We’ve already found enough flaws, but Christopher Monckton analyzes John Cook’s 97% consensus paper and sharpens the scythe. He finds:
- It should never have been done, it’s an unscientific method — “consensus”
- The “consensus” was defined in three different ways. (Which hypothesis are they testing?) None of the three definitions is specific enough to be falsifiable.
- The paper strangely omitted the key results. (Why make 7 classifications, if they were not going to disclose how many papers fell into each category?)
- Of nearly 12,000 abstracts analyzed, there were only 64 papers in category 1 (which explicitly endorsed man-made global warming). Of those only 41 (0.3%) actually endorsed the quantitative hypothesis as defined by Cook in the introduction. A third of the 64 papers did not belong.
- None of the categories endorsed “catastrophic” warming — a warming severe enough to warrant action — though this was assumed in the introduction, discussion and publicity material.
- The consensus (such as there is, and it being irrelevant) appears to be declining.
The nice thing about this commentary is that Monckton provides a summary of the philosophy of science (showing Cook et al are 2,300 years out of date). Monckton has also checked Cook’s own data which was finally provided (several weeks after publication) and compares Cook to Oreskes, Anderegg, and Doran and Zimmerman and explains why they are wrong too.
Previously I’ve also pointed out the 12 reasons the paper fails, including that the number of papers is merely a proxy for funding, not evidence about the climate; most of the papers merely assume man-made warming is real, and some papers are 20 years old and the evidence has changed.
Monckton’s full commentary is here, selected excerpts below. – Jo
———————————————————————————————————
‘Quantifying the consensus on global warming
in the literature’: a comment
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
5501 Merchants’ View Square, #209, Haymarket, VA 20169
[email protected]
Capsule
The latest paper apparently showing 97% endorsement of a consensus that more than half of recent global warming was anthropogenic really shows only 0.3% endorsement of that now-dwindling consensus.
Abstract
Cook et al. (2013) stated that abstracts of nearly all papers expressing an opinion on climate change endorsed consensus, which, however, traditionally has no scientific role; used three imprecise definitions of consensus interchangeably; analyzed abstracts only; excluded 67% expressing no opinion; omitted some key results; misstated others; and thus concluded that 97.1% endorsed the hypothesis as defined in their introduction, namely that the “scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)”. The authors’ own data file categorized 64 abstracts, or only 0.5% of the sample, as endorsing the consensus hypothesis as thus defined. Inspection shows only 41 of the 64, or 0.3% of the entire sample, actually endorsed their hypothesis. Criteria for peer review of papers quantifying scientific consensus are discussed.
Introduction: no role for consensus in science
Though Cook et al. (2013) reviewed abstracts of 11,944 papers on climate change and concluded that 97.1% of those expressing an opinion supported consensus, the philosophy of science allows no role for head-count. Aristotle, in his Sophistical Refutations, (c. 350 B.C.E.), identified the argument from consensus as one of the dozen commonest logical fallacies in human discourse.
Al-Haytham, the astronomer and philosopher of science in 11th-century Iraq who is recognized as the father of the scientific method, wrote that “the seeker after truth” – his phrase for the scientist – does not place his faith in any mere consensus, however venerable. Instead, he checks. “The road to the truth,” said al-Haytham, “is long and hard, but that is the road we must follow.”
In 1860 T.H. Huxley said: “The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties: blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”
Albert Einstein, when told that 100 Nazi scientists had published a book rejecting his theory of special relativity, responded that a single paper would have sufficed to refute his hypothesis. His own single paper of 1905 on the electrodynamics of moving objects had demonstrated why Newton’s laws, till then universally accepted as true, incompletely described the motion of celestial objects.
Popper (1934) formalized the scientific method as an iterative algorithm starting with a general problem (GP0), to address which a scientist proposed a falsifiable hypothesis or tentative theory (TT0). Thereupon others would either demonstrate during the error-elimination phase (EE0) that the hypothesis was false, in which event it was rejected, or, more rarely, demonstrate that it was true.
By far the commonest outcome, however, especially in the physical sciences, is that error elimination will fall short of demonstrating the hypothesis but will fail to disprove it, in which event it gains some credibility. The statement of the general problem may then be modified accordingly (GP1), and a new tentative theory (TT1) may later be advanced to address the modified problem; and so on. Pedetemptim, and if necessary ad infinitum, science iteratively converges upon the truth (Fig. 1). Consensus adds no value to this process.
In the scientific method, then, there is no place for mere consensus. A hypothesis that is demonstrated – such as Pythagoras’ theorem – needs no consensus, for it is objectively true. A hypothesis that is disproven needs no consensus, for it is objectively false. A hypothesis that is neither demonstrated nor disproven gains credibility, and not because a dozen or even 12,000 papers endorse it but because – and to the extent that – it has not been demonstrