JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

$700,000 for believers to convert skeptics – but nothing for skeptical science

From the 2011 Australian Research Council report: as much as $45,700,000 was spent on An Environmentally Sustainable Australia in 2011.

The cash cow that is “Climate Change” is so loaded that over a six year period, $718,000 dollars of ARC funds has flowed to “believers” (their terminology) to study and convert dissenters.

The death threat that wasn’t (by the kangaroo culler — John Coochey) was made at an event that deserves more attention.  The “Deliberative Democracy” turns out to be part of a project funded by the Australian Research Council to the tune of $378,500. It’s title: Social Adaptation to Climate Change in the Australian Public Sphere: A comparison of individual and group deliberative responses to scenarios of future climate change. This year, a new version of the same project has been awarded another $340,000.

Quite properly, the deliberative forum claims it was not going to take sides:

“The project sought to engage with the full range of positions from people who are sceptical about climate change through to those who are very concerned. We do not endorse any particular point of view – it is the aim of the project to find out what these views might be.”

But the team included known alarmist Will Steffen.  Andrew Bolt discussed the Forum and eye witnesses of the project report tell how skeptics were treated:

Mondo:
Messrs Steffen and his team delivered presentations on various aspects of climate change. We were not allowed to ask questions, or to challenge the multifarious false statements made. Instead, we broke out into groups, with the idea that a group could ask a question. Of course, each group was dominated by “warmists”, and the lone sceptic in each group was a) abused, b) derided, c) not listened to.

The result was that Steffen and co were presented with soft questions that were based largely on ill-informed views, convenient to the organisers.

John Coochey:
… they hired a comedian [Rod Quantock] previously trading as Mr Snooze (to be fair he was not bad modern style of humor) to ridicule anyone who was not a believer. That is not even an attempt at deliberation.”

In the name of research they had to listen to Rod Quantock tell jokes about skeptics at dinner? Was his speaking fee paid by the ARC grant?

The proposals always look so noble. The leading researcher, Dr Simon Niemeyer, describes his philosophy:

The solution is not to dazzle unbelievers with science, but to engage everybody in a mature debate

How mature is it to hire comedians to mock the unbelievers?  How unbiased are the researchers who refer to one half of the public as “unbelievers” — implying not that they hold a different opinion, but that that some scientists know “the truth”, the one and only permitted view, and anyone who disagrees gets “dazzled” by the light.

But he doesn’t want to browbeat skeptics:

So the task now is to see if a more considered approach to debate is possible in the wider public sphere and to engage with people with different views rather than try to harangue them

Source: SMH

Browbeating, and haranguing are right out, but it is alright to dismiss, denigrate and categorize those who disagree?

After all that work they found that beating skeptics over the head with transparent propaganda while suppressing their views only make them more determined skeptics. Surprise me. Did we need $378k to find that out? I could have told them for free. And this is always the way with these projects to understand “skeptics” — they rarely come to ask the leading skeptics what it is that drives them. Obviously they don’t want to know what makes the most informed and active skeptics tick, they just want to know how to convert the punters to the state religion. If they want to convert the skeptics, all they need is some evidence.

The Orwellian use of the phrase “climate change” is so complete, that the report authors are oblivious to the meaning of the things they write:…

” it should be noted that the nature of the project outcomes also has implications for the governance of climate change at all levels of government.”      

   The report on the deliberative democracy forum (CCPS).

It’s as if they think they can govern the weather.

These three projects were awarded to teams that included Dr Simon Niemeyer– the lead author of the first “deliberative democracy forum”.

————————————————————-
Approved Project Title

Social Adaptation to Climate Change in the Australian Public Sphere: A comparison of
individual and group deliberative responses to scenarios of future climate change

DP0879092 Dr SJ Niemeyer; Dr P’ Hart; Dr KP Hobson; Prof W Steffen; Prof BG Mackey; Dr JA Lindesay

2008 : $ 182,500
2009 : $ 176,000
2010 : $ 20,000
Total: $378,500

Primary RFCD 3601 POLITICAL SCIENCE, The Australian National University
This research addresses the ARC National Research Priorities Goal of ‘An Environmentally Sustainable Australia, specifically ‘Reducing and capturing emissions in transport and energy generation’. Avoiding, managing, and/or adapting to the climate change impacts is now the most pressing global environmental problem. This project will produce tangible and original insights into policy options for institutional adjustment to future climate change in Australia; will provide insight into the scope for positive community behavioural change; and possible transformations in Australian social debate to maximise adaptive capacity. It will also strengthen and produce original conceptual approaches and research methods.

