiation (see below). These laws were often impermissibly generalized and used in an incorrect way leading to wrong conclusions.

        Does that help answer your question? :-)

        31

    • #
      Another Ian

      Asp

      Maybe like some fences I’ve met – they didn’t stop the sheep, only the motorbike musterers

      40

  • #
    Jim Lurker

    I must be having a boy look as I cant find the survey? 9:30 am 26/10

    I used to be an avid lurker here but since I move to tassie I have become a casual lurker

    I personally do not think things will change in the near/medium future having read Gulag Archipelago. Very depressing and it shows the power of the state or in our case the deep state.

    I will be a converted if only someone can show me the anthropogenic part of climate change

    any takers :-)

    facts only please, no models or papers that only suggest….

    61

    • #
      el gordo

      Here is David Karoly on the pause in temperature… “some climate models underestimate … and some models overestimate the global climate sensitivity”.

      “The most plausible explan­ation is natural decadal variability of the climate system.”

      Oz 2014

      51

  • #
    pat

    the biggie for the FakeNewsMSM today:

    24 Oct: RTE Ireland: IMF chief warns of ‘dark future’ over climate change
    “If we don’t address these issues… we will be moving to a dark future” in 50 years, she told a major economic conference in the Saudi Arabia capital of Riyadh.

    On climate change, Ms Lagarde said that “we will be toasted, roasted and grilled” if the world fails to take “critical decisions” on that problem…

    Ms Lagarde also called for tackling inequality between men and women and countries that are “haves” and those that are “have nots”.
    If the world wants a future that “looks like utopia and not dystopia”, it needs to address such concerns, Ms Lagarde said. She predicted that in 50 years’ time, oil will be a secondary commodity…
    https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1024/914734-paris_accord_-_nicaragua/

    ‘We will be toasted, roasted and grilled’: IMF chief sounds climate change
    The Guardian-18 hours ago

    Planet Earth will be ‘toasted and roasted’ by apocalyptic climate change, IMF chief Christine Lagarde warns
    The Sun· 12h ago

    IMF’s Lagarde: If nothing is done about climate change, we will be ‘toasted, roasted and grilled’
    CNBC· 11h ago

    Earth to be ‘toasted, roasted and grilled’ by climate change, warns IMF chief
    Metro· 8h ago

    uhoh…WAY BACK IN 2013! “FRIED” AS WELL. page now removed:

    ‘Roasted, toasted, fried and grilled’: climate-change talk from an …
    Globe and Mail-1 Feb. 2013
    Switzerland, Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the IMF …future generations will be roasted, toasted, fried and grilled.”…

    still online:

    5 Feb 2013: Think Progress: Joe Romm: IMF Chief: ‘Unless We Take Action On Climate Change, Future Generations Will Be Roasted, Toasted, Fried And Grilled’
    Another day, another icon of the global financial system becomes a climate hawk.
    You may recall World Bank President Jim Yong Kim said of the climate crisis: “If there is no action soon, the future will become bleak.”
    Turns out IMF managing director Christine Lagarde is also a climate hawk — and she’s the former conservative finance minister of France.

    At the World Economic Forum in Davos, she said, “the real wild card in the pack” of economic pivot points is “Increasing vulnerability from resource scarcity and climate change, with the potential for major social and economic disruption.” She called climate change “the greatest economic challenge of the 21st century.”…
    In response to a question from the audience, she said: “Unless we take action on climate change, future generations will be roasted, toasted, fried and grilled.”…
    https://thinkprogress.org/imf-chief-unless-we-take-action-on-climate-change-future-generations-will-be-roasted-toasted-fried-6f609a07eb37/

    REMEMBER, WE’RE COUNTING DOWN TO THE BONN CLIMATE CONFERENCE.

    31

  • #
    pat

    comment in moderation re:

    the biggie for the FakeNewsMSM today:

    24 Oct: RTE Ireland: IMF chief warns of ‘dark future’ over climate change

    11

  • #
    EternalOptimist

    How many climate scientists are there in the world ?and why do we need so many ?

    and since when did it matter which side they picked ?

