The ambit claims know no bounds. Who else would ask for $89,000,000,000,000? If the evil “more developed” nations pay for their carbon sins, the bill for those 1.3 billion people works out at $70,000 per person by 2030 (babies included).* When the target is 89,000 billion dollars, anything the Global Saviours get, can be painted as “not enough”. (It’s never enough). A trillion in funds is a “tiny”, “insufficient” amount that is “barely adequate”. Compliant journalists will print those headlines. The crowd will pay the money and feel guilty they are not paying more.
Speaking of the loot, the world’s GDP is currently $70 trillion, so asking for $89 trillion is a claim on 8% of all the money turned over in the world economy for a decade and a half. Handsome!
There is a grand array of climate junkets for Global Worriers this year. A gala of red-carpet events culminating in Paris, from November 30 to December 11. The wheeling and dealing is on right now, months ahead — and though they talk about the importance of Paris, I expect that Paris is mostly the cabaret show (like UNFCCC event in Bali that I went to), and it’s the deals being hammered out right now that matter (so write to your Austrlian M.P. today. And can we get links to lists for the politicians of the US, UK, EU, NZ…) h/t Rereke
This is a gambit by the highest orders of bureaucratic power in the West for more power, more money, and virtually no accountability — they’re trying to change the global weather fergoodnesssake. There will always be storms, floods and droughts somewhere in the world. This is not so much about renewable energy as about a renewable cash cow. For people who don’t want to compete in the world of hard business but quite like to be treated as if they were a glorious CEO, this is not bad in the global gravy stakes. There are ego-massaging press conferences, tax deductible trips to Rio, five star hotels, and a “hero” status among the passionate flock of useful idiots.
Part of the trick for such a grand grab is the invisibility of the bill. The bureaucrats sneak silently into bank accounts around the world, a dollar here and a dollar there. Funds come from taxpayers and then through higher electricity, fuel and grocery bills, the money flows from seniors, retired folk, children and the unemployed. Through loans issued by governments and central banks, the payments come through silent inflation, as the value of purchasing power and currencies fall. The payments are almost never labeled. No product is ever produced that needs to be delivered. No one gets a bill in the mail to change the weather.
If they did, there would be riots in the streets.
Send more money, $89 trillion more.
April 18, 2015:
Keep reading →
In the latest news about wind-generators, The Australian reports that a new Australian study estimates we wasted $70m on RET* certificates last year because of losses the wind turbines put on the rest of the grid. About a fifth of the CO2 supposedly cut by wind-farms was emitted by the rest of the grid as it ramped up and down trying to cope with the erratic supply from the on-and-off whirly-gigs.
If we double our wind-farms the losses are proportionally even greater (every extra wind farm is even more useless than the one before). With twice as many, all of the wind towers would only be 70% effective. But this is all a wild fantasy overestimate, since the point of wind towers is not to reduce CO2, but to reduce global temperatures, stop storms, and hold back the tides. The 3.5% reduction in total Australian electricity emissions changed global temperatures by 0.00C, hence RET on wind is 100.00% useless, accurate to two decimal places. The Clean Energy Council said they had no answer at all, and wouldn’t talk about it, except to say that Australians like “renewables”.
In other news in from the UK, the new majority conservative government says local residents will soon be able to block new wind farms (which they should have been able to do all along). That will mean no new wind-farms on land in the UK. Hallelujah. Praise be to UKIP for shifting the political landscape there back to something more sane.
Keep reading →
Who’s desperate to find the missing hot-spot? Sherwood’s new paper claims to have found it, but after years of multi-layered adjustments, and now kriging the gaps, and iteratively homogenizing, the results of the new data partly “solve” one problem while creating others. There’s no documented, physical reason for the homogenizing and there’s no new insight gained. The raw data was used by airlines, the military, and meteorologists for years, yet the suggested new results are quite different to the raw data. It’s as if we can’t even measure air temperature properly. Somehow we’ve made multivariate complex models work but not simple temperature sensors? The main problem with the old results was that they didn’t fit the models. Now, after torturing the data, they still don’t.
Twenty-eight million weather balloons had shown by 1999 that the key assumption in the climate models was wrong. Without feedbacks, the models only produce 1.2°C of warming with a doubling of CO2. With feedbacks the simulations ramp that up to a dangerous 3 – 4 degrees C, and water vapor was the most important feedback. It’s just no fun for the Global Worriers without it.
