Christopher Monckton
Answers by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
to questions by Megan Clement of “Conversation”
30 June 2011
All of the questions and answers herein must be reproduced in full: otherwise none of my answers may be disseminated in any form, in whole or in part.
…
* * *
…
Q. I’m mainly interested in your reaction to the petition that’s been going round in Western Australia urging Notre Dame to cancel your visit. Is this an issue of free speech?
I understand that the petition makes the following assertions, to which I shall respond seriatim:
Primo, I am alleged to have circulated “widely discredited fictions about climate change” and to have distorted the research of countless scientists.
Please specify three instances in which I am thought to have circulated “widely discredited fictions about climate change”, with a clear citation in each instance of my ipsissima verba, and provide evidence, in the form of at least five peer-reviewed refutations in each instance, that the widely discredited “fictions” are indeed fictions.
Please specify 25 instance in which I am thought to have “distorted the research of countless scientists”, with a clear citation in each instance of my ipsissima verba, and with evidence from each of the scientists in question that he or she has directly criticized my work from their personal knowledge of it, rather than from hearing a distorted account of it via an interfering third party, and with evidence in each instance from the peer-reviewed literature that the scientist’s criticism is justifiable, and with evidence in each instance that the scientist in question is unaware of any peer-reviewed literature that might reasonably be held to support my alleged “distortion”.
Secundo, “With zero peer-reviewed scientific publications, he has declared that the scientific enterprise is invalid and that climate science is fraudulent.”
See Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, in Physics and Society for July 2008. See also my commentary on the maladroit attempt by the American Physical Society to claim ex post facto that the paper was not peer-reviewed (hint: it was). Please explain why, after undergoing the discourtesy to which the Society subjected me, I should be at all inclined to submit further papers for peer review, and explain whether a point similar to this one has been raised by any of the petitioners in respect of Al Gore and, if so, with what result, and, if not, why the petitioners are singling me out as uniquely unfitted to speak freely.
Tertio, “He stands for the kind of ignorance and superstition that universities have a duty to counter.”
This is mere hand-waving. In the absence of any specific allegation, I am not in a position to answer.
Quarto, one of the signatories said it was a disgrace that any university associated itself with “someone who has clearly got no academic credibility”.
At the University of Cambridge, it was not unusual for laymen with interesting things to say to address academic audiences: I have done so myself on many occasions at many universities (including Cambridge), both in public lectures and in faculty-level seminars on subjects as diverse as the theory of currencies and the determination of climate sensitivity. It is difficult for me to discern any evidence that the petitioners have had foreknowledge of the content of my proposed lecture. In the absence of that foreknowledge, it is not clear what is the petitioners’ evidence for their notion that I have “no academic credibility” (whatever that may mean).
Quinto, another signatory said he endorsed my right to free speech “for example in a pub or on a soap-box or in a circus arena”.
More hand-waving. It is not clear to me what academic credibility any such remark is thought to possess.
Sexto, the petition was organized by a student and signed by only four or five dozen students and their teachers.
It is encouraging that, after weeks of scavenging for signatures, so few members of the Australian academic community could be induced to seek to deny to the University of Notre Dame at Fremantle its academic right to allow and to foster free speech in accordance with its statutes and statutory objectives.
Q. How do you respond to allegations that you purposefully misrepresent science to promote your view?
Please specify three allegations in terms, together with my ipsissima verba in each instance, and with evidence from the peer-reviewed literature that my “view” was erroneous, and with evidence that a suitably-qualified scientist in the relevant field contacted me to inform me of my error, and with evidence that, even after such contact, I persisted in my erroneous view, and with evidence that no peer-reviewed paper could be found which might reasonably be held to endorse my “view”.
Q. What are your thoughts on the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Western Australia distancing himself from your scheduled appearance at the University?
Professor Robson should resign and put himself out to grass immediately. He is plainly unaware of his duty to protect and promote freedom of speech. Students at the university should consider leaving it and going to a proper university, lest they be corrupted by canting sanctimony.
Finally, a question of my own. Please disclose the sources and amounts of your website’s funding and, in particular, please state how much funding the website has received directly or indirectly from taxpayers’ funds. This is a Freedom of Information request.
He will not get a fair hearing there , what a filthy twisted site , designed to poison young minds with misinformation and outright propaganda , our govt and teachers have a lot to answer for and the sooner they can be made to answer the better ! However they are free to say what they wish , NO LIMITS in free speech , I see Gore still gets top billing … Yuk .. 😉
20
I wonder how long the reply will be?
20
Off Topic:
Attended the Newcastle rally, approx 100 attended, deserved a lot more. Speakers were excellent. Hope to meet you at West Leagues on wednesday.
10
It is only logical that those making allegations back them up rather than just attacking someone’s reputation. The organisers of this petition clearly represent the kind of ignorance they deplore.
10
Robbo is resigning anyway. In a year I put $1 on BoM claiming that a leading Australian VC had to resign after publicly criticising BoM.
Primo, segundo, sexto… lol clown.
“provide evidence, in the form of at least five peer-reviewed refutations in each instance, that the widely discredited “fictions” are indeed fictions.”
Clown.
10
Seriously, I wonder how many falsehood statements of science would have 5 peer reviewed refutations published in the scientific literature.
I propose that there is a giant space monster that uses it’s mind powers to cause the solar cycles.
I am right until someone produces 5 peer reviewed refutations.
very very funny stuff.
10
After reading Monckton’s replies, it is clear that he has more intelligence than all of the signatories of the petition combined.
Poor Megan Clement probably didn’t realize how much a fool he made her look.
10
@2
Reply ,? You expect a reply ?? Really …now come on ..this will be swept under the Uni carpet very promptly …..move along , nothing to see here ! We don’t like what this nasty man speaks of, it doesn’t fit the models.
🙂
10
A peer reviewed papers are not any “holy grail” of correctness and does not mean that they represent a correct hypothesis. This has been proved so MANY times in science. Fact, but i dont have the numbers exactly (has been surveyed), but I have seen it that many papers submitted to prestigious or other publications are proved false in some way within a few years of being published.
Id challenge the complainants of Monkton to prove their claims with real world evidence of CAGW. Not fake computer models from the discredited IPCC.
11
Matt B. I agree, the use of really long or obscure phrases to make yourself look smart is pretty bad form.
How about Carbon Dioxide Water Vapour Feedback Mechanism?… Wankers.. LOL
Oh hang on , your warmist mates came up with that one… Could you explain how it works?
Oh and Matt B, could you explain where Mauas & Buccino went wrong in their paper Long Term Solar Activity influences on South American Rivers in 2010, given that you believe that the Sun has no role in global climate? Because their paper clearly shows that snow falls and river levels are correlated to sun-spot numbers. But you are the expert so I’d love to hear your answers.
10
MattB @6 said:
If somewhere there is too much heat or too little heat, if it is too windy, too dry or too wet, or if there is an earthquake somewhere in the world, then surely one must join the dots and conclude that you are correct.
10
Would someone peer review my post please .
Mattb….is an idiot .
Mattb…went to UWA
Mattb..could not answer a straight Q if his life depended on it .
Mattb.. Wears adult diapers.
Mattb ..is a friend of the brown Queen ..
That’s 5 , let me know what i missed . 😉
10
“provide evidence, in the form of at least five peer-reviewed refutations in each instance, that the widely discredited “fictions” are indeed fictions.”
“Clown.”
No this is called put down humour. Poor old Megan wouldn’t know if a “refutation” could be trusted if it was not peer reviewed.
The “brightest minds” on the Conversation site seem to be in serious need of a bit of rigorous peer reviewing or more likely a (brighter brain) transplant.
Not sure if it is a closed shop there but these “brightest minds” on climate change could do with a bit of exposure to the skeptics standby authority figure and one of the genuinely brightest minds, Freeman Dyson along the lines: “the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models”.