    41

    • #

      Roll back to pre-political science and it’s apparent that we’re in an ice age. Our civilisations have all come into existence during a brief interglacial starting a few thousand years back that was early interrupted by a drastic cooling plunge preceding a very high maximum. Since then, cooling (often with drying) episodes have been rough on civilisations.

      So it would be good for homo sapiens, basking in what may only be a brief interglacial, if we did in fact have actual climate scientists and not these rent-seeking Holocene deniers. Judging by 2010′s peashooter eruption, one really good eruption series from a Mt Laki will suspend aviation globally as well as having all kinds of ill effects on health and agriculture. Yet that would only hurt and cost for a couple of years. The end of our brief epoch or just a major temp plunge will present humans with problems even bigger than Hollywood harassers or bad gender pronouns.

      I know, I know…What could be bigger than Harvey calling Caitlyn “him”? But we have to be ready.

      61

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘….since when did it matter which side they picked ?’

      With the Great Climate Shift of 1976 and the exponential growth of computer technology, modellers became high priests.

      They have a vision of what is coming a hundred years ahead, based only on a dubious theory related to a benign trace gas.

      Catastrophic global warming caused by humans requires many scientists to advice on mitigation, research and forecasting, across all levels of government. So I expect global cooling will bring about widespread retrenchment. There is little grant money for ordinary climate change, natural variability rules and there is nothing we can do.

      41

  • #
    David Maddison

    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/merchants-of-despair

    Merchants of Despair
    Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism
    Robert Zubrin

    Merchants of Despair
    Hardcover: $25.95 Paperback: $16.99
    Published April 2012
    ISBN-10: 1594034761
    ISBN-13: 978-1594034763

    Amazon: Hardcover, Paperback.
    Barnes & Noble: Harcover, Paperback.

    Part of our New Atlantis Books series. Buy online today! (Amazon, Barnes & Noble)

    Excerpt 1: “The Population Control Holocaust”

    Excerpt 2: “The Truth About DDT and Silent Spring”

    There was a time when humanity looked in the mirror and saw something precious, worth protecting and fighting for — indeed, worth liberating. But now we are beset on all sides by propaganda promoting a radically different viewpoint. According to this idea, human beings are a cancer upon the Earth, a species whose aspirations and appetites are endangering the natural order. This is the core of antihumanism.

    Merchants of Despair traces the pedigree of this ideology and exposes its deadly consequences in startling and horrifying detail. The book names the chief prophets and promoters of antihumanism over the last two centuries, from Thomas Malthus through Paul Ehrlich and Al Gore. It exposes the worst crimes perpetrated by the antihumanist movement, including eugenics campaigns in the United States and genocidal anti-development and population-control programs around the world.

    Combining riveting tales from history with powerful policy arguments, Merchants of Despair provides scientific refutations to antihumanism’s major pseudo-scientific claims, including its modern tirades against nuclear power, pesticides, population growth, biotech foods, resource depletion, industrial development, and, most recently, fear-mongering about global warming. Merchants of Despair exposes this dangerous agenda and makes the definitive scientific and moral case against it.

    43

  • #
    David Maddison

    Was Obama’s coup to have CO2 classified as a “pollutant” one of the most damaging claims made by the enemies of civilisation?

    103

    • #
    • #
      gnome

      Yes – even here we see people suggesting things that “reduce emissions”, like transporting coal to burn in the brown coal power stations in Victoria. Craziness which has entered the narrative and will stay there even though it has long been debunked.

      Like second-hand smoke, like glyphosate being carcinogenic, like DDT causing eggshell thinning, like GMOs causing ??? in food, like…

      Of course, corals don’t live in warm water, there never was a medieval warm period, the oceans are turning acid… How could anyone deny “the science”?

      123

  • #
    RickWill

    Have your say
    Please read the House Rules and ABC Online Terms of Use before submitting.

    149 comments
    SIGN IN310 people listening
    This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

    That from the link posted in the blog above. I do not think the comments were suiting the theme. Maybe just too late.

    31

  • #
    David Maddison

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-rachel-carson-cost-millions-of-people-their-lives

    The inappropriate ban on DDT based on flawed data cost millions of lives.