No hotspot = no water vapor feedback like in the models = no danger from CO2
The fingerprint test of the water-vapor feedback is the “hot-spot”, a warming of a band of the upper troposphere 10 km over the tropics. (See the reasons below at the end). The weather balloons were designed and calibrated to measure temperature and humidity as they rise through the sky and right through the hot-spot. Their results are unequivocal: red was not yellow; the spot was not hotter. Supporting this, the specific humidity was also supposed to rise, but fell instead. If the computer models worked on everything else, we might wonder if the millions of observations were biased, but the models didn’t predict the pause, were wrong about humidity, rainfall, drought, and clouds too. They didn’t work on regional, local, or continental scales and can’t explain long term historic climate either. At this point, a scientist would throw out the theory. The weather balloons independently agreed with each other, the humidity results fitted the temperature results, the whole lot was loosely supported by satellites. The data doesn’t need homogenising or kriging or obscure numerical witchcraft.
Instead Steven Sherwood and Nidhi Nishant of UNSW revisited their 2008 technique of homogenizing temperature data by using wind data as well. They homogenised it again. They have iterated the iteration? They’ve also extended it from 2005 to 2013 and changed the “wind shear” component to “vector wind”. Their new homogenized-temp-wind data is below (left). The model predictions of 2005 are centre, and the radiosonde temperature results (before homogenisation etc) are on the right.
The new temperature estimates (Left) might agree with the models (centre), but not with the raw temperatures (right). | Click to enlarge
Sherwood was a co-author of the model projection in the centre from the US 2005 CCSP report (a kind of mini IPCC, known as “Karl et al”). Chapter 5 of the CCSP report used the term “fingerprint” seventy four (74) times. It was that important. Note that color and time scales are different in these graphs. Sherwood could have made these directly and easily comparable, and put them side by side. He is paid to do this.
They’ve iteratively homogenised, but their findings are paradoxical
The fingerprint was strengthened by adding years of irrelevent data
The new study added data from 2005 – 2013, though we have to wonder why — there hasn’t been any global warming of the surface since the late 1990′s, so we wouldn’t expect to find a hot spot in the last 18 years. The hot spot is supposed to warm faster than the surface, but two times zero is still zero. Yet this strange point is the first finding mentioned in the abstract: “First, tropical warming is equally strong over both the 1959–2012 and 1979–2012 periods”. It shouldn’t be. The hot spot should exist from about 1976 to 1999, but not during the non-warming times before and after. In the climate models a hot spot only happens when the surface warms. This result still doesn’t fit the theory. Sherwood et al acknowledge that the rate should have slowed after 1998 but didn’t. They admit that adding in the extra data during the last flat decade is “the main reason why the trends are now slightly stronger than those shown in [Sherwood 2008].” They added data that shouldn’t generate a hotspot, and this helped find one? Sherwood calls this “interesting”, and says it “deserves further scrutiny”. Rather?
The models still have the altitudes wrong, by 1 – 2 km
Their second finding is also more bad news for models: “tropospheric warming does not reach quite as high in the tropics and subtropics as predicted in typical models”. The height is crucial. Higher means cooler, and cooler layers emit less than warmer ones. “…our data indicate that the upper tropospheric warming since 1979 began transitioning to stratospheric cooling at a lower altitude (by about 1–2 km) in nature than in a typical climate model.” If the models have this height wrong, they’re still a long way from understanding our climate. If the top of the water vapor (to one optical depth, looking from space) does not rise, then the water vapor does not amplify the effect of extra CO2 and there is no crisis.
The stratosphere was supposed to cool more but cools less?
Their third finding was that “cooling has slackened in the stratosphere such that linear trends since 1979 are about half as strong as reported earlier for shorter periods.” But wait? Wasn’t stratospheric cooling part of the fingerprint? So all that extra CO2 since 1979 has had less effect than expected?