————————————————————–
DP120103976
Approved Project Title

Deliberative democracy in the public sphere: achieving deliberative outcomes in mass publics

Niemeyer, Dr Simon J; Dryzek, Prof John S; Schlosberg, Prof David; Hobson, Dr Kersty P;
Goodin, Prof Robert E; Bachtiger, Prof Andre; Setala, Dr Maija T
2012 $110,000.00
2013 $110,000.00
2014 $120,357.00
Total $340,357.00

Primary For 1606 POLITICAL SCIENCE, The Australian National University
Project Summary
This project will systematically explore ways in which citizens can engage more deeply with complex policy issues
without the need to resort to massive expenditure on running multiple deliberative forums, such as citizens’ assemblies. It will identify the language is needed to deliberatively inform and the vehicles for providing that information.

Climate Change & the Public Sphere Project

———————————————–

DP120104797
Approved Project Title

Rethinking climate justice in an age of adaptation: capabilities, local variation, and public
deliberation

Schlosberg, Prof David; Niemeyer, Dr Simon J
2012 $30,000.00
2013 $70,000.00
2014 $150,000.00
Total $250,000.00
Primary FoR 1606 POLITICAL SCIENCE, Administering Organisation The University of Sydney
Project Summary
This project aims to produce recommendations, designed by citizens and stakeholders, for climate adaptation policies in three regions of Australia. These recommendations will be based on a definition of climate justice that incorporates basic needs and resources to be protected, as identified by potentially impacted communities.
[source]

——————————————
References:  Page to find all ARC grants
2010 grants
2011 grants

8.9 out of 10 based on 44 ratings

87 comments to $700,000 for believers to convert skeptics – but nothing for skeptical science

  • #
    Jaymez

    It is heart breaking that:

    1. Our leaders in academia, those people who are teaching and moulding our young adults, can come up with such hair-brained projects. What well founded research in social sciences was the ‘Deliberative Democracy’ model developed from? What made anyone think that the proposed project would have any beneficial outcomes for our society? Surely there has to be some sound justification and anticipated outcome from such projects?

    2. Or bureaucrats who make decisions on grants, fully aware that many sections of Government spending is being cut back or delayed, would believe projects like these listed had any value whatsoever to the Australian Taxpayer.

    3. Our Government who have already legislated the carbon tax and have spent tens of millions promoting the legislation, and now the cash compensation to some, think they can get a bunch of people to sit down and talk about something we cannot change without a change in government, in order to make us feel good about it.

    10

  • #
    Jaymez

    I would also make the point that the government invited members of the public to make submissions about the carbon tax to the Climate Change Commission. We did so in our thousands detailing the very many issues we had with it. First the Climate Commission decided to bring the close date for acceptance of submissions forward. Then they decided to not bother reading or posting on their website any submission which didn’t endorse a carbon tax.

    I have written numerous letters to Climate Change Commissioners, bureaucrats and Ministers in the Rudd/Gillard Governments about climate change and carbon pricing. If the Government were serious about finding out what sceptics think and what we would need to be convinced of, all they would need to have done is read and respond to those letters. Instead, at best I received a form letter talking about scientific consensus, and ‘the right thing to do’, but nothing addressing the actual questions I raised. At worst the letters were simply ignored.

    So now the Government is essentially providing grants to wide ranging groups who will also ignore what the CAGW sceptics have to say. Brilliant!

    10

  • #
    Joe V.

    Resorting to comedy & ridicule is mere argument by distraction and it seems to be one of the main techniques being resorted to by warmists now, even by their so called scientists, as a good laugh, albeit at others expense, is always a welcome relief and it appeals to the intellectually shallow and those of limited attention span.

    In his recent lamenting on the state of climate science the distinguished Scott Denning, PhD , Proffesor of Atmospherics at Oregon State Uni, makes repeated references to Monty Python sketches .