    63

  • #
    pat

    in case you haven’t noticed, “EQUALITY” is included in almost all CAGW FakeNews/propaganda of late…as is “TRUMP”, which has been given a lower case “t” in the following:

    25 Oct: Herald Sun Education section: ‘Equality’ is Aussie kids’ word of 2017
    by Ashley Argoon
    AUSTRALIAN childrens’ frequent use of the word “equality” has seen it dubbed the “word of the year”.
    Oxford University Press announced “equality” as the Children’s Word of the Year after evaluating more than 700 primary school kids’ story entries.
    A panel of academics and experts in children’s English language found its popularity, frequency and use in context made it the word of the year…

    Oxford University Press ANZ director of school publishing Lee Walker said the process showed how Aussie kids were tuned into social conversations.
    “The prevalence of the word ‘equality’ seems a fitting reflection of the current social landscape, with children incorporating the word in their stories across topics of gender, pay, culture, marriage, disability, religion, race and sport,” Ms Walker said.
    “It warmed our hearts to see the diverse range of issues that were top-of-mind among Australian children, and further confirmed how observant children are of the conversations that make up the daily news and social discussions around them.”

    The competition also found trends based on students’ locations — children in rural schools were more likely to use words such as fishing, cows, farm, water, weather and calves while kids on the coast often wrote about the beach.

    ***Meanwhile, in the UK the children’s word of the year was ***“trump”.
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-features/news-in-education/equality-is-aussie-kids-word-of-2017/news-story/57acc87f78bae1ab13698603a89f7129

    GOSH, WAY BACK IN JUNE!

    Oxford University – The New York Times 14 June 2017
    http://www.nytimes.com/topic/organization/oxford-university
    ‘Trump’ Named Children’s Word of the Year. That’s Trumpwinningtastic. The Oxford University Press chose the winning word after analyzing more than 130,000

    ‘Trump’ children’s word of the year – BBC News
    BBC – 14 June 201

    17 June: The Hill: Max Greenwood: Oxford University Press declares ‘Trump’ children’s word of the year
    Oxford University Press has declared “Trump” its Children’s Word of the Year.
    The New York Times reported that the decision came after an analysis of short stories authored by children for a BBC competition revealed that its use had spiked by 839 percent…
    Among the other political names to make the list were “Hillary Kitten” and “Obama Llama.” (pat – HOW SWEET!)

    15 June: Guardian: Danuta Kean: Boggle Trump to Trumplestiltskin: Donald inspires new children’s slang
    The US president’s name, in more than 100 punning guises, was widely used by very young writers in entries to BBC Radio 2’s 500 Words story contest
    “Trump”, a word that has inspired sniggers in generations of British children, has provided inspiration for more than fart jokes in a nationwide children’s story writing competition. The beleaguered US president Donald Trump’s name emerged as the chief inspiration for stories of monsters, aliens and dodgy politicians written by children entering BBC Radio 2’s annual 500 Words award…

    The analysis of the 131,000 entries was conducted by the Oxford University Press, which found that as well as mentioning Trump in the context of the US elections and politics, he was also found in stories of space aliens and superheroes. The research found that political words were a significant area of growth, with “Brexit”, “fake news” and “article 50” also surfacing in schoolchildren’s stories…

    According to the Financial Times, a dystopian future in which the US president limits all communication to 140-word characters or less was imagined by one 12-year-old boy…
    Trump is the latest “word of the year” to emerge from the competition, which was launched in 2011 by (BBC)presenter Chris Evans…

    The children who entered the competition did not, however, only use the president’s surname in the newest sense, the organisers said: “Of course, with a word like ‘Trump’, our youngsters were not shy to use it for comic effect, referencing its more informal sense of passing wind.”

    notice the above involves BBC, NYT, Financial Times, Guardian – the cream of the FakeNews.