Independent scientists are setting the science agenda
The press release was quite different from the abstract (perhaps because the central findings raise more questions than they answer). The press release is primarily designed to respond to skeptics, and it openly says so. Forgive me for feeling pleased. We’ve been talking about the hot-spot here for nearly seven years. This site put the missing hotspot on the search-engine map in 2008. Dr David Evans got the first headline about the “hot spot” into the media. The hot spot was the first point in the Skeptics Handbook and the key point in the evidence. For all the posts here see the tag: missing hot spot.The hunt for the hot spot has been so passionate, that in the 2008 paper this new study was following, Sherwood and co. even used deceptive color scale tricks to “find it” where the color of zero was a hot orange-red.
Independent scientists and blogs are setting the agenda in the science debate, supported only by citizens donations (and we do need your help). Sherwood collects a UNSW professorial salary and gets full resources, PhD students, support, and superannuation to produce papers telling us essentially that we can’t even measure the temperature of the upper atmosphere without adjusting the data so much that the homogenized results look nothing like the raw measurements. If the models are that good that we are “correcting” data to fit, why bother taking the measurements? We could just figure out the temperature over Sudan from a computer in Pennsylvania, right?
This is modern bureaucratized science — it’s what 95% certainty means — yellow is red, don’t ask questions — we have to stop the storms.
Compare wind-temperature to modeled simulations
Sherwood has never published a paper admitting the hot spot is missing, except implicitly when he issues another paper that “finds” it. If this paper really shows something new, why was his attitude to the missing hot-spot the same last week, last year, and every year before this discovery?
Credit to the independent scientists fighting for the basic truth in the peer review medium: Fred Singer, David Douglass, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Garth Paltridge, Ross McKitrick, Steve McIntyre, Chad Herman, Benjamin Pearson, and others named in citations below. I’m pretty sure credit for the “hotspot” phrase itself goes to Christopher Monckton.
Keep reading →
Forecast the Facts wants newspapers to label anyone who disagrees with them as mentally deficient deniers. Climate change is settled, beyond debate, and the evidence is overwhelming, but the the team with all that certainty seems awfullly scared that the public might listen to their critics.
Look at the first line of their defining statement Who We Are: “Forecast the Facts is dedicated to ensuring that Americans hear the truth about climate change”. In this case the truth is not about the planetary atmosphere so much as “facts” about newspaper word use, opinions of science pin-up personality, and a club with a long nerdy sounding name. The research they want to share is not about the troposphere, but about their “success” in silencing alternate views: can we cancel an ad campaign, or harrass an executive who is not toeing the line?
Forecast the Facts is a grassroots human rights organization dedicated to ensuring that Americans hear the truth about climate change: that temperatures are increasing, human activity is largely responsible, and that our world is already experiencing the effects. We do this by empowering everyday people to speak out in the face of misinformation and hold accountable those who mislead the public.
Their human rights concern is as deep as their science. They empower everyday people who agree with them, and want to shut the damn rest of the voices up. Lately their campaigns are titled “Condemn Climate Censorship”. Indeed.
Skeptics just want newspapers to use accurate English (please write to the editors to tell them). A “denier” must deny something, and in a science debate, it implies someone denies evidence. So what is it? I’ve been asking for specific climate evidence for five years. You’d think if the planet was at stake, perhaps someone could find it? Others say deniers deny the consensus, but a consensus is a vote, a poll an opinion, not science. We don’t vote for the Laws of Motion.
Using standard English definitions, those who believe in phenomenon without evidence are gullible. Those who want evidence are rational. If skeptics deny the need to obey opinion polls, it’s because they are scientists. This is not the battle of denier versus scientist, it’s the battle of rational versus the gullible.
Skeptics want a scientific debate. Believers want editors to start namecalling instead.
The press release
“Deniers Are Not Skeptics”: New Research on Leading Papers Shows the Need for Greater Scrutiny in Reporting on Climate Denial
According to new research conducted by Media Matters in coordination with Forecast the Facts, the country’s leading newspapers have repeatedly used the inaccurate term “skeptic” to describe those who deny the basic scientific facts of climate change.
Keep reading →
Many psychologists are looking at “political ideology” as a predictor of belief in the theory of man-made climate disasters, but I’m convinced it’s the more basic element of personality types that matters more. A new study shows (no surprise) that climate believers are more networked in the Facebook world.
In the press release, the researcher, Juha Itkonen, calls these Facebook connections “friends” as if the terms facebook-friend and friend are interchangeable. Mark Zuckerberg would be happy. Extroverts on Facebook might also agree, but I’d bet the introvert types would not. Sometimes fewer relationships means deeper ones.