10
MattB,
After your Franklin Dam comment on the last thread, you would have thought it wise to pull your head in for a while. Still, you wouldn’t be the first person to make a fool of himself defending the indefensible brown poodle! Lord Monckton, for better or worse, genuinely believes CAGW is a crock of horse manure, as do many whose voices are being quashed by smug, self satisfied government tools like you. You mock that which you lack the intellectual capacity to understand, because you really don’t have any evidence to support your ideology more than the usual “trust me I’m a scientist” song and dance routine. We could have some inkling that your ideas had merit if, as the climate data varied from predictions, you became more cautious and circumspect in your beliefs and admitted to some uncertainties in your modeling that no doubt exist. Instead, alarmists have become more strident, more certain of their version of “truth” and more aggressive in trying to silence dissent and avoid debate. Actions of disreputable and unconscionable liars and con men!
20
THAT LETTER to Notre Dame University
Below is a copy of the letter generated by Natalie Latter, together with the 50 or so “Academic” Petition signatories (which happen BTW to include John Abraham of St Thomas University). Since the topic of Ms Latter’s embryonic PhD Thesis is
one assumes naturally, that as the instigator of the petition, she has adopted the ethical stance of notifying Lord Monckton himself of her intention to try to galvanize the University into barring his presence on the University campus.
I have been unable to generate a link for this document which I googled, so have included it verbatim.
10
See you next Saturday MR Lord.
Can’t wait…. and for all those keyboard generals out there, boots on the ground is what we need. Take some time out of your busy schedules to stand up and be counted.
10
Scientist or sciolist? Which word better describes the carbon dioxide causes warming theorists?
Sciolist, from latin. sciolus, a smatterer – one who knows things superficially – a pretender to science.
Viscount Moncktons knowledge of the warmists climate theory and his ability to refute it would have few peers; whereas Megan Clement would probably crawl into a ball if she had to face him in a debate.
10
Natalie Latter is on twitter and think she’s under the weather at the moment.
Her Bio is as follows:-
Postgrad student with an interest in (most) things Perth, climate / environment, social justice, politics and silliness.
Poke her on http://twitter.com/#!/pokmcfee
10
@14
Whoever put her up to that didn’t care to have their own reputation smeared , so they use a gullible , idealistic fool not yet on the CAGW payroll ( sigh ) what will miss Latter tell her kids one day ? probably that she was sacrificed for the cause … SNUFFLING SOUNDS FROM TROUGH … 🙂
10
Thanks Athena… laughable to see the fields of some of the signatories, let alone the fact that a lot of them aren’t even graduated yet. Somehow this gets major publicity but the facts presented by Lord Monckton do not. For critics that are so often citing how Monckton does not have relevant credentials… how is a history, psychology or law academic able to assess the state of climate science better than Monckton? Quite peculiar… but the media is loathe to raise such questions.
10
Lord Moncton’s critics, eg Vice Chancellor UWA (and it would appear Matt B) refer to freedom of speech (which they seek to suppress), open and honest debate (which to them is clearly debate between them with whom they already agree), peer reviewed literature which is that portion of peer (pal reviewed) reviewed lierature that supports the AGW hypotheseis. Why are they not prepared to enter into open and honest debate with Moncton? ( they are afraid of being exposed). Do they have any idea that other peer reviewed literature exists?
If peer review meant truth then all peer reviewer literature would be in agreement, and it’s not.
10
Thanks Athena, good work.
10
It is interesting to see the very high regard with which some hold “peer review” as if it were some Holy Grail of scientific truth. Trust me, as someone who has read hundreds of papers and PhDs in the mineral economics field, the good ones are few and far between, but they were all peer reviewed. Many aren’t worth the paper they are written on.
Why do I feel free to say this? Because I don’t have any interest in returning to academia, despite the very cushy wicket it presents. Very nice salaries with 24% super contributions and typically 10 hours teaching per week. Grad students pick up the boring work like marking. It really doesn’t get much better than that. The list of perks is enormous. All that at the tax payers teat.
Needless to say, many academics lose perspective of what it is to run a business, or do a job that requires more than 40 hours yakka per week. As such it is easy to slip into elitist ivory tower thinking quite detached from reality. Been there and seen it… I prefer to keep it real.
BTW I was not one to be focused on research… I was one of those curious lecturers that actually thought teaching was the most important aspect of the job. Clearly I did not fit in…
10
Ted:
It is difficult to understand what goes on in MattB’s head, which is why I thought there must be others masquerading as him. He used to be polite and question the facts/science. Now he just seems to snipe pointless and trollish one-liners from the sidelines. Quite disapointing… because I have defended him to Jo in the past (off blog), saying “At least he is polite about it.” Now he seems to have degenerated into negative sniping with no sense of balance. The thin veneer of politeness is all but shredded.
10
Thanks Athena @ 14 not one of the signatories has qualifications or understanding of the major disciplines unlaying the CAGW hypothesis ie thermodynamics and heat&mass transfer.
10
MattB @ 6
Although still way off the mark MattB, that’s probably the closest you’ll ever come to the truth.
Here is a bit of homework for you:
Go and learn about the design, layout and purpose of Wewelsburg Castle during WWII.
Go and learn about the design and layout of Australia’s new Parliament House.
Go and learn about the significance of Latitude 33 degrees in both ancient and modern literature.
Maybe, just maybe, you’ll learn that:
Your monster is not out in space;
It doesn’t use “mind powers”; and
It doesn’t influence solar cycles.
Nonetheless, it does exist.
10
MattB @6
Really?
I guess the science is settled and the time for debate is over as well?
10
theRealUniverse: #9
That is the whole point of the Scientific Method.
I publish my findings (however obtained), with references, data, method, et cetera. You come along, and find a flaw in my method, or a different way of interpreting the data, and publish a paper stating your findings. Somebody else looks at both papers, and tries something different … this is the way that science progresses – it is the ONLY way that science CAN progress.
Science totally relies on the presumption that all previous hypotheses, theories, and even laws are deficient, in some way.
The CAGW crowd have locked themselves into a dark room, and can not see the rest of the world progressing towards alternative ways of meeting the future.
10
Well here’s the rub. Skepticism knows no loyalties, except perhaps to observed facts.
I can’t yet personally comment on the truthfulness of all the refutations listed in these videos, having only just discovered them myself, however the sources of the refutations are listed at the end of the video and can theoretically be checked. I guess we should do that. Certainly some of the video evidence speaks for itself and needs no checking.
If you’re wondering why people might be upset about having Monckton speaking on their turf, it’s because of past actions like these:
Monckton Bunkum Part 2 – Sensitivity
Monckton bunkum #5 and error summary
Just on the face of these performances I’d say having Monckton on our side is as helpful as having Alan Jones on our side. It’s counter productive.
I’ve been a CAGW skeptic since I found out Al Gore lied in 2007, and remain so based on the uncertainties in climate theory and the poverty in decent measurements. Similarly, I was mildly impressed with Monckton until I found these videos 30 minutes ago.
I now reckon a unified boycott of Monckton with a clear explanation of why would hugely boost the chances of our skeptical case being accepted more broadly by the public and probably therefore by the politicians. It would demonstrate a devotion to truth in science, and perhaps truth in policy.
At the very least, anyone who attends these lectures and calls themselves a skeptic should be watching every word Monckton says. Go prepared. Take printouts and put handy bookmarks in your phone web browsers. Monckton’s statements deserve as much skepticism as any from a warmist authority. I wouldn’t be suspicious if I hadn’t just seen the evidence.
Carter is better value for money though, in spite of the whipping he received on The Conversation. Of course, the facts of climate change will always be on the skeptic’s side – by definition.
10
Bulldust:
July 2nd, 2011 at 6:31 pm
They just gave you the rent roll for rent-a-crowd IMO
10
I think these so called researchers are running for cover and embarrassment as the whole AGW theory is being brought down rapidly mainly by nature herself. As the late great Fred Hoyle said “the universe will have its way in the end”.