    31

  • #
    pat

    comment in moderation re:

    25 Oct: Herald Sun Education section: ‘Equality’ is Aussie kids’ word of 2017

    this is a followup:

    Environmental Defense Fund UK: CASE: Heat, Greed and Human Need – Climate Change, Capitalism and Sustainable Wellbeing – 8 November 2017
    Professor Ian Gough (Visiting Professor, Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion, and Associate, Grantham Research Institute, LSE) presents his new book on Wednesday 8 November at the LSE…
    Beyond ‘green growth’ (which assumes an unprecedented rise in the emissions efficiency of production) it envisages two further policy stages vital for rich countries: a progressive ‘recomposition’ of consumption, and a post-growth ceiling on demand…
    Venue: Shaw Library at London School of Economics, London.
    http://www.edf.org.uk/case-event-heat-greed-and-human-need-climate-change-capitalism-and-sustainable-wellbeing-8-november-2017/

    from link below the above, “BREXIT” makes an appearance:

    Equality Challenge Unit Conference: Inclusivity, Intersectionality and Action – 7-8 November 2017
    The 2017 Equality Challenge Unit Conference will take place between 7 – 8 November in Birmingham.
    The theme for this year is inclusivity, intersectionality, action: moving forward the equality agenda in higher education.
    Universities across the UK are driving forward the equality agenda for the benefit of their students and staff and this conference aims to showcase this work and provide an opportunity for collaboration and sharing of experience, particularly in the context of new challenges such as Brexit…

    Empowering equality in environmental management
    UNEP Asia Pacific 26 September 2017

    21

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Pat

      I wish there had been a little more Equality Inclusiveness when I was growing up.

      My father and I both had to work and all it seems we have achieved is to create a society where we have university courses where people sit gazing at their navels asking “is there any inclusivity and equality left for me before the money runs out?”

      me me me

      KK

      62

  • #
    el gordo

    The Karoly essay illustrates the mind set

    “It is very likely that most of the recent global warming is due to this increase in greenhouse gases.”

    Whitehouse said it was caused by an over active sun.

    “It is very likely there will be significant warming through the 21st century and beyond.”

    The models are flawed, they give no weight to the astronomical influences. There will be no significant warming throughout the 21st century and in the medium term I forecast a cool dip in temperatures similar to the 1950s and 1960s.

    42

  • #

    Richard Muller was indeed a skeptic..but I went to the bathroom and missed it. His daughter was a skep while I was outside urgently ditching some prawn heads. Missed again!

    41

  • #
    Henning Nielsen

    I’m a skeptic. I can convert. For a suitable price. Any takers? Gore? I’ll be your ManBearPig for a few millions.

    71

  • #
    Another Ian

    Other changes of mind


    We Don’t Need No Stinking Giant Fans
    By Kate on October 25, 2017 8:34 PM | 1 Comment

    No Tricks Zone;

    Just a few years ago, no party dared to express doubts over the Energiewende (Germany’s transition to green energies), or to question it for fear of being accused of environmental blasphemy and treason. But as the technical and economic problems of the Energiewende become ever more glaring, people and politicians are now speaking up.

    One Germany engineering professor, Dr. Ing. Hans-Günter Appel, is now asking if the project “is near the end” ”

    Link at

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2017/10/we-dont-need-no-656.html

    41

  • #
    robert rosicka

    Just listening to ABC radio rural report they were interviewing some economist who must have had the ear of a former prime minister on climate change and renewables.
    He says electricity costs have spiralled because of the internationalization of coal price

    41

  • #
    Another Ian

    O/T Another change of mind

    The Courier Mail used to let you read some of its items on line. It now seems to have changed to none at all.

    So do you reckon that they will be counting clicks that lead to the invitation to subscribe – and more importantly those that ignore subscription?

    If they are counting then there is potential for sending a message methinks – a “comments” section that can’t be closed

    40

  • #
    NB

    ‘Kilvert apparently still hasn’t got an internet connection’
    Probably was using the NBN.

    40

  • #
    Peter C

    This may be an opportune time to mention a book that I reading again called;
    “How to Cure a Climate Change Denier” by Paul Caruso.
    https://www.amazon.com.au/How-Cure-Climate-Change-Denier-ebook/dp/B00GA2V4KM

    Caruso says that he started of as a Climate Change worrier but something did not seem right. When he started to do some wider reading on the topic he changed his mind.

    His main points so far;
    1. There is a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature (even if it is not very good). But correlation is not causation. In fact the causation if it exists at all is likely the other way round. Rising temperatures release more CO2 from the Oceans.
    2. The best evidence, such as it is, for a greenhouse effect is the outgoing infrared spectrum which is said to indicate energy retained in the Earth system.
    3. If there is extra energy being retained in the system, that leads to another problem. Where is the extra heat going? No convincing answers so far.

    All this is familiar and has been well covered in Jo’s “the Skeptic’s Handbook”.

    The arguments are straight forward and should be comprehensible to anyone of average intelligence. The alarmists however seem determined not to engage and answer them. Or they can’t answer them. Or they do not have average intelligence.

    62

  • #
    pat

    2hrs25mins in to 2hrs32mins – no need to listen, rough paraphrase below, but it is now listed as 24 Oct in righthand column, even tho it is 25 Oct Issue of the Day, Guest – Lecturer in journalism, RMIT University:

    ABC Overnights with Trevor Chappell
    Broadcast: Wed 25 Oct 2017, 2:00am
    On Overnights, the politics of language – is it dangerous/unethical for journalists to adopt the same language as politicians?
    http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/overnights/overnights/9064096

    paraphrase:

    Chappell: have we had any good example of fake news lately, Gordon?
    Farrer: I still see examples on FB pages I visit, but nothing like in the US election campaign.
    Chappell: saw something about EPA climate scientists not being allowed to speak.

    Farrer: they were having a conference and the EPA scientists were going to say it’s not good, and then they were told they weren’t allowed to talk. head of EPA, who is a Trump supporter, Republican, didn’t want this bad climate change news to get out there, so he banned his own scientists from reporting their own studies, which isn’t a good idea, because banning them from talking got a lot more media than they were going to get if they did talk at the conference anyway.

    Chappell: probably made it more of a story than it would have been anyway.
    Farrer: that’s right. we’re talking about them shutting down debate about climate change, because they don’t want a debate about climate change.
    Chappell chuckles.

    caller phones to say it’s laughable to say about CAGW that “the science is settled”. that’s politics.

    Farrer: when it comes to the communication of scientific ideas, scientists do say that their findings are not necessarily settled. scientists don’t say it is settled. most of them don’t.

    ***with climate change, what we should be saying is that 97 or 98 percent of climate scientists have found THIS… science does change.
    but, if climate scientists say it’s not settled, then people who don’t believe in CAGW will jump on that. journalists sensationalise the science. this is one of the reasons The Conversation website was set up by a bunch of academics in Melbourne. it can write about science in a more nuanced way blah blah…

    Farrer plugs ABCFactCheck at one point, and Chappell does disclose RMIT involvement.

    14 Feb: SMH: Karl Quinn: Fact Check redux: Unit reborn as RMIT-ABC joint venture eight months after axing
    The renamed RMIT ABC Fact Check will be housed at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology campus in the heart of the CBD, with a staff of three full-time researchers, an online editor and a chief fact checker working underneath Russell Skelton, who was head of the ABC’s Fact Check unit from its launch in August 2013 until its closure in July 2016.

    ***Mr Skelton, a former senior journalist at The Age and partner of ABC broadcaster ***Virginia Trioli, will be employed by RMIT under the new three-year arrangement.

    Gordon Farrer, an associate lecturer in journalism at RMIT who is writing a PhD on fact check units, will also work with the new unit part-time.
    In a statement issued on Tuesday, the ABC noted that the unit would also employ “interns drawn from RMIT journalism students and alumni”…

    ABC director of news Gaven Morris announced the imminent closure of the Fact Check unit in May 2016, following a reduction in tied funding to the ABC’s news division in the federal budget from $20 million a year to $13.5 million.
    At that time, the unit had eight employees, including three fact checkers. At its peak, it had six fact checkers. It also employed interns.

    The ABC initially held discussions with Melbourne University about the possibility of relocating the unit to its campus, but those discussions fell over around August last year. RMIT then stepped in with its offer in September.