    This isn’t in any attempt to reduce skeptics arguments to absurdity, but merely to ridicule the characters and institutions themselves, that dare to question the IPCCs yet more absurd conclusions and projections from the climate science.

    When Lord Monckton weighs in to correct at length the youthful Denning’s fallacial discourse, the Yale institute hosting the exchange wont publish it, yet that doesn’t stop them from giving space to more pseudo-analytical claptrap from that come lately Professor of fluids that has lately joined the ranks of a number of non-entities at the Guardian, by making a name for himself for nothing other than attempting to knock Monckton.

    If these were but journalists and comedians themselves that might be understandable, but these claim to be the very climate scientists , whose exhortations to action we are supposed to be taking seriously.

    00

  • #
    Jim Toohey

    “…. dazzle unbelievers with science ….”
    Three classic indicators of the dogmatist – overlaid with the surreal lack of self awareness we”ve come to know so well.
    1. Dazzle – they promise not to dazzle?? What a relief! I”m absolutely over being “dazzled” by alarmists.
    2. “unbelievers”?? Is this for real? I thought one of the core differences between stupid ,uneducated , gullible sceptics like me and cool, progressive , rational statists was our tendency to oversimplify, to ignore context , to shun views which challenged the status quo, to seek the uncomplicated certainty of ” for me or against me” labels, to spurn those who “speak truth to power”???? Yet now we have believers and unbelievers?? Can I start buying indulgences? When is the next proclamation from the high priests?
    3. And this one really is the icing on the cake. Science?? All sceptics want to do is argue science.
    I haven”t met a sceptic who doesn’t obsess about the science. Is it the unbelievers who don’t want to discuss the hot spot? What about sea temperature? Or polar ice measurement. Or decadal SST trends?
    Monty Python’s dead parrot sketch had nothing on this level of cognitive dissonance.

    00

  • #
    Chuck L

    I thought it was bad here in the USA, but every day on this and other blogs, I read about something going on Australia that is worse that what I read the day before. When are Australians going to rise up and take back your vast and beautiful country from the seemingly endless rising tide of green fascism? I confess ignorance about your governmental and legislative processes; are there mechanisms that will allow you to cast off the yoke of green tyranny?

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    Climate Change is Propaganda!

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    From the Report’s footnotes:-

    It should be noted that two of the participants who identified themselves as sceptics began participation in the forum but did not return for the second day. The first of these expressed a high level of stress after clashing verbally with another member of the forum. The second departed after feeling frustrated that he could not get his views across to the group (and was very unfortunately subjected to special attention by the comedy act that was intended to provide the opportunity to decompress at the conference dinner after a demanding first day). One individual who self-identified as a climate change sceptic did remain for the duration of the process, despite also clashing with another member of the group at the outset. Two of these individuals expressed disappointment that the forum did not adequately cater for their views.

    There would seem to be little point in sceptics trying to engage in these stacked forums, only to be insulted & ridiculed, and Steve the organisers purpose of being able to claim everyone from both sides was consulted.

    Sceptics need to address the public directly and not on terms engineered by a partisan government.

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Hahaha,

    Our very own ALP/Thomson Ministry of Truth!

    Paid for with your bread.

    What complete unbridled bludging parasitic Bastards

    00

  • #
    John Coochey

    I should point out that although questions could not be asked directly from the floor there was one exception when there was not time for the groups to “conference”. That occurred on just before lunch on the first day. I asked Steffen and his co speaker for that session could they comment on a recent letter to the Canberra Times claiming temperatures had not increased in the Canberra region in decades. (The Canberra region was supposed to be the subject of the deliberation) Steffen could not confirm or deny, he had not even looked up the temperature record but his companion stated there was evidence everywhere or example parrots on the Eastern Seaboard had got lighter! I am not making this up and all conversations during the day were tape recorded. We had to sign waivers to allow this. I went to the deliberation not to stir up trouble but to not “do a John Quiggin” and claim to have all the answers but not dare interact with those who disagree.

    00

  • #
    handjive

    Maybe we should consider ourselves lucky, at the moment.

    The environmental movement has already begun it’s pogrom on ‘unbelievers’ in the name of ‘climate change’.