Perhaps extroverts are more likely to be group-thinkers, and introverts are more likely to have some inbuilt immunity to mob thought? No doubt it will be reported with the usual shallow semi-narcissistic flare “climate deniers have fewer friends”. So sharpen your pencils, smile, and remind everyone that skeptics have better things to do than spend all day on social media, that Facebook friends are not always real friends, and that having fewer deeper friends would suit people who are deeper thinkers.
Climate change attitudes are reflected on social networks
11 May 2015 Helsingin yliopisto (University of Helsinki)
People who believe in climate change have more Facebook friends than those who do not consider climate change a problem. Juha Itkonen’s dissertation in economics shows that values and social networks are linked to opinions about climate change.
Studies which examine the relationship between carbon emissions and economic growth contain methodological flaws, and consequently underestimate the need for climate policy. Meanwhile, conflicting opinions on climate change remain fixed, as social networks keep advocates and opponents separate.
These are just some of the results of Juha Itkonen’s dissertation, examined on 8 May at the University of Helsinki, which considers the economics of climate change from the perspective of networks as well as climate change as a market failure.
Any thesis which uses namecalling with poorly defined and insulting terms like the imaginary “climate change deniers” (who don’t deny the climate changes) is hardly on the path to higher knowledge.
Climate change deniers have fewer friends
Itkonen was also interested in the reasons why different groups of people have espoused such radically different opinions despite scientific consensus. To answer this question, a Facebook application was created to survey public opinion and network data about the Facebook friends of its participants. More than 5,000 Finnish Facebook users were surveyed.
The respondents had an average of 262 friends, many of whom shared their opinions. Respondents who did not consider climate change a problem had fewer friends. The structures of social networks contribute to the slow speed of changing opinions.
“The opinion about climate change is not born out of facts and reason alone. Values and social networks also have an impact,” Itkonen points out.
Itkonen says messages don’t travel well in a polarized medium:
Differences in opinion slow down the transfer of information. When communicating scientific findings, polarised opinions in the social network reduce the network’s ability to transmit the message.
I say namecalling does not engender useful conversations. Perhaps Itkonen could try using accurate language instead?
This next paragraph followed straight from the last quote but is a non-sequitur. It is not “polarising” to talk about a problem and a solution in the same conversation.
“For example, talking about carbon taxation in conjunction with scientific research may encourage the audience to question the science as well if the social environment has negative views about taxes.”
The communication rules for climate science communicators are becoming too tricky by half, as they deal with selling a bizarre fantasy that windmills can stop the ocean acidifying while solar panels can hold back the tide.
MSocSc Juha Itkonen defended his doctoral dissertation Essays on the economics of climate change and networks last week at the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Helsinki. The dissertation is in the field of economics.
For what it’s worth, I’m an extrovert type to the end, which is probably why I once thought the Greens were a party that cared about the environment. The good news is that there is something more important than personality type, and that’s evidence. If the hot spot is missing, the models are broken, and the experts don’t know the cause of the pause — even extraverts can figure out what that means.
A more important predictor of belief versus skepticism is logic. Some people are rational, and some (bless them) count their friends on Facebook.
To the other extrovert types who are skeptics I say: we need you. Spread the word!
Peer pressure and peer-pal review,
Shapes much of the warmist world-view,
Then in groups it’s assumed,
That the climate is doomed,
Which skeptics know well is untrue.
Headlines across Australia yesterday told us the dire news that a new study finds that “Sea level rising faster in past 20 years than in entire 20th century“. A new paper by Watson et al is driving the headlines, but underneath this Nature paper is a swamp of adjustments, an error larger than the signal, and the result disagrees with many other studies and almost all the raw measurements. Paper after paper kept showing that sea levels rates had slowed (e.g Chen showed deceleration from 2004, Cazenave said in the last decade sea-levels had slowed 30% (but argued post hoc adjustments could solve that). Beenstock used 1000 tide gauges and found no acceleration of sea levels over the last 50 years. A different researcher — Phil Watson, found that Australian sea levels rose faster before World War II then slowed down.)