    The need for an independent (or, in this case, semi-independent) fact checker has arguably never been greater, with claims of “alternative facts” and “fake news” being bandied about whenever a public figure – and especially a politician – is confronted with information they don’t like.
    Such disputed territory will be the main focus of the unit, says Mr Skelton
    “The brief is anybody or any organisation – quite often politicians and ministers – who effect the direction or shape of public policy. We’re not about ‘gotcha’, trying to trip people up. We’re really going after the issues that we think matter to Australia…

    Despite its presence in the media and communications faculty at RMIT, the unit will not be focusing on the media per se.
    “It would take a lot more resources if you wanted to go around every news site pinging fake news,” says Mr Skelton. “The ABC has Media Watch, so we’ve left the media to them. Otherwise you could spend all day doing shock jocks and never get to anything that really matters.”
    http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/fact-check-redux-unit-reborn-as-rmitabc-joint-venture-eight-months-after-axing-20170214-gucrs6.html

    ABC (NOT) OBJECTIVE AS EVER.

    21

    • #
      pat

      followup. ABC’s Trevor Chappell also mentions “fake news” and brings up Harvey Weinstein, and media beat-up. says the guy has gone into rehab and some reports suggest he’s doing well in there. here’s the “progressive left” coverage of the rehab:

      The Sham of Harvey Weinstein’s Rehab
      New York Times-23 October

      Harvey Weinstein has been falling asleep in sex rehab meetings …
      The Independent-20 Oct. 2017

      Harvey Weinstein Is Reportedly Treating Rehab Like a Joke
      VICE-20 Oct. 2017

      RMIT’s Gordon Farrer says naturally the rightwing media are jumping on Weinstein or whatever.

      remember the outrage at ABC, Fairfax etc when Tony Abbott merely winked at a fake caller on a John Faine ABC radio show? the outrage went on forever.

      ABC has done very little on Weinstein, and it’s ridiculous what comes up on abc.net.au if you do a search on “Harvey Weinstein” for the previous fortnight. the following is all that comes up in a google news search:

      Harvey Weinstein: London police receive new assault claims against Hollywood producer
      ABC Online-15 Oct. 2017

      Harvey Weinstein’s wife Georgina Chapman announces separation amid sexual harassment scandal
      ABC Online-10 Oct. 2017

      Harvey Weinstein: Who is the Hollywood big shot accused of years of sexual harassment
      ABC Online-8 Oct. 2017

      HOWEVER, today we get this insanity:

      George Clooney links Harvey Weinstein scandal to Donald Trump, Fox News personalities
      ABC Breakfast TV Online-3 hours ago

      link to it from Twitter. at one point Clooney points to interviewer, says you knew Harvey, I know Harvey, but I can’t figure out who is interviewing him where:

      25 Oct: Twitter: ABC News Breakfast-TV: George Clooney details what he knew about #HarveyWeinstein, and why he believes the story goes beyond Hollywood http://ab.co/2yR5oyo
      (TRUMP, FOX ETC)
      ONE REPLY ONLY: Joe: Great he gets interviewed for his new movie and this is what you put up.
      https://twitter.com/BreakfastNews/status/923376417932320769?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

      the only place I’ve seen this Clooney Trump/Fox rubbish is way back on 10 Oct:

      10 Oct: Daily Beast: Marlow Stern: George Clooney Speaks Out on Harvey Weinstein: ‘It’s Disturbing on a Whole Lot of Levels’
      Q: Those on the right, from Fox News to Donald Trump Jr., have used the Harvey Weinstein news as a cudgel against liberals. It’s a bit rich on Trump Jr.’s part, given the numerous allegations against his father.
      CLOONEY: Yeah, that’s a little pot and kettle there, unfortunately. But I think that everything gets politicized these days. The reality is that this is a problem deeply ingrained in our society. It was something that was talked about a lot on the left with Roger Ailes, Bill O’Reilly, and Donald Trump, and it’s something that’s going to be talked about a lot on the right with Harvey Weinstein…
      https://www.thedailybeast.com/george-clooney-speaks-out-on-harvey-weinstein-its-disturbing-on-a-whole-lot-of-levels