    Tens of millions of pounds of UK aid money have been spent on a programme that has forcibly sterilised Indian women and men, the Observer has learned.
    Many have died as a result of botched operations, while others have been left bleeding and in agony.

    (A) working paper published by the UK’s Department for International Development in 2010 cited the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programmes.

    The document argued that reducing population numbers would cut greenhouse gases, although it warned that there were “complex human rights and ethical issues” involved in forced population control.

    As informed folks know, India has refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, nor any agreements since, and is actively defying the totalitarian EU carbon & oxygen tax directives:

    The EU in mid-May gave India and China a month to comply with the airline carbon emissions fee system across the 27-nation bloc, or face penalties for flights into and out of Europe.

    India in April barred its airlines from complying with the EU carbon fee, joining China in resistance.

    “We will take retaliatory actions to counter steps taken by the EU.
    If Europe bans our carriers we will ban theirs as well,” the senior government official, who did not want to be named, told reporters late Friday.

    Sooner or later, like the ‘ever seeing eye of Sauron’ in the Lord of the Rings, the EU will turn their gaze to Australia for their obscene eugenics program left over from WW2, rebadged as ‘tackling global warming, climate change, or climate disruption’.

    00

  • #
    AndyG55

    Notice how they have changed the name YET AGAIN..

    its now “sustainable development” or something similar.

    Methinks the next step would have to be sometjhing like “Rational Capitalism”

    ALL to do with controlling and degrading western economics.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    But it looks like the Steffen “disease” is spreading. There was a reprint of an article by Jonathan Pearlman(Telegragh Group)about Gina Rinehart in our local paper recently.
    It quotes a Dr Micheal Rafferty from the University of Sydney Business School who describes the new moguls as feudal-style”rentiers” who unlike the media and property tycoons of previous eras have never “developed anything in their lives”.
    “These billinaires like Gina Rinhart , Clive Palmer and Twiggy Forrest have accumulated vast wealth without having done anything”
    ” They just sit back and the cash starts coming in. Their quirkiness or wackiness is largely a product of the fact that their business is simply owning the property , not building the work force”

    This is all coming from the Business School — what sort of rubbish are the students being taught if this is the business understanding of a teacher
    (presumably) of the school at the university ???
    If I was a parent of a business studies student at the Sydney Uni. I’d be asking serious questions of the value for money they are getting from their studies.

    00

  • #
    Jim Stewart

    Jo’s report resonates with Garth Paltridge’s book “The Climate Caper” and his choice of cover painting – Pieter Bruegel the Elder’s “The Blind Leading the Blind”.
    Sure all these “believers” will have their eyesight cured quickly when they have to find useful employment once the current destructive mob in Canberra are assigned to history.

    00

  • #

    […] $700,000 for believers to convert skeptics – but nothing for skeptical science […]

    00

  • #
    John Coochey

    THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE LINKS IN THIS ARTICLE THERE APEARS TO BE SOME CYBER SQUATTING

    00

  • #
    Boadicea

    So the academics from the ANU and the UNI NSW want to engage in a mature debate, with those who may be sceptical of the science, by using immature methods, and not include many of their kind ..whilst using funds being incompetetly distributed.

    Why dont the academics clean up their own messes, by first of all.

    1. Cleaning up that sham called Peer Review

    2. Instituting a regime of ethical and professional standards ..a Code Conduct?…. that has sanctions

    3. By speaking up against the excesses of the IPCC and the lies of its Chairman Pachauri.

    4. By declaring conflicts of interest like being involved as scientific advisers to the WWF etc wilst being paid out of the public oruse

    I would love to be involved in one of these farcical mature conversations involving a comedian who uses a chook on stick … as long as I can bring my pet goat and goose.

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Irony that the ABC news yesterday reported that snow has fallen on the Alps and the ski season is likely to start early. They had a famous ski guy who said normally you don’t see such substantial falls until late June or July.

    Not a single mention of climate change in the spot.

    This is why Prof Steffen’s little reeducation camps cannot work. The voters are not idiots, they can see that CAGW is not happening, and the ones with some science background can easily find that the alternative explanations work very well to explain what their eyes are seeing.

    In 19thC America after a while the snake oil merchants no longer could sell snake oil at any price and were run out of town. So they changed to patent medicine. That failed even quicker as the people wised up. The business model collapsed. But we remember snake oil. We remember patent medicine. Oh yes, we remember Prof Steffen. Soon you too will not be able to sell your wares at any price in this country.