If one studies the history of the whole “CO2” scam from the 70s onwards one can find plenty of information that it was started by anti human extremists looking for an excuse to virtually stop human development like the anti humanist discredited anthropologist M. Mead and others. It (AGW) is a known scam and science has nothing to do with it although its generated much scientific debate good and bad. The protagonists like the UWA should look in the mirror at what and who they are supposedly supporting.
10
I think these so called researchers are running for cover and embarrassment as the whole AGW theory is being brought down rapidly mainly by nature herself. As the late great Fred Hoyle said “the universe will have its way in the end”.
If one studies the history of the whole “CO2” scam from the 70s onwards one can find plenty of information that it was started by anti human extremists looking for an excuse to virtually stop human development like the anti humanist discredited anthropologist M. Mead and others. It (AGW) is a known scam and science has nothing to do with it although its generated much scientific debate good and bad. The protagonists like the UWA should look in the mirror at what and who they are supposedly supporting.
10
2 post sorry Jo delete one please something went bodge!
10
@27!
no offense , but you should go back and take another look , it’s a lot clearer that the twisting going on is played against a knowingly deceitful opponent , it would seem to me the third party involved believes in CAGW, please correct me but it appears like fighting fire with fire to me. I’m not qualified to debate the science , however Monckton believes in what he’s doing …good enough for me .Plus I have some serious reservations with video , once having worked in special effects !
10
MattB
You have actually demonstrated pseudoscience – you have put a proposition that cannot be falsified and while an effective debating ploy in debating societies, has no part in the scientific method.
10
@Bulldust
re MattB. He’s repeating steps 2 & 3 for a while.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/the-death-of-the-agw-belief-system/
Pointman
10
We’ve just had a very pleasant event in the UK with regard to an MSM “climate warrior” like Megan Clement. Maybe you guys should start doing a bit of googling on your local variety? I suspect you’ll find something.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/another-body-floats-by/
Pointman
10
a MUST LISTEN 2UE interview with Geoff Kuehner, General Manager of the Broncos (my team, btw…with the greatest player of all time, Darren Lockyer)
so much comedy to mine here. love the mention of “european leaders”, how the Broncos are apolitical, yet Monckton is scathing of all politicians who pretend to have swallowed the CAGW line, whether of the left or the right and the Broncos have bowed to the highly partisan GetUp. again, there is the attempt to equate CAGW scepticism with being rightwing and, as a Labor and Green voter, i resent that. the MSM aren’t reporting on the cancellations though. it’s a farce from start to finish, and let’s hope the finish line is in sight.
Audio: 2UE: Campaign to silence Lord Monckton?
Is there an orchestrated campaign to silence Lord Monckton? Michael Smith reveals what he has uncovered with the Broncos Leagues Club canceling a speech to be given by the Climate Change critic. An end to free speech?
http://www.2ue.com.au/blogs/2ue-blog/campaign-to-silence-lord-monckton/20110701-1gubr.html
10
pat:
July 2nd, 2011 at 8:36 pm
No relevence to the topic pat, and it pains me as a NSW resident, to say this but Wally Lewis is & was the greatest player of all time. Lockyer is great but wally was greatest.
10
Andrew@27; so, you’re a sceptic and you proffer a video with Mcneil on it as evidence that Monckton deceives; that’s your position? You must be joking.
McNeil:
http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/greenblog/index.php/couriermail/comments/guest_post_do_climate_change_deniers_wear_sunscreen/
This tactic is becoming more frequent; someone announces they’re a sceptic and then piles onto Monckton primarily, or Carter or Plimer with a dog’s breakfast of 1/2 baked ‘critiques’ which usually end up making Abraham’s vanity project look like a semblance of a peer reviewed paper.
Pick out a specific point with which you wish to take Monckton on and state it clearly, don’t throw up these crap videos and force us to watch them; otherwise go back to sceptics camp and repeat kindergarten.
10
I also see that Mattb @6 is being a pest and demonstrating a garden variety example of argumentum ad ignorantiam; let me reply in kind; Mattb I have proof you are a troll; please disprove my proof.
10
Robson is a blot on democracy. He is bringing shame on UWA which generally was displaying democratic principles and supported free speech. Obviously yet another Green Fascist who does not have valid arguments so he resorts to totaliarian approach. UWA should distance themselves immediately from trolls like Robson as when Al Gore’s fraud finally bursts, all those subscribing to that twisted religion will bear consequences.
10
Bob Malloy – ouch, i deserved that.
for sheer arrogance, can anyone beat our present Federal Government? note this is on ABC Melbourne site only, not a National issue ABC?
2July: ABC 774 Melbourne: Gillard ‘not consulting’ states on carbon tax
Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu has written to Prime Minister Julia Gillard, accusing the Commonwealth of failing to consult with the states on its plans for a carbon tax.
In the letter, Mr Baillieu says the tax will hit Victoria the hardest, with over 90 per cent of the state’s electricity produced by brown coal.
The Premier says Ms Gillard must provide assurances about Victoria’s energy security and supply more details about the cost of the tax on families and businesses.
He says information is needed on how the tax will affect residents and businesses in coal-rich areas such as the LaTrobe Valley.
State Energy Minister Michael O’Brien says Ms Gillard must address the issue at the next Council of Australian Government’s meeting.
“I think it’d be extraordinary if the Prime Minister felt she could introduce a carbon tax policy, that she had no mandate for and do it without bothering to consult with the states and territories,” he said.
“We will bare the brunt of a lot of the dislocation that this carbon tax proposal will cause.”
Mr O’Brien says Victoria is not the only state worried about the proposed carbon tax.
“I think there’s widespread concern around the lack of detail in this carbon tax proposal,” he said.
“It seems that the Labor Government and the Greens are well aware of what’s in it but the the people that are going to be affected by it in the states and territories have been shut out of discussions.”
The ABC understand the Federal Government’s Multi-Party Climate Change Committee has made significant progress towards signing off on a carbon tax deal this week.
An agreement is expected in the next week-and-a-half.
Ms Gillard says she is determined to switch from a carbon tax to an emissions trading scheme (ETS) as soon as possible…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/07/02/3259495.htm?site=melbourne
10
cohenite@38
This is not hand-waving rhetoric. It’s a video of Monckton telling porkies about Pinker’s work to the USA Congress in spite of being corrected by Pinker herself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTY3FnsFZ7Q#t=12m56s
There’s more… if you bother to watch the video. I can’t do your thinking for you, and nor should you want me to. You are going to have go to all the effort of clicking a mouse button and sitting on your behind for a few minutes if you want to examine this evidence and potentially learn something. Like I said, there is much claimed in this video that I have yet to check and it may not all be as accurate as this, but that one segment does not seem to need further examination. It’s quite self-contained and I believe it is not a CG contrivance from Weta.
You are going to have to decide whether you care more about having the carbon tax destroyed or whether you care more about trashtalking some pommie with an entitlement mentality.
10
If you would like to see a few instances of scientific credibility, check these out:-
Prof Ove Hoegh-Gulberg on Supreme Master TV
http://www.suprememastertv.com/es/movie.php?bo_table=sos_es&wr_id=2271&url=link1_0&eps_no=&show=
Prof David Karoly on Supreme Master TV
http://suprememastertv.com/scientists-on-climate-change/?wr_id=149&page=1#v
Prof David Karoly, Prof Matthew England on Supreme Master TV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvtlb6CNBQs
Supreme Master TV is a world wide satellite and internet coverage pushing CAGW, carbon dioxide pollution, vegetarianism, with the motto “Go Veg, Go Green, Save the Planet”, that you may have seen the adverts on SBS TV
10
Andrew, this Pinker issue was done to death over a year ago; I was at the debate between Monckton and Lambert; the video is crap; here is a good description of the lack of points against Monckton allegedly flowing from debate with Lambert and Monckton’s use of Pinker’s work:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/lamberts-pinker-tape-ambush-pr-stunt/
If you wish to read further on this I will link to a Deltoid thread where a discussion between the usual arrogant suspects at this site and myself and in particular Steve Short dealt with the issue of whether Monckton had been egregious in his use of Pinker’s work.