Firstly, hundreds of tide gauges show sea level rising at about a third of the rate than satellites do. Worse, the original satellite raw data showed the same slow rise, until it was suddenly adjusted. The real scandal is that the rapidly rising trend was largely created by adjustments in the first place. These latest corrections just adjust down part of the rate which had been created by adjusting up. On top of all that, the long paleo-history of sea levels done by people like Nils-Axel Mörner show that the current rise is not unusual or unprecedented at all. Could it get more pointless? It can: the acceleration Watson et al found is so small it’s less than the errors. (See the graph below).
The conclusion of the paper is that instead of the sea levels rising at 3.2mm/yr as per the official satellite data, the are rising at 2.3mm/yr + 0.043mm/yr2 of acceleration. Over a century that means the projected sea level rise is revised downwards from 320mm to 251mm. That means sea level rise on current trends has dropped off the bottom end of any UNIPCC projection for sea level rise (AR5 WG1 SPM) for the period 2081-2100, as against 1985-2005. The likely range is between 260 and 820mm under all scenarios. The projection (mid-point 400mm) range is based on succeeding in cutting global emissions to near zero before 2100.
Tide gauges don’t agree with the satellites on sea level. The 68 most stable NOAA tide gauges around the world show about 1mm a year rise. Beenstock use a thousand tide gauges around the world and found the same rise of about 1mm/year. Nils-Axel Mörner has studied arrays of gauges as well but also used the opposite approach and found practically the single most stable beach in Northern Europe. He analyzed long records on all the beaches around it to figure out which way the whole area was tilting — again he found the change of the most stable point is about 1mm/year.
We’re analysing the decimal points of the acceleration of a trend that was largely created by adjustments in the first place. Why bother? The raw satellite data showed almost no rise at all from 1992-2002, and was post hoc adjusted up from less than 1mm to 2.3mm/yr (Aviso, 2003). And the raw low rate was skewed high by the El Nino in 1997. These adjusted figures have been used to generate thousands of headlines about how sea levels are rising faster after 1992. (Anyone going to retract those headlines?) The European satellite data was also adjusted up. Nils-Axel Mörner has described the whole sordid process of sea level adjustments in detail. Knowing this puts the ABC version is a new light. Christopher Watson, lead author, “said the study suggested satellites marginally overestimated the rate of sea level rise in the first six years and that distorted the long-term picture.” He didn’t mention that it was the overestimate of the underestimate and all these numbers were subject to change, post hoc, ad hoc, as the wind blows…
Sea levels are always changing and past changes were often larger.
- Past changes were larger in the Maldives (Mörner, 2007); In Connecticut (van de Plassche, 2000),; SW Sweden – Kattegatt Sea region (Mörner, 1971, 1980); In the Kattegatt and the Baltic (Åse, 1970; Mörner, 1980, 1999; Ambrosiani, 1984; Hansen et al., 2012). Other sites (e.g. Pirazzoli, 1991). [See the link above for the full references].
- White et al showed seas around Australia were rising at about the same speed during the depression era as they are now.
The rate since 2002 is slowing despite the massive emissions of CO2: The new adjustments on adjustments bring the 1992 – 2012 rate down (did the ABC tell you that?). This changes the curve, and creates a weak acceleration that was not there before.This also creates new headlines of “acceleration”. At some point in the future, today’s measurements will be adjusted down to create more headlines of “acceleration”. Rinse Repeat Recycle.
If tide gauges were good enough to figure out the rate of acceleration from 1900 – 1992, why are they wrong as soon as the satellites start operating? Does anyone think we should compare highly adjustified satellite data to tide gauges if there are continuous tide gauge records over the same period? Its like a tree-ring spliced to a thermometer: Good PR, bad science.
The acceleration is so small it’s less than the errors. (Be afraid, it’s accelerating at 0.043 +/- 0.058 mm/yr2.) Normal scientists don’t get excited at this. They don’t issue press releases.
The Raw Satellite Data
Figure 5. Annual mean sea-level changes observed by TOPEX/POSEIDON in 2000, after technical “corrections” were applied (from Menard, 2000). A slow, long-term rising trend of 1.0 mm/year was identified, but this linear trend may have been largely an artefact of the naturally-occurring El Niño Southern Oscillation event in cycles 175-200.