    00

  • #
    Streetcred

    The program has stark parallels with Scientology brainwashing … apologies to the Scientologists, you really don’t deserve to be lumped in with the “Believers”.

    00

  • #
    Bob Massey

    The underlying truth will be heard! It’s frustrating at the moment but it will come out!

    I suspect the next election in Australia will do a lot towards routing the Labor Socialist bullies from our political system and the Gillard years will be gone. I really hope the Liberals rout out all these inconsequential Government Departments much like the Libs have done in Queensland and send them into oblivion.

    But, the people of Australia then need to look very carefully at who their electing and make sure they have some real life experience instead of the glorified academic spin doctors with no common sense or real qualifications that we currently have. We also need to be able to redress Parliamentarians if they are doing something contrary to their electorates wishes then they need admonishing for it. How we do this? I have no idea but it needs to be done!

    00

  • #
    Robert of Ottawa

    Can you spell “gravy train”?

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    .
    Jim Stewart @ #13

    Sure all these “believers” will have their eyesight cured quickly when they have to find useful employment once the current destructive mob in Canberra are assigned to history.

    Yeah! All we have to do is vote in the Liberals, and everything will be all better in the twinkling of an eye.

    sarc/off

    Will some of you doey-eyed Abbott fans at least go and have a look at the LIBS “environmental policy” page.

    http://www.liberal.org.au/Issues/Environment.aspx

    It FEATURES a pic of bird-shredding wind turbines FFS. – Complete with birds !!!

    00

  • #
    Robert of Ottawa

    The political establishment owns climate science, literally, as it funds it. These people use the results of the “science” to promote their own, socialist, programs. Remember, all members of government bureaucracies and its establishment are socialist by definition; they see their job to control and regulate society.

    The key point in time when the socialists rushed to enviromentalism (sic) was the “Brundtland Report” which provided socialists, who were losing the USSR and the political battle, with another excuse, another cause to exploit.

    The political battle has not changed, neither the techniques. Remember Lysenko in the USSR. He provided convenient excuses for the commissariat to control agriculture and the rural regions. They didn’t really care about the truth of it, AFAIK.

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    “The cash cow that is “Climate Change” is so loaded that over a six year period, $718,000 dollars of ARC funds has flowed to “believers” (their terminology) to study and convert dissenters.”JN

    Climate Change Commissioner [commissioner of a crime] Tim Flannery would try to convince you that hot air falls down from the clouds. What a dumbed down society we have and what lunatics we have in politics to represent us.

    Australia’s chief climate commissioner Tim Flannery calls for the removal of toxic teeth from dead people

    Mercury in teeth is bad but mercury in CFL light bulbs is OK??

    CLIMATE change campaigner Tim Flannery says mercury tooth fillings should be removed from corpses before they are cremated.

    The practice should be made law, Australia’s chief climate commissioner said.

    “You don’t want to poison people when you are cremated,” Prof Flannery said. “No one would want that.”

    Addressing the Australian Medical Association’s national conference in Melbourne yesterday, he said an awareness campaign was needed.

    “I think people would be comfortable with removing the fillings, it is just a matter of awareness,” he said.

    Prof Flannery said undertakers should be required to remove the fillings and families also could request it.

    “You just need a pair of pliers,” he said. “It is a $2 solution.”

    He said the mercury in teeth fillings was not a problem in people alive because it was not in a methylated form.

    “For mercury to become dangerous, it has to get into the atmosphere, which happens when we are cremated, then blow over the oceans (and) go into the ocean depths, where there is very low oxygen, and then transform by bacteria into a methylated form of mercury,” Prof Flannery said.

    “This is then ingested by fish and the fish get put on the dinner plate.”

    He said he had not raised the issue with the Federal Government, but he felt it was significant and could be dealt with easily.

    While talking about health and environment at the AMA conference, he also raised concerns about a lack of readiness for extreme weather events.

    Prof Flannery said deaths from heat were increasing and the community needed to be better educated about the health risks.

    “Deaths from heat is a silent killer that is increasing around the world,” he said. “The most vulnerable in our community are most at risk.”