10
@pat #40,
This morphing of a carbon tax to an ETS I have been warning about for at least twelve months.
I have asked face to face with both Barnaby Joyce and Warren Truss the differences in these two monsters, and learned that basically a carbon tax could be rescinded when there is a change of government, but an Emissions Trading Scheme would be just about impossible to untangle the legal, contractual and financial mess. (unscramble the egg.)
Besides the rhetoric which has been coming from the Greens since before the last Fed election, the then Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has had the ETS agenda in her sights and has continued on the same path since her elevation to Finance Minister.
The statement from the PM that people are misconstruing as lies – “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,” may be correct. It may have been a disadvantge to say, particularly before the change in the Senate that – “There will be an Emissions Trading Scheme under the government I lead”. Since the Senate change, Ms Gillard has used the words “Trading Scheme” as shown on a news report (Ch 10)
Never forget that Ms Julia Gillard academic record is law – she would know the power of words and how to use them.
From Wikipedia:-
She graduated from the University of Melbourne with Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Laws degrees in 1986.[12]
In 1987, Gillard joined the law firm Slater & Gordon at Werribee, Melbourne, working in industrial law.[13] In 1990, at the age of 29, she was admitted as a partner.
10
Kevin Moore #16
“Sciolist” – finally a word I can use to describe the AGW scammers. Thank you.
dict.org returns for Wordnet
10
Yep a lawer …. Who better to twist the truth !
ELECTION NOW …you despicable deceitful communist troll !!
10
There is no doubt in my mind that there has been a conscious and deliberately planned change in Gillard’s use of deceptive language in referring to carbon price/tax/ trading scheme in the last few days and I am suspicious that her intention is to prepare us (ie. Soften us up) for the old switcheroo to an early unmandated ETS prior to the next election now the Greens are in the balance of power in the senate. She has an utter disregard for democratic processes and uses language as a weapon to pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate, or failing that evading responsibility for her deceptiveness through word games. This makes her, IMHO the most completely immoral, deceptive and incompetent PM ever in this country’s history (against incredibly strong opposition from Whitlam, Fraser, Rudd, Gorton, MacMahon in that order to name just a few in recent times whose utter lack of fitness to hold this office were legendary). She deserves nothing but the complete acrimony of the entire nation whom she so readily consigns to the dustbin of history.
10
Cohers go on link to Deltoid, it will be fun to read a thread and ponder at the end how you can possibly think BoM was faithfully representing Pinker, and that Lambert had it wrong.
10
He speaks like a Lord, need the dictionary on hand for that.
Sock it to ’em Monk!
10
MattB,
Llew Jones beat me to this but I’ll say it anyway. Monkton was just handing back the same load of crap leveled against him. And you bought it. Monkton is a master of the putdown and you just plain don’t know how to read people at all or you would know it.
Now suppose the requirement is lowered to just one peer reviewed paper. The offending letter is above so I know you can see exactly what it says. Can you shoot Monkton down with — as he asks – a direct quotation refuted by just one paper?
We await some response worthy of the good scholar you say you are.
10
Andrew McRae,
I’m well aware that Monkton has gotten things wrong. He is also very stubborn about it…not a good mix. But who will you choose as spokesman in his place? Not many are willing to stand up in public and take the heat. Plimer tried his hand at public debate and believe me, good scientist or not, he was a flop. You can’t answer every question put to you with a weak-kneed, “It’s in the book.” No! Monkton, for better or worse is the only one both willing and able to get out and do the public speaking.
10
Monckton doesn’t lie on purpose, but is sloppy enough that he accidentally does so, confidently, too often for comfort. Just because he’s the target of a boilerplate smear campaign doesn’t make me any more comfortable relaying his arguments in a debate, for doing so in the past has put me on the embarrassing side of too many day’s debate.
For instance, he claimed that the technically corrupt and prosecuted online money-laundering gambling house banker who funded DeSmogBlog.com also sold solar cells. As far as I can tell, now, that’s because the banker’s name is shared by an unrelated solar cell researcher. I don’t like being set up for a libel suit like that, Chris. If I can’t accept a man’s ebullient claims prima facie, then I consider him a dandy.
10
How ethical it must be, as a completely unknown, researching ethics, to use an event, already apologized for, to really get noticed and thus kickstart one’s own green activist ethical phd career by trying to stack the cards in one’s own favor for a more monetary beneficial position beside the endless flow of tax payers’ green.
10
Slightly off topic, but I have finally finished wading through Garnaults fantacies, and I must say it is on of the most flawed pieces of fantacy I have ever read. He talks about energy efficiency, reducing demand and consumption, talks about China closing coal generation facilities but completely ignore two vital economic concepts.
He completely ignores that energy consumption is inelastic, something that has been discussed before, so I won’t bother expanding on that.
More importantly, when it cones to China and energy efficiency measures he completely ignores Jevons Paradox, which hasn’t been discussed.
Jevons Paradox states that when technological advances are implemented to increase energy efficiency (an increase in energy yield per ton of coal consumed), coal consumption will increase.
This occurs because as energy produced per ton increases, the relative cost per kilowatt decreases. As this production cost passes through the supply chain the costs of production per unit for industry reduces and the sale price of goods and services will fall. This means that Industry becomes more profitable and is able to expand, upgrade and produce and sell more. This creates more wealth as productivity increases and leads to an increase in overall stabndard of living. This is what the Indusatrial revolution was about.
When it comes to the productivity increases and increases in standard of living, the most cost restrained sectors of the economy and society gain the greater proportional benefit from this.
When it comes to resource use, in particular coal, the only way to prevent Jevons Paradox id to prevent the drop in the cost per kilowatt of energy produced. This is what an energy tax is designed to do.
Garnault ignores the reailiy that Jevons Paradox is driven more by those sectors of the economy that are profitable or have low cost constraints as the capital they have to invest or spend is significantly higher than the less profitable sectors of the economy and society. To ensure Jevons Paradox doesn’t occur an energy tax must be set high enough to prevent the more profitable or less cost constrained from having the incentive to expand. Conversely when you do this, not only does the less profitable or more cost constrained sectors of the economy and society have less power to expand, the costs of production will actually rise and the overall standard of living will fall as the idea of an energy tax is not to stabalise consumption but to reduce it.
Tony Abbott is correct when he says there is something wrong with the economists of this country.
10
NikFromNYC:
Every Monckton piece I have read or seen tells the audience to verify the facts for themselves. If you accept his words as prima facie after he has explicitly advised people to inform themselves you should not lay the blame at his feet and do something about your own intellectual laziness.
10
I know he’s just lumbering up for the legal actions, but all that ipssima verba stuff just comes across like he ‘s being evasive & hiding in obfuscation. I admire his command of legal jargon, but you just can’t engage with normal people like that.
10
cohenite@46
Thanks, that is much more informative. Plus I’ve found the Deltoid conversation.
The case is not as clearly awful as first appeared, because Pinker’s statement doesn’t actually negate his conclusion, it just objects to a conflation of surface SW flux change and TOA insolation equivalent change in CO2. Just because Pinker didn’t reach his conclusion about low CO2 attribution does not mean the conclusion doesn’t follow from Pinker’s graph of SW flux. When Monckton tells Congress “Here is Pinker’s paper establishing clouds caused that change in temperature” he is implying that Pinker made this causal conclusion whereas it is Monckton’s. That is slightly deceptive and likely irked Pinker. Simultaneously, Pinker says the sun and water control the climate, ie- not so much CO2. Pinker’s response is wishy-washy and the situation is much less clear cut than was presented. It’s like she doesn’t want to lie about her own results but has to be seen to be nitpicking a “denier” regardless. Very strange.