Figure 7. Sea-level changes after “calibration” in 2003. The satellite altimetry record from the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellites, followed by the JASON satellites. As presented by Aviso (2003), the record suddenly has a new trend representing an inferred sea-level rise of 2.3 ±0.1 mm/year. This means that the original records presented in Figs. 5-6, which showed little or no sea-level rise, must have been tilted to show a rise of as much as 2.3 mm/year. We must now ask: what is the justification for this tilting of the record?
From the new Watson paper:
Watson et al 2015 | Figure 3 | Adjusted and unadjusted satellite altimeter GMSL time series (each arbitrarily oset and corrected for ocean-basin expansion). Adjusted series use GPS-based VLM estimates (where unavailable for a specific TG, GIACElastic VLM is substituted). GMSL (annual and semi-annual periodic terms removed) is shown as cycle-by-cycle estimates (thin grey line) and after filtering (60-day low-pass Butterworth filter, thick line). Linear and
linear-plus-quadratic fits are shown as continuous and dashed lines, respectively. The inset shows quadratic components (arbitrarily oset and symmetric about midpoint) highlighting that the adjusted acceleration is invariant to VLM treatment. Equivalent series derived from the CU data set are shown for comparison (thick dashed lines).
Reader Robbo wrote in to say he so was astonished at the ABC story, he read the paper, only to find a very different picture and problems he would fail a first year student for:
Then I carefully read the original paper, and they are completely different from the press release and the ABC version. The paper claims that the rise rate in the last 20 years is actually less than previously thought (that is not mentioned or is at best, carefully massaged by the authors’ press release and ABC piece). But it is true that the title and punchline of the Nature paper is about acceleration: sea level rise is accelerating, they say. And how much is it accelerating? Wait for it: it’s accelerating at 0.043 +/- 0.058 mm/yr2. That’s consistent with zero! I would fail a first year student claiming that 0.043 +/- 0.058 is a Nature-level result.
Finally, how do they get that acceleration result? They fit a second-order polynomial to the data (Fig 3) and take the coefficient of the t^2 term. Again, basic undergrad science, if the linear fit to the data is statistically acceptable, you take the linear fit (the lowest order polynomial that is statistically acceptable). You can always fit the same data with higher and higher order polynomials and get terms in t^2, t^3, t^4,….and of course when you extrapolate those terms to the future your fit goes wild but that is complete rubbish. In their case, all they should have said was that the linear fit is statistically equivalent to the quadratic fit (because a = consistent with 0), therefore we detect no acceleration, end of the paper.
But the ABC distills this uncertainty and the answer to hold back the seas is always the same:
“If we have major mitigation, then we can limit that rise to be somewhere between 30 and 60 centimetres during the 21st century,” [John Church] said.
He said that would require an urgent and significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and a big shift away from fossil fuels to renewable energy.
The ABC would never let a mining analyst give his opinion on sea levels, but when a sea level expert tells us to use windmills to change the climate, and transform our nation energy system, that’s all OK. (Sell the ABC.)
h/t David, Robbo, Geoff, Willie, Tom, Bill, Lance, & John
Small changes in sea-level rise,
Should not come as any surprise,
But a reading adjusted,
Can’t really be trusted,
As it’s not what the reading implies.
Never talk about a new world order.
We’re on flak-watch tonight, and pop-guns are going off at the ABC. Jeff Sparrow is firing at Maurice Newman, feeling very superior, and doing namecalling, namecalling, all the way down. Get ready for the Sparrow-personality-test based on tenuous speculative associations with random three-word-phrases. This is the best of ABC-big-gov-lovin’ intelligensia.
The fireworks over Maurice Newman’s opinion on how the UN are using climate for their own powerhungry agenda continues. He not only spoke of “world government” he used the words “order”, “new”, and “world”. You and I thought these were simple words in the Oxford Dictionary, but lo, dumb punters, there is a special secret meaning Jeff Sparrow can reveal. Anyone who uses these words in the correct order is probably also a conspiracy theorist, paranoiac, gun nut, religious fanatic, and survivalist. All that psychoanalysis, and in just three words.