    Prof Flannery said the loss of respect for science in the climate debate had been “one of the most damaging aspects”.

    http://australian-politics.blogspot.com.au/

    00

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Why waste money on Rod Quantock as a comedian, when they had a choice of clowns in Prof. Tim Flannery or Prof. Stephan Lewandowsky?

    00

  • #
    Alex

    Jo or mods, your site keeps emailing me hundreds of comments
    which I don’t need. Is it possible to fix this problem.
    Kindest regards…..Alex
    [go to “edit my profile” and un-check the email options as needed] ED

    00

  • #
    pat

    best to post this link as there are many links within it:

    27 May: Activist Post: Susanne Posel: UN Creates New, More Powerful Global Environmental Agency
    In June of this year, at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the United Nations (UN) will push for the expansion of their new and improved global environmental agency.
    The UN Environmental Program (UNEP) will be promoted to “specialized agency” with a new title, UN Environment Organization (UNEO).
    The UNEO will prop up the Sustainable Development division of the UN. The same agency that disseminates Agenda 21 policies to governments will be centralized into a global agency with powerful international backing…
    http://www.activistpost.com/2012/05/un-creates-new-more-powerful-global.html

    00

  • #
    pat

    the CAGW money is peanuts compared to the following Wall Street Journal story, which seems not to have attracted too much attention last week:

    25 May: Washingtonsblog: As An Encore to Bailing Out the Big Banks, Government to Backstop Derivatives Clearinghouses … In the U.S. and Abroad
    The government has allowed the amount of derivatives to reach 1.2 quadrillion dollars.
    That is feeding the parasite of casino gambling … which is preventing the real economy from recovering and is killing the host of actual productivity.
    What is the government doing for an encore? Bailing out the derivatives clearinghouses.
    As the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday:
    “Little noticed is that on Tuesday Team Obama took its first formal steps toward putting taxpayers behind Wall Street derivatives trading — not behind banks that might make mistakes in derivatives markets, but behind the trading itself. Yes, the same crew that rails against the dangers of derivatives is quietly positioning these financial instruments directly above the taxpayer safety net.”…
    “The authority for this regulatory achievement was inserted into Congress’s pending financial reform bill by then-Senator Chris Dodd”…
    “Specifically, the law authorizes the Federal Reserve to provide “discount and borrowing privileges” to clearinghouses in emergencies.” etc etc
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/05/as-an-encore-to-bailing-out-the-big-banks-government-to-backstop-derivativees-clearinghouses-in-the-u-s-and-abroad.html

    i can’t even pretend to understand the derivatives weapons of mass financial destruction, but it seems pretty frightening.

    00

  • #
    Darren

    True Story – I once went to a comedy club where Rod Quantock was MC for the night. I heckled him from the word go and had him totally flustered. He is REALLY sensitive to being called Captain Snooze. My best heckle line of the night was when he said “Yes, I did that for a while”, I replied “You’ll be back” – I got more laughs that night than he did.

    00

  • #
    old44

    Certainly it is alright to dismiss, denigrate and categorize those who disagree, it is all they have left.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Somewhat on topic, as people talked of climate science funding, I made teh mistake of posting to the ABC environment thread here:

    http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2012/05/21/3506179.htm

    The usual ferals jumped up and down with the usual rants. Just copying my response to them, in case it gets the ABC mod squad treatment:

    No worries Brenainn, the ABC blogs seem to bring out the inner feral in people. So to my lively detractors in turn:

    Bernie:
    People react to incentives, especially monetary ones. I trust this isn’t news to you. I have known shady characters in the professions you mention, but that doesn’t prove anything about climate scientists does it? Probably more a statement on human nature in general …

    As for scientists getting paid regardless of what they write, base salary perhaps, but good luck getting funding from Government towing an argument that flies in the face of Government policy, or “Big Pharma” if you state contrary findings regarding their drugs etc.

    You want to see how a typical big climate scientist raises money, check out Prof Andy Pitman’s funding site at UNSW, just for example. A lot of Government money on that page alone…

    RG:
    Conspiracy theory? Common self-interest does not require a “conspiracy theory.” When scientists, financial companies, government, renewable manufacturers etc are all happily aligned, you don’t need a conspiracy to arrive at the current situation. See my point above to see where climate scientists get their funding. It’s simple game theory (mathematical/economics concept – see Nash et al).