Well that’s one claim against Monckton scrubbed. Only about twenty more to go. Or eighteen if we count the ones that are about climate science and quotation accuracy instead of about his person. I can’t go to one of these lectures without knowing if he is shonky or not.
-A.
10
Every time I read someone blathering about no academic credibility, wonderful Al Gore comes to mind.
10
Jo,
Here are links to a three part psychological analysis of the US Political left by a professional psychotherapist. I strongly suspect it applies to many of the types you are resisting.
Part 1: The political left and seven deadly sins
Part 2: The political left and seven deadly sins
Part 3: The political left and seven deadly sins – Scroll down to the July 2, 2011 post
10
“Raven” (12),
I concur !
There your hypothesis concerning this anti Australian Traitor “mattb” has been peer reviewed !!
10
NikFromNYC:
July 3rd, 2011 at 12:56 am
“Monckton doesn’t lie on purpose, but is sloppy enough that he accidentally does so, confidently, too often for comfort. ”
Really Nik, lies. Are the supposed lies you think he tells really lies or just the lies you want to believe he tells?
But hey, why not supply his context and supply your proof of his supposed lies…
10
Roy @#54
Here,here.
Monckton is undoubtedly a fearless & powerful advocate. The alarmists, for all their Qualifications and distinction and righteousness & government funding , just have nothing like him.
They seem such a hapless bunch of acadaemics & politicians in comparison.
I know who I’d rather have on my side, even if man was warming the planet.
10
Monckton should have specified NON IPCC peer reviews as from the Climate-Gate emails we can all see the duplicities nature of that process.
10
Winston: #50
I am on record (on this blog, I think) of saying that an ETS was always the end-game.
Both Australia and New Zealand signed up to implementing a taxation scheme as part of Kyoto. Australia was supposed to lead, with New Zealand following, under the spirit of CER. The New Zealand legislation was actually modelled on the draft Australian legislation so that the two schemes would dovetail quite nicely. So, the legislation is already there. It simply needs to be introduced to the lower house, rushed through under urgency (on some pretext or other), and then presented to the “Green” Senate for ratification. They could probably do the whole thing within a week if they really tried.
Of course, as other commentator have observed, it would then be “extremely difficult” to repeal the legislation because of “International Commitments”.
10
PaulM: #57
Thank you for explaining Jevons Paradox in the way you did. Very nicely done.
10
it’s pathetic looking for the odd point of Monckton’s u disagree with. isn’t that the point of the sceptics – no-one has all the “facts” on their side in such a ridiculous matter as predicting the climate in a hundred years’ time. here’s Murdoch’s paper with precisely the same smear tactics being used to try to destroy another sceptic. it is never about the science or the scientific method:
3 July: Sunday Mail Qld: Renee Viellaris: Alleged pen thief and Czech President Vaclav Klaus to address LNP anti-climate-change function
AN EASTERN European President accused of having sticky fingers, being a serial adulterer and having had links to secret police is now the Liberal National Party’s latest weapon against climate change scientists.
Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus will address an audience in Brisbane next month about the scientific flaws behind global warming…
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/alleged-pen-thief-and-czech-president-vaclav-klaus-to-address-lnp-anti-climate-change-function/story-e6freoof-1226086214856
everyone will be rolling in money, and that’s a “FACT” according to what is coming out of the multi-party committee that isn’t exactly “multi”:
3 July: SMH EXCLLUSIVE: Jessica Wright: Carbon cash for retirees
As the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee inches closer to a final deal on the tax, the government will match the sweetener delivered to pensioners when it unveils details of its compensation package…
For almost 300,000 self-funded retirees who already hold a Seniors Health Card, household assistance would be delivered through the seniors supplement.
It is understood that, of this number, 100,000 self-funded retirees will also receive tax cuts to help meet the added costs of the carbon tax.
Single people who earn up to $50,000 a year and couples earning $80,000 a year combined from their superannuation or other investments would receive a dollar-for-dollar payment equal to any indexed rise in the pension…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-cash-for-retirees-20110702-1gw3k.html
10
I propose that there is a giant space monster that uses it’s mind powers to cause the solar cycles.
Excellent intellectual riposte Mattb..how amazingly well thought out.. 🙂
If that did not interfere with the cult of CO2 I think you would be in for a chance..or did you write that due to elevated CO2 levels..I mean..it causes everything.. 🙂
And i bet,,given enough funding..we could get 100`s of scary climate models to predict, with enough tweeks of course..that the scary space monsters do this Matt.
These magical models are cherished by the believers..unlike raw data..
I am right until someone produces 5 peer reviewed refutations.
No..if you had funding..and 100`s of models..and a dumb down media..you dont need to provide peer reviewed refutations..
The published papers do that all the time..and it has no effect on those who cannot think..
See here for some examples AGW FAILs..
But seriously Matt..in the real world..the world where adult inhabit …if a belief system is not falsifiable..its not science..
And if published papers countering papers/models appear..then there is a problem..but not in a belief system which is as rigorous as your giant space monster analogy..
And Mattb..I am all for kids like yourself coming here and pushing things their teachers have told them..but please..this is a site for adults who like science..
Your sneering at refutation implies you dont comprehend what we are talking about..please read some more on science and then return..
10
Spot-on comment by Prof. Carter in the Herald (of all places). Are they feeling some “heat”?
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/the-science-is-not-settled-20110702-1gvy6.html
10
Well Jo tood me MattB is not a troll. Seems others here disagree with her.
10
Freedom of speech in action here!
http://timworstall.com/2011/07/01/and-i-thought-chris-huhne-trained-as-an-economist/
10
Joe V.,
And you are certainly right. But he isn’t engaging with normal people, he’s doing a really good putdown of someone who deserves every bit of it.
10
Mike@71; Mattb is a typical AGW disciple; he will adopt, occasionally, a veneer of reasonableness but scratch the surface and the condescending ego appears; there is NEVER any suggestion from these people that they are wrong; to be wrong would be to admit they are no better than the rest of us.
That is what AGW is all about, vanity, ego, noble cause, ideology and increasingly gouging mega-bucks out of the public. What a grubby, motley crew AGW supporters are and yet they have the gall to taunt people like Monckton.
10
Rereke @ 66 . I agree with you (and others). I’m surprised Gillard is turning out to be so blatant with her change of tactics.
(Originallly the Australian ETS was scheduled to come in after several years , I think)
Your point about international committments is interesting. What if ,as seems to be the case now ,there is no extention or replacement for Kyoto ? I’m no lawyer — are there other committments attached to the ETS ?
10
Rereke Whakaaro:
Thanks, in essence it is a simple concept by itself when looking at resource use and becomes more complex when you look at how the resource is used and the interaction of economic theories of price elsticity/inelasticity, trickle down theory, opportunity costs, market structures and the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate. As happens in economics, what seems relatively straight forward is complicated when it is something that can be influenced disproportionately by both micro and macro economic forces. Whilst economics isn’t my strong suit I thought it was important to try to explain it so people could see just how deceptive the claims of the government about the actions of China and the drive for energy efficiency are in regards of the claimed power to drive down carbon dioxide emissions.
10
Cohenite- I don’t disagree with you (seemingly ever), but I think on this thread and the last Mattb is simply showing his resilience. He knows this girl and her supporters are wrong (and what the hell is a professor of “sustainability”? Can a professor of “sustainability” have any credibilty on the subject of global warming?) and there isn’t really anything he can add that supports their position. If he wants to make any relevant cobntribution it can only be sideline sniping.
Of course it takes some huge ego (and some courage) to row against the current on a site such as this regularly.
10
Rereke @ 66
Thanks for your more economically literate extension on my comment @ 50. My main concern in making that comment is that I can foresee that a pretext is being set up to switch to the ETS in the coming months. The 2015 goalposts will be shifted if Gillard has her way as she sees it as the only way to remove the ” no carbon tax in a government I lead” albatross from around her neck. She can and will, I believe, make this switch by stealth because it is her main aim, it doesn’t conflict with her words pre-election, and it is her only hope of remaining Labor leader and PM beyond the next election. No matter how forlorn that hope, she is now effectively painted into a corner and she knows it. My only question is what pretext would be sufficient to trigger this switch in agenda, I really believe we need to be prepared for where we are going to be led by this deceitful government!