Maurice Newman raised a valid topic, but Sparrow ignores the issue, drops a smoke-bomb to distract loaded with namecalling. As mindless as it is, the ABC editors lapped it up. This is the way the big important issues of national importance get treated at the ABC. What is a geopolitical issue of the times becomes a chance to mock televangelists and books from 1987. Bread and circuses. Whatever you do, don’t talk about “World Government”.
Apparently Jeff Sparrow spends hours trawling the dark recesses of conspiracy-land on the Internet, since he’s so familiar with the terms. His mistake is to think that other people do that too. Is Maurice Newman that type? He has been the chair of the ASX, Chairman of Deutsche Bank (Australia), Chancellor of Macquarie Uni, Director of the ABC, Chairman of the Federal Treasurer’s Financial Sector Advisory Council, and the titles go on and on. Perhaps in his spare time at the Stock Exchange, or CHOGM and what not he was checking out Illuminati-Red-Alert sites, and watching UFO’s? Could be, or then again, he might just have been speaking English.
Check the evidence. When Newman spoke the magical phrase “new world order” he was talking about the possibility of the UN using the climate change scare to increase their power, transform economies, and establish an order that was “better than democracy”.
Maurice Newman, The Australian:
Figueres is on record saying democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model. This is not about facts or logic. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN.
In strict English, this is definitely a potential “world” arrangement, and “new” . It’s an “order” in nearly every transitive and intransitive sense of the word – and several types of noun as well. But Sparrow is so deep into the conspiracy sites himself, he fantasizes the magic code phrase, *New World Order*, and the light goes off (and everything gets dark).
The real question (apart from “which ABC editor could possibly have approved this article?”) is whether Sparrow has read even one of the main skeptic sites. It appears his only news source is probably the ABC, which explains why he gets almost nothing right.
He thinks skeptics should all speak with One Voice, and argue the same arguments, just like unskeptical people do.
You can see those tropes play out today in the propaganda of today’s so-called climate sceptics, who cheerily embrace an array of mutually contradictory arguments against environmental action.
Climate change isn’t happening; it’s happening but it’s not caused by humans; it’s happening and it’s caused by humans but we should just adapt to it.
The God of Groupthink does not like individuality.
And as for “climate change isn’t happening” — the only people who say that are the ones interpreting UN-Speak the way the UN wants them too — their “climate change” does not mean climate change but “man-made global warming”.
Sparrow talks funding but is far behind the data. He only had to use google for something other than a “paranoiac” pursuit. (Go on, Jeff, search for “Climate Money” instead.)
… if scientists are being bribed to spout green rhetoric, where does that money come from?
Where indeed? The money comes from the DoE, ARC, RCUK, NRC, and the Science Board, and it rolls in by the billions, 3500 times more than skeptics ever got. The EU have so much money, they don’t just fund unskeptical scientists, they fund unskeptical activists as well. As if they don’t already waste enough, they can also waste money from fossil fuels, and bankers too.
And the dismal 97% consensus studies should not have been done in the first place, and having been done so ineptly they should be withdrawn. In any case, counting heads in science is just another proxy for funding. It isn’t science. No one asks if there is a consensus on gravity.
After all, the shemozzle around Lomborg’s outfit highlights the resources available to those who buck the climate consensus.
What resources? Lomborg doesn’t buck the climate consensus. He believes it — he just wants to spend their enviro-dollars more wisely, which is why they hate him.
Does anyone seriously believe that researchers definitively proving that polluters could continue burning up coal without any ill effects wouldn’t be deluged with grants and prizes and awards, both from industry and from government?
Sure, see Lomborg, Bjorn, and UWA. How easy is it for a believer to get funds to do skeptical sums about climate economics? As easy as finding bikini’s at the South Pole. White ones.
Thanks to everyone who is helping with donations. It is really gratifying to see, and very very useful. – Jo
UPDATE: And the namecalling goes on, days later at the ABC. Who knew the words “order”, “new” and “world” are triggers for conspiracy-theory-psychoanalysis?
Yesterday Maurice Newman dared suggest that the real climate change agenda was “concentrated political authority”. I watched his article on The Australian get quickly repeated through the SMH and many other outlets, which wouldn’t always happen. I counted down the hours until Newman was called a “conspiracy theorist” — about 18.