    Patrick:
    Oh dear … where to start? Read above for starters. The number you are looking for is 97% of climate scientists believe… it was a study that carefully restricted the set to 77 climate scientists, of which the researcher decided 75 were in the “believe in AGW” camp. 98% of all statistics are made up, dontchya know?

    Why is it always the ones that provide no evidence and rhetorical arguments that insist skeptics show evidence disproving their hypothesis of CAGW? Last time I checked there had been no conclusive _empirical_ data that demonstrated CAGW was real. Given that there is nothing to disprove, it seems a touch arrogant on your part to demand skeptics disprove what you (the universal “you” for AGW believers) have not yet proven. Pointing at a glacier and saying “O-o look it’s in retreat… it is evidence for AGW!” is not empirical proof, any more than another glacier increasing in size is proof for the contrary argument. L2Science.

    One thing I can tell you unequivocally is that there are a lot more vested interests seeking to push the CAGW argument than the skeptic status quo position. See above for example.

    BTW using the term “denier” and its derivatives is unbecoming and we all know why. First you would have to stipulate what it is I am denying for you to have any basis for such a descriptor.

    BLZBOB:
    “Big Fossil Fuel” gives huge amounts of funding to universities and other research institutions. They are in the energy game regardless of what form the energy generation takes … if renewables is the next “it” thing then they are going to be in the front seat driving it, not sitting by the side of the road wondering what happened to their profits. When your profits are in the tens of billions a year, a few million here and there for non-fossil fuel research is small change to get in on the action … if it ever eventuates. An each-way bet in racing parlance.

    Your homework assignment is to study “strawman argument.”

    BTW this comment is posted elsewhere because I know what ABC mods are like 🙂

    PS> Regarding peer review, I seem to recall an email from the original ClimateGate (Yes, I am that Bulldust) saying words to the effect of “We’ll keep that (skeptic study) out of the journal even if we have to redefine the peer review process.” Yeah … peer review working as intended it seems…

    Personally I think I was too polite, but they caught me on a good day I guess…

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    This seems to be the right place to ask this question and if someone could explain it that would be great

    What is climate change

    What is the scientific definition of climate change.

    If the temperature goes up is that climate change.
    If the temperature goes down is that climate change
    If the temperature was going up or down and it stops is that climate change.

    What the hell is climate change.

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    doom gloom doom gloom doom gloom doom gloom doom gloom doom gloom doom gloom doom gloom doom gloom doom gloom et al…
    Hmm how about thorium powered reactors? CO2 free
    http://thoriumenergyalliance.com/ThoriumSite/portal.html

    00

  • #
    Ally E.

    A question for Memoryvault. Please, I don’t want to get into a heated debate, I just want to know who you think is the best to vote for.

    Remember, no one wanted either of the main parties last time and the votes were scattered across the whole range of candidates. That’s what got us into this mess, giving us a hung parliament and landed us with Gillard. We don’t want that to happen again.

    The thing that sold me on Abbott is that he has Ian Plimer as an advisor. Ian Plimer is of course a skeptic (something Abbott has also been charged with since at least 2010 and probably earlier). Ian Plimer wrote “How to Get Expelled from School”, an excellent skeptical book on CAGW. The fact that he is advisor to Abbott tells me Abbott isn’t just making noises to counter Gillard, he’s plugged into the real science of the matter.

    Yes, Abbott claims he will get rid of the Carbon Tax. That’s got to be better than what we have now. I seriously can’t see him pulling a Gillard, especially in the face of her annihilation both for lying and for not listening to what the people want. There’d be rioting in the street if he went back on his word.

    Gillard has so wrecked it for the Labor Party, this is Abbott’s opportunity to stay in power awhile, I don’t think he’ll want to chuck that down the toilet.

    http://www.news.com.au/national/tony-abbott-promises-to-get-rid-of-carbon-pricing-scheme-within-six-months-of-being-elected-to-power/story-e6frfkw9-1226334281970

    “The Opposition Leader said that if blocked in the Senate he would immediately call another election, a double dissolution, and invite the ALP to commit “suicide twice”.