10
“Andrew McRae” (44),
YOU are a DECEIVER !!!!!!!
Go way Troll, nobody is buying your BS !
10
“Mattb” says “that there is a giant space monster that uses it’s mind powers to cause the solar cycles.”
Well there you have it.
This is the level of his so called “intelligence”.
An this is the BS that these warmists want to use to utterly destroy our lifestyle and economy!!
TURN IT UP !
10
“JeffT” (45),
Here are some enlightening stories about the IMBECILES “David Karoly” and “Ove Hoegh-Gulberg”, who apparently are your idols……..
Karoly’s “global warming” – wetter, drier, worse, better, whatever:-
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/karolys_global_warming_wetter_drier_worse_better_whatever/
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg – an IPCC author with ties to GREENPEACE:-
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/04/22/ka-ching-more-greenpeace-money/
Complaints against Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg:-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/15/formal-complaints-against-professor-ove-hoegh-guldberg/
10
Tony Abbott’s Brilliant Riposte to the Carbon Tax!
http://www.liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2011/07/01/Address-to-the-2011-Economic-and-Social-Outlook-Conference.aspx
01
Athena.. as far as I can see, from what I read, Abbot still believes in “warmal globing”. Which doesnt help GET RID of the political problem altogether.
10
My parents were both university educated and brought me up to believe universities are “places of light, liberty and learning” and they may have been in their day. It was only when I got there (pre-internet times) and found myself a little disappointed that I researched the quote and found it was really, “A University should be a place of light, of liberty, and of learning”, was said by Benjamin Disraeli and he was self educated.
The only thing that seems to have changed is that universities seem to have moved even further away from this ideal as time has moved on. SHAME ON THEM
10
Yet another reason to fight eco wakko loon bins of psuedo environmentalism
“Getting used to Life without Food
Wall Street, BP, bio-ethanol and the death of millions”
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25483
10
Getting a bit off topic but I’ve found that Australia ratified the full United Nations Charter by treaty in 1945. See:-
Australian Treaty Series, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1945/index.html
It is argued in “A Global Constitution? The Struggle Over the UN Charter”, that it can be construed that the Charter is a treaty, not a Constitution. http://www.iilj.org/courses/documents/HC20Sep22.Doyle.pdf
So when Bob Brown talks about global governance,the stage has probably been set already.
Remember that the one time Minister for Foreign Affairs, Gareth Evans, used the High Courts definition of treaties re the Australian Constitution re external affairs [sec.51, [29] powers to centralise power in Canberra and overide State rights re the Franklin Dam.
10
OOPS, Kevin Moore @ 87
The second link is in error, try:- http://www.iilj.org/courses/documents/HC2010Sep22.Doyle.pdf
10
Heres Monktons interview see..
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/
on IPCC criminal system of closed science. Anybody with any sence will realise that its quite obviously gigantic criminal fraud. The entire IPCC top echelons should be PROSECUTED by the US supreme court system. Why isnt this possible? (someone ask Monkton at one of his meetings for his opinion).
My guess ..echelons of extreme power deep within the ‘shadow’ govt of the US and British empire.
10
Sadly, few if any of Monckton’s tormentors have the wit, intelligence or education to appreciate just how far beneath his contempt their true station actually is.
The man is a gem, and we’re priveleged to have him.
Ya gotta luv the Latin.
10
Tony Abbot needs to take a stance and formulate a policy from that stance. It will be a courageous step since he believes the planet is doomed but one I think somone in this country needs to do. This is half the reason why he isn’t beleieved by the masses he has no passion for this and therefore skirts around the answers he should make and delivers some touchie feely responses when questioned about “Climate Change”.
He needs to toughen the hell up and stop trying to straddle the politcal fence. The Liberals are doomed if they don’t and we will be doomed if they don’t.
IMO It is going to take a huge full on rebellion to stop this. I only hope the outcome is peaceful. Marie Antoinette lost her head over a smaller matter.
Say YES to an election now !!
10
Sorry I meant so say that my comment was slightly O/T.
10
Another MUST READ for even ‘followers’ of the AGW myth maybe youll finally understand
from John Brignell, great summary!
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/2011%20April.htm
10
Good article by Dr Merv Bendle (senior lecturer in history and communications at JCU), given all the righteous indignation at Moncton’s comments recently. Bendle draws the historical links between the eco-fascism of the Greens and the conservationism of the Nazis.
“Questions about the parallels between the radical environmentalist movement and the Nazis and fascists have generally been ignored, or even interdicted (as we have seen with the move against Monckton). This is because the Greens portray themselves as ‘progressive’ in their ideology and policies, and much of the media is sympathetic to these values and reluctant to question the self-portrayal of the Greens as being primarily concerned with nature and the environment and not state power and radical social transformation.
In fact, the ideological affinity between the Green movement and fascism (and especially Nazism), is well established…..”
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/07/eco-fascism-the-greens
So we can all think it, or say it here, but in our politically correct world the parallels cannot be drawn for general public consumption. Even if true it has been deemed a non-discussable and socially distasteful.
Now who was it again who said something about not learning from history and being doomed to repeat it?
10
If any one passed it by Athena’s post at 83
Is well worth a read ! Abbotts thoughts on carbon pricing .
10
Looks like I know a couple of people on the signatories list. One of them, in particular, I am surprised about. My esteem for them has just gone down considerably. I suppose it is best to be forewarned…
10
JeffT @ 47:
“Never forget that Ms Julia Gillard academic record is law – she would know the power of words and how to use them.”
Very true Jeff, but your post reminded me that she also has a history of poor decisions and setting up failed schemes.
From a Nov.11 2007 article in the Melbourne Herald Sun.
JULIA Gillard has revealed she fell in love with a former union official and fraudster who broke her heart and threatened to destroy her political career. As a solicitor acting on instructions, she set up an association later used by her then lover, **********, to defraud the Australian Workers Union.
A lawyer (and already a partner) in her early 30s with the Melbourne Labor firm, Slater & Gordon at the time of the fraud, Ms Gillard acted for the AWU.
To gain and hold that job, one would have thought she was of an age and standard of learning to have had maturity, but she claimed: “I was young and naive.”
Whilst one can put the relationship down to ordinary human error, it says a lot about her lack of skill in setting up what the AWU could reasonably have expected to be a secure, foolproof scheme.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/conman-broke-my-heart/story-e6frf716-1111114848747
If the link doesn’t work just Google “Julia Gillard’s Union lover”
10
Penndragon: #85
A good point.
Personally, I think the problem is one of specialisation. It seems that, to get on in this competitive world, you have to be a specialist. So you end up knowing a great deal about a very narrow field.
When I went to university (at much the same time as you), I did a Science degree in Electronic Engineering and Applied Mathematics. I was criticised by some, because of the large degree of overlap in my majors, making my degree “too specialised”. Now, the breadth of material I covered then, requires some ten or twelve specialist courses. Of course, the depth of knowledge has also increased in each of those areas, and it may well have doubled, but only at the cost of loosing a generalised approach that can see the wider patterns in nature.
There was a cartoon character in the British newspapers in the late 50’s and early 60’s, called “Garth”. One of his adventures projected him into the future, to a time of great concern over the potential annihilation of the planet, for some reason or another. The solution seemed simple to Garth, from an engineering perspective, but he couldn’t convince the scientists of the day, because they were so specialised. For example, one was a specialist in Copper, and another was a specialist in Helium … you get the picture?
I am reminded of this when I realise that the so called “Climate Scientists” are really highly specialised Climatologists, who don’t know that much about Physics, and practically nothing about Solar Physics. They also don’t seem to know much about Applied Mathematics either, or they wouldn’t be using the models for predictive purposes.