I expect Maurice Newman knew exactly what game he was playing today. Like tapping a knee to trigger a reflex, the words “World Government” always provokes outraged mockery and namecalling as if it were against the laws of physics rather than being the banal, obvious desire of a certain part of the population. There’s a reason there’s no hit song called “Nobody wants to rule the world”.
Was Newman baiting the gullible fans of a man-made catastrophe in order to get his message spread far and wide? If he was, it was successful. Now it’s up to us to pick up the ball and point out that hypocrisy of the sacred taboo — only a certain class are allowed to discuss “world-government” (that’s the class who like the idea).
If you fantasize of a Global Democracy or an Earth Parliament you are a Saint of the Poor. Let us cheer your insight! But if you aren’t sold on the biggest of big-government ambitions, namely a global bureaucracy or A Single World Government, you are a rabid conspiracy theorist – park your brain in the cone of silence, while we laugh at you!
If Maurice Newman had talked of global bureaucracy or an earth democracy his article might have been ignored. His words would probably not have been repeated all over the lamestream media, but left leaning journalists and editors salivate over the chance to mock someone they love to hate. But by using this obvious bait, he reaches more readers and gives rational people the chance to talk about important things like the dangers of big-government, and the lack of polite debate. There is no intelligent discussion of the risks and benefits of One Giant State. There is only inane name-calling “conspiracy theorist”. Those who throw it,hope to hide that they have no argument, only abusive weak namecalling.
Is it really the U.N.’s resolve,
To create climate crisis to ‘solve’,
With their ultimate goal,
Being worldwide control,
Then our rights and our freedoms dissolve?
“Conspiracy theorist” is the mindless term used to beat down a rational discussion.
It’s a kind of hyper-hypocrisy and nobody bothers to hide it. When Christina Figueres, executive secretary of the UNFCCC, says she wants to transform the global economy, or praises Chinese dictators, she’s cheered as a visionary. When Bob Brown dreams of a global democracy and parliament, he gets a standing ovation. When Maurice Newman talks about the same thing, people say he should be sacked.
When anyone points out the ambitious, self-serving goals of personal power, it’s time to break out the “conspiracy-theorist” smoke machine, lest anyone start to talk about the dark side of the mini “World Government” called the UN, and that turns the public off the idea of a bigger darker version.
We’ve discussed this issue many times here. David Evans mapped out the theme and made the connections years ago, in Climate Coup — The Politics. The greatest loss of sovereignty in the history of the planet almost occurred in 2009 at Copenhagen, where most of the countries of the world planned to cede control over energy and parts of their economy to a global bureaucracy. In the event the Chinese baulked and others followed. We knew then that anyone who uses the term “world government” would get called a conspiracy theorist:
The Trademark Tactics of the Regulating Class
If you oppose the regulating class, you will get called an “extremist”, a “nut”, a “conspiracy theorist”, “right wing”, and every variation of “stupid” and “ignorant”, irrespective of the merits of what you say.
There is no secret “conspiracy”
There is just the bleedingly obvious systematic problem that big-government players have an incentive to make government bigger and competition smaller.
As Evans said:
Global Warming: What’s At Stake for You
If you are an economic member of the regulating class, a global bureaucracy instigated by the alleged need to regulate CO2 emissions would be terrific: more jobs, power, and money for bureaucrats and their allies. You would be part of what would effectively become a ruling class, free to tax a captive population whatever they could bear and pay yourselves whatever you “know” you’re worth.
For everyone else, what’s at stake is freedom from the demands of a hostile ruling class, as well as more disposable income, more choice, less red tape, and a better quality of life. The new regulating class—bureaucrats, academics, greenies—look down on others as stupid and morally inferior, they don’t like people who make real stuff, and they don’t like the private sector or the marketplace. They would be happy for the everyone else to compete in the marketplace to make them stuff, but they themselves won’t have to compete. Their regulations would be global so there would be no escape, and competition between nations vying for our services and taxes would shrivel.
Maurice Newman is flying direct into the Flak. Bravo. Let’s not shy away, but head straight in to discuss the way they use namecalling, insults and denigration to silence a debate they really don’t want to have. (Predictably on the ABC site The Drum free speech is vital but only when the topic is “allowable”. Don’t hold your breath waiting for the ABC to discuss the dangers of silencing skeptical professors, nobel prize winners, and half the citizens of Australia.)
18 contributors have published
1897 posts that generated