      ABC, so concerned about such matters usually, yet what have they reported on the following? I can’t recall any news headlines on radio about any of it, yet ABC spends thousands of hour on overnight radio broadcasting little else but what could be described as Hollywood trivial pursuit:

      25 Oct: Breitbart: John Nolte: Hollywood’s Accused Harassers, Molesters, Rapists – The Rap Sheet, So Far
      As the Harvey Weinstein scandal spreads like an STD throughout the entertainment industry worldwide, as the courage of those coming forward to name names inspires similar courage in others, we cannot allow ourselves to become so accustomed to the allegations that they lose their power to outrage.
      Although some male victims have come forward, the alleged victims here are mostly vulnerable young women and children. Worse, so far, all of the alleged abusers are the very men whose primary responsibility in any civilized society is to protect women and children.

      As a means to understand just how, yes, institutional these allegations are, here is a list (in no particular order) of the accused and their alleged misdeeds, which will be updated as needed.

      Unless otherwise indicated, these stand only as allegations.
      http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/10/25/hollywood-accused-harassers-molesters-rapists-rap-sheet-far/

      SHUT DOWN THE PHONY ABC.

      21

    • #
      Rob

      That is definitely a beacon shining on the sad state of our world, that we would 1) need an organization to “fact check” and tell us what is true rather than being able to think about and reason out the truth for ourselves and 2) that the basic premise of such an organization and it’s purpose calls its own existence into question as we only have their word for it that they are being truthful and honest and that what they claim to be facts truly are.

      At least for some of us we have reached the conclusion that journalists in general don’t care what the facts are just what will sell whatever they deem worthy of promoting. That those same journalists are so in love with their own opinions that they think anyone with even a reasonable amount of intelligence and ability to think would trust them as the guardians of what is true is comical. They long ago abandoned their role as reporters of facts in favor of being purveyors of opinion, and typical of the elite, or the elite wannabes, their opinions are obviously so much more valuable than ours which seems to be the only criteria they have as to what is a “fact.”

      51

  • #
    R B

    Purcell is coauthor of a large number of papers with a Prof Lambeck. This guy is also part of the climate inst.
    In an interview with Robyn Williams of the ABC about Plimers book in 2009 he says
    “How can I take this advice seriously when I see other geologists proclaim with equal conviction, that the record points to imminent planetary doom because of human action?”
    Hard to see Purcell working with this guy in 2002 if he really was a sceptic.

    20

  • #
  • #
    Mary E

    The ramp-up to Bonn includes quite a few “new” harbingers of doom, or, at least, new evidences that things are worse than the standard dooms:

    ““We have the potential to have much more sea level rise under high emissions scenarios,” said Alexander Nauels, a researcher at the University of Melbourne in Australia who led one of the three studies. His work, co-authored with researchers at institutions in Austria, Switzerland, and Germany, was published Thursday in Environmental Research Letters.”

    and my favorite weirdness of the day – corals indulging in “fast food” plastics – because they like the taste. Sigh.

    It is getting desperate out there, and finding fake skeptics to parade around just goes with all the rest of the “reporting”

    10

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    I remember when Anthony Watts threw Richard Muller under a bus, it was hilarious. These bloggers get so angry when things do not go their way. The BEST project, what’s that? :-)

    Never a dull moment in dnier land.

    “Watts, who runs the skeptical blog “Watts Up With That?” has derided the Berkeley Earth results as “post-normal political theater” and “incomplete and rushed, non-quality controlled, error riddled” science. He has repeatedly criticized Muller for posting results on the Web before they have undergone formal peer review.
    But yesterday, in a pointed move, Watts released his own non-peer-reviewed findings, which purport to show that poorly sited U.S. weather stations have exaggerated the magnitude of recent warming — a claim Muller’s Berkeley Earth group analyzed and rejected (as did a peer-reviewed, published analysis by scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).”

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/converted-contrarian-argues-humans-to-blame-for-climate-change/

    02