A great deal of the Alarmist/Skeptic debate is generational. The young-guns versus the old-farts; theory versus experimentation and observation; rote-learning versus experience; activism versus application.
Nobody can win the climate debate, so nobody will lose, and no entrenched positions will be changed. The best we can hope for is that it will all just fade away.
But at the end of the day, neither position is important, because the real battle is geo-political. On one side, it is about the “natural right” of the liberal-elite to govern; and on the other side, it is about the “assumed right” of the intellectual-collective to dictate a new society.
Personally, I wish a pox on both their houses.
10
Joanne, I am 70 years old, so I have seen politics unfold in this wonderful country of ours since the Menzies era. I have always been a “conservative”, in that I was confident in my ability to work in my chosen field of endeavour, be paid fairly for my achievements, to support my family and others that I chose to support. I was never prepared to give any of my time or resources to those who wanted a free ride, simply because they just did not want to make the effort. The world does not owe us a living.
I have worked for many years in countries such as Indonesia, Fiji and PNG, and have seen what bad and corrupt governments can mean to ordinary people, i.e., people without wealth or political connexions. These people are left without any pride, dignity and, more importantly, any hope.
I was trained as a scientist, (my profession was the applied science of structural and civil construction), and I KNOW from the science, (not believe), that to act immediately, to avoid the end of the world as we know it, is not only stupid and erroneous, but that those irrationals who advocate such actions, are haters of all those magnificent women and men who have advanced the good of all peoples by their achievements.
I am sick to my soul to see these irrationals, masquerading as the Australian Government, wanting to plunge us into loss of identity, pride and hope for the future of our children, as they let their swollen egos have free reign. History, if there is any after their wanton actions, will indict them as those who killed the “Australian Dream”.
10
Down here @ 42deg/South, we’re supposed to be feeling the ‘warming’ more than most. Yeah, right. I was doing a paper run when snow last REALLY settled on the ground at sea level down here – that was at the end of the ‘Ice Age Scare ™’ – and it feels near as cold as back then.
I remember the old man in is VeeDub Kombi following me, holding a non-power-oversteer slide for about 50 metres, with about 100 Saturday papers in the back to help the engine try to push the rear end around! 🙂
Anyway… Taswegians are far more conservative than people think. MegaWatts got a great reception when he visited. It’s a pity M’Lord isn’t coming this far south, unless there’s been a big change in his itinerary I haven’t seen.
10
Rjm (#91): “It is going to take a huge full on rebellion to stop this…”
At the moment, it seems like a lot of skeptics/rationalists are prone to under-estimating the strength of the CAGW camp. And for good reason – I personally find it depressing to contemplate. So it is easier to comfort ourselves with mutual assurances that the truth will ultimately win out, or that opinion polls show we are gaining ground, or that the desperate measures taken by the warmists show they are on their last legs.
But when we see just how easily Monckton’s venue bookings get canned, and how easily the Polish minister was forced to recant his statements about AGW, and how easily Julia Gillard will find it to push an ETS through, I think we really have to take an honest look at the state of the battle.
My 10-year-old daughter’s water polo team lost 12-3 in their game last week. They got trounced. But she came brightly out of the pool at the end of the game and asked “Did we win?” Let’s not make the same mistake, and fail to notice who is actually scoring where it counts.
I hope I’m wrong, but at the moment it looks to me like the forseeable future, the incredible efforts of heroes like Lord Monckton notwithstanding, will be characterised by totalitarianism.
10
Sign a petition against the carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD)tax.
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/australians-say-no-to-carbon-tax.html
10
lmwd (#94)…
Many thanks for pointing out that excellent article.
I have recently re-read “The Fear of Freedom” by Erich Fromm, written in 1942 about the psychology of Nazism. I recommend it to anyone interested in this topic, and you will certainly see the parallels with some of what is happening politically today.
10
The “independent” spokeswoman for GetUp is NOT INDEPENDENT !!
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_independent_spokeswoman_for_getup/
ANOTHER GILLARD LIE – “There will be no carbon dioxide tax on petrol under a government I lead”
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/there_will_be_no_carbon_dioxide_tax_under_a_government_i_lead/
10
Rereke @ 67,
Julia has form here. She is ensuring a future government would have to pay a large compensation to Telstra if the NBN were abandoned or changed significantly. To engage Australia in a binding agreement based on a premise which in time is shown to be false would seem a recipe for long time loathing of the perpetrator. In this case the ALP. I leave the Greens out because at the next election few if any will be re-elected and their demise will be final the election after that. ( It will take two elections to cleanse the Senate of these destructive fools). Bandt will lose next election and no other Greens will be elected.
I seem to recall that international agreements can be broken with impunity. Hitler did it and would have gotten away with it if he hadn’t attacked Poland. many Third World tyrants do it and I don’t see Canada paying the UN whatever it is they owe under Kyoto.Nor Japan for that matter. Should the global temperatures remain static or fall no one will pay.
10
@Rereke Whakaaro: 98
“I am reminded of this when I realise that the so called “Climate Scientists” are really highly specialised Climatologists, who don’t know that much about Physics, and practically nothing about Solar Physics. They also don’t seem to know much about Applied Mathematics either, or they wouldn’t be using the models for predictive purposes.”
I agree exactly just studiers of climate effects most of them.
And as Im aware no algorithms of these so called models have been released to be tested.
10
Rereke Whakaaro@98
I’m sure you are onto something there. Don’t know about you but uni wasn’t free in my day. We three boys, I and my two brothers came from a working class family that could never afford to send their sons to uni. We all attended Melbourne uni courtesy of Daffyd Lewis scholarships. Interestingly my older late brother, Arthur who co authored a couple of texts for students was remembered as one who sought to simplify mathematics for his students. None of the “brightest minds” arrogance that we get from those with an obvious limited spectrum of knowledge and often a mediocre mind to go with that constraint.
(Whilst a lecturer at La Trobe he co-authored two student texts:
Chaos: a Mathematical Introduction
John Banks, Valentina Dragan, Arthur Jones
Modelling with Differential and Difference Equations.
By G. FULFORD, P. FORRESTER & A. JONES.
Maybe one should not take funeral eulogies too seriously but the head of the mathematics department from Latrobe uni said that Arthur, apart from getting all his PhD students through was a world class mathematician. That was news to his family members and probably would have been to him also had he been able to hear it).
That is so unlike the big noting alarmist climate scientists and those “brightest minds” fellow travelers who want to hide the “science” from our dull non specialist minds on the grounds that we could never understand it or misuse its implications. …. Try us.
10
Another reason why the Carbon Dioxide Tax is pointless
Global Maritime CO2 emissions deal dead in the water
Presumably part of the rise in shipping CO2 emissions will be transporting stuff to Australia that we no longer make due to this tax.
10
Damian Allen:
Its kind of funny, but that is how I feel about Monckton – not that I’d use the words you chose…
10
Amen!
10
Bernie Kelly, @ 105, there’s not much CO2 likely top be generated transporting stuff to Oz. Once Brownie closes down the coal mines, we won’t have ant foriegn exchange to pay for stuff, even though we can’t make it ourserlves.
10
JB #106
“Andrew McRae” (44) makes no attempt to refute, just underhand comments. He would not have made it very far on the high school debating team.
Whereas you, JB I have seen flashes of interest in logic. We are all hopeful of your eventual conversion from dogma to science.
10
John Brooks @ 106
to some , you are welcome here in either of one of two roles.
In the first instance , you can contribute to the scientific debate by providing material evidence that mankind’s input to the environment has significantly and adversly changed the atmosphere in the last 200 years. (With reference to the last 3000 million years or so.)
In the second instance, failing to conform with instance one, those others on this blog who are less tolerant of idiots will let you have it with both barrels.
Personally, I’d advise you to work hard on instance # 1 or POQ* fast.
Cheers,
Speedy.