    “I won’t reduce the tax, change the tax, or redesign the tax. I will repeal the tax,” Mr Abbott said.

    So, unless you can give me a better candidate in a powerful party that states the same intention to get rid of the Carbon Tax (and, please, not an Independent or a small party that just isn’t going to win the numbers – I tried that last time) Abbott’s got my vote.

    00

  • #
    Manfred

    Thanks to Kevin on blog #23 for: ‘Prof Flannery said the loss of respect for science in the climate debate had been “one of the most damaging aspects”.’

    http://australian-politics.blogspot.com.au/

    Over the Tasman today, the Green/UN centered MSM media have been overwhelmed by self-righteous zealous joy being able to proclaim that we are all very very naughty boys and girls because we have not met a single Kyoto objective. Our report card gets a black capital ‘F’. In the same breath, the MSM announce that some of the dreadful emissions responsible for CAGW, in particular the component emitted by cows (methane) is now no longer considered responsible for the heinous rise in temperature. The culprit we are told is the 20% rise in NZ population in the last decade. Switch to academic at Waikato University who agrees that there are many more people using iPods and iPhones and other electrical appliances, which clearly results in greater emissions because of an increased demand in power. (PS: some 70% of NZ generation is derived from hydroelectricity).

    It goes without saying the the any thoughts regarding the quantification of these statements lead one to a resultant ∆T that is so infinitesimal as to be impossible to measure, orders of magnitude within the range of error and impossible to associate with the putative causes. All but the most impaired would heed the MSM seriously. They are in fact doing us all a favour by becoming not only more strident, but more nonsensical. It is a brave if not foolish academic that stands-up at this juncture to claim their fabled Warhole moment and it is evident that the Green/UN centered NZ MSM are doing their utmost to fulfill the observation made so eruditely by Prof. Flannelbag.

    00

  • #
    Patrick

    Hey folks, how about Gillard’s “generous compensation” for the increased costs of living? $250 one off payment for a single pensioner! Wow! That averages one cup of coffee per week! My latest quarterly utility bills amount to more than $1400.
    Message to Gillard: Your much publicised bribe will not protect you from the wrath of the Australian electorate. Dream on and consider your post-political career options.

    00

  • #
    Dave

    .
    Jo – just spent 12 minutes & 57 seconds watching!

    JOANNE NOVA: The Other Side! on You Tube 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

    Brillant – you have to do more and more of these – just TERRIFIC!

    00

  • #
    Wayne, s. Job

    A rather interesting development in the cold fusion saga. It would appear that the US navy researchers have proven it beyond a doubt and have done some serious science as to why it works.

    The Cheifio E.M.Smith is worth a read he is all over it like a rash.

    00

  • #

    What really ‘narks’ me with all this spending is the opportunity cost. There are people out there trying hard to come up with the next big thing and move things forwards – it would take a really small amount of this money to help turn the tide for them and possibly make the difference between failure and success.

    Wasting money like this is sinful and a complete insult to those who are working to make the future a better place.

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Did all the old comments disappear because we did not buy enough Comment Emissions Credits? Has all our excess been put into a Comment Sequestration facility? Where comments were once abundant we now have artificial scarcity. Comments are going to cost a lot more if Clean Comment Technology is forced upon us. I feel bad about this because I just haven’t been managing my Comment Footprint…

    But seriously, Jo, has any progress been made on recovering all the old comments?
    They were a goldmine of counter-warmism talking points.

    ———

    REPLY: Andrew, all 100,000 comments prior to the recent maintenance are well backed up, and I have cached copies of the ones since then, alas the number system started from 0, so meshing the two sets together will be some work. Yes, David T is working on it. If that big-oil cheque arrived I could pay him, instead of asking him to fit it in between other jobs. 🙁 Jo

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    On radio 2GB this morning – well worth a listen.

    The Greatest Hoax of Our Time – Alan Jones speaks with Marc Marano of Climatedepot.com about climate change.

    http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_podcasting&task=view&id=2&Itemid=41

    00

  • #
    Michael

    Just look at the rediculous cateogories that the ARC supports- literary, legal, media, nonmedical psychology- nothing to do with development of areas that are essential to Australia even if its manipulated to climate change alarmism. Time to close them down totally.

    00