*POQ P— off quicly.
10
Monckton is stirring up dust here in Oz. Megan Clement and various quarters can create diversions but:
the magnetic fields of Sun & Earth are reducing > cosmic particle penetration of atmosphere > cloud seeding > cooling atmosphere;
reducing field strength may reduce crustal warming effect (ask Hissink);
during two years we’ve seen numerous volcanic eruptions injecting dust and SO2 into the stratosphere > more noctilucent clouds > increased albedo > cooling;
a reduced and erratic solar cycle > cooling;
La Nina still affects temperature for about half a year, cooling ;
We cannot avoid noticing repeated snowy winters and growing glaciers in many places.
Like it or not real world observation is undermining the AGW hypothesis so, verbal mud-slinging is about all detractors can do.
I want double the CO2 & 1.1ºC of warming to get my vegie patch growing again. Like most parts of Oz it’s cold here in the Blue Mtns.
10
Look, Monckton is a very flamboyant individual who has a somewhat exasperating way with language; he doesn’t mind a bit of obfucation and knows all the tricks of the trade of the skilled debater. He is no pedantic scientist but a colourful polemicist, who reminds me of another Christopher – Hitchens.
Both Hitchens and Monckton are stirrers who can rip their opponents to shreds by the force of their rhetoric. I believe both men a passionate in what they espouse and convinced of the validity of their position but they can play somewhat fast and loose with facts in the heat of their rhetorical flourishes.
I do not believe Monckton is either a conman or a deliberate liar but he is, as many other vocal partisans in this debate pro and con, prone to be creative in his presentations and dissembling in his responses to criticisms.
The politically correct academics and leftist fake grassroot organisations attempting to stifle free speech on the carbon tax and CAGW are however behaving the way totalitarians invariably do. Being soft totalitarians makes their motives in supressing free expression of alternative views more subversive and sinister than the open brutality of the Leninist, Stalinist and Maoist talitarianisms.
Against the arrayed weight of government-funded and sponsored attack clones there will always be a place for a polemicist with the skill of Monckton to rattle the cages of the true believers in the ruling paradigm.
On this July 4th let freedom ring – even here in Australia. Let Monckton speak.
10
Miss Latter would highly unlikely tell her kids one day that she was sacrificed for the cause … I am sure that an offspring she and her girlfriend may produce, through whatever means, would be brought up in progressive climate of the ultra left dogma where one follows without asking. Living off proceeds of other people’s work and doing their best to destroy these people’s livelihood.
Nothing else but yet another GetUp spore argument for contraception….
10
I’m really not sure Monckton is the right person to be promoting our views about AGW. He is not very well regarded in many circles and I heard that some conservative organisation in the UK has distanced itself from him a great deal. It seems he has said some very questionable things in the past and maybe misprepresented some science stuff?
10
To many who having investigated and studied the evidence for AGW and have rejected the theory – for that is all it is – but who are not good orators or competent writers, Lord Monckton cleverly presents their standpoint. It is this facet which so gets up the noses of the signatories to Latter’s letter. If your case is weakening by the day and you have no competent or vociferous support you must at some point realise it. Just lie back and think of some alternative scientific theory.
10
pat:
July 3rd, 2011 at 8:04 am
Consider your comments peer reviewed. And by a retiree no less
10
The lord doth protest too much, methinks.
I believe that John Abraham’s presentation on Viscount Monckton’s 2009 Bethel presentation satisfies all of Monckton’s queries for evidence, regarding demonstrations of distortions and misrepresentations. Collected evidence can also be found here, cross-referenced for convenience.
Monckton is a very skilled rhetorician – but that skill doesn’t necessarily mean he’s correct.
10
Also, don’t forget that a peer review is NOT a comment on the paper’s results or claims, but on the process, organisation and obvious omissions of the paper. To comment on the results and claims would require the reviewer(s) to repeat the study/experiment and reproduce the results (or not). Therefore, whether a paper is peer-reviewed or not doesn’t make or prove that it either correct or incorrect. As has been commented, how many peer-reviewed papers are later falsified. In many respects, a peer-review is just about whether the paper presents the study’s finding(s) in a logical and readable way, that calculations are correct, that sources are correctly cited, and complete such that it answers the immediate questions.
10
I’ll be in Italy during the debate at The Press Club on the 19th. Please someone kindly post a link (Youtube,etc) to this important event.
10
You need to focus on the true physics and discuss this explanation with top physicists .. someone will support it soon …
My detailed criticism of the assumption that anthropogenic CO2 is the major contributor to warming is at http://earth-climate.com
Firstly, my key point regarding current trends from 1 Jan 2003 to 1 July 2011 as per NASA “sea surface” satellite measurements (the only years that can be plotted on their site) is that there is now a very regular pattern obviously related to the Earth’s orbits each year. The statistical probability that this regular pattern is random noise below an increasing trend comparable with that prior to 1998 is absolutely infinitesimal, so the “excuse” that it is just random noise simply does not hold for these last eight and a half (8.5) years. Now, if you calculate a 12 month running mean each 6 months (taking into account every day) you will find that a linear trend for those annual values is slightly negative. In fact a curved trend passing through a maximum fits better, but I won’t argue the toss on that. What I am saying is that, if CO2 were causing an underlying linear upward trend and no other valid physical explanation can be put forward as a REASON for (in effect) an upside down hockey stick now being observed, then you cannot validate that the data (right up to July 2011, not just 2010) has merely exhibited a random variation, because the REGULAR ANNUAL PATTERN seen here http://earth-climate.com/all-2003-2011.jpg could not happen at random with any reasonable probability. The regularity (caused by the Earth’s orbit as it passes other planets) proves that the underlying trend since 2003 is in fact what it appears to be – namely a slightly declining trend and certainly not one with a positive gradient anything remotely like the IPCC guesses.
The key points relating to molecular physics (explaining why CO2 has had no noticeable effect) are in bolded paragraphs copied below and I eagerly await your attempt to refute such.
The distance of the Earth from the sun currently varies by about 3.25% as the Earth follows its annual orbit. This means the radiation reaching the Earth should vary by about 6.6% over half a year. There are in fact consistent variations each year as shown here but these are only about 0.65 degrees and are not random noise. Hence the sun seems to be contributing only about 10 degrees out of the 294 degrees that the ground level temperatures have been raised above absolute zero which is about -273 deg.C. So the sun’s solar radiation is not the main cause of variations in temperature – instead over 96% of the heat must come through the surface of the crust or be generated by friction due to tides caused by gravity in the atmosphere itself.
Air molecules (mostly nitrogen and oxygen) collide with molecules at the surface of the crust (or on top of the ocean) and gain heat (extra kinetic energy) in the process. They then rise by convection making space for cooler molecules to collide with the surface and repeat the process until equilibrium is achieved. The vast majority of the warming from absolute zero takes place this way, going from 0 deg.K to more than 280 deg.K with the process working on cloudy days and also at night. During the day some extra molecules get warmed by collisions with photons radiated by the sun. Most of these are water vapour, but about 1 in every 2,500 molecules in the air is a carbon dioxide molecule. Over the course of a year, the mean additional warming due to such photons is only about 10 degrees (as discussed above) and most of these photons (on a cloudless day) hit the surface and warm it. The warmer surface then starts warming the air by the processes above, but just a few extra photons are radiated back up again. So, even if one carbon dioxide molecule is warmed by a photon, how much effect is that going to have on the other 2,499 molecules in its vicinity or, in other words, how much is it going to raise the average temperature of all the 2,500 molecules? How much effect will it have on the above 10 degrees of warming we can attribute to the sun’s radiation? Very, very little I would suggest. In fact, as you cannot alter the number of photons (and thus the total energy) coming from the sun, all that will happen with additional carbon dioxide is that this very minute warming will occur at slightly lower altitudes than it would otherwise have. But even so, the warmer air will then rise by convection sooner than it would have with less carbon dioxide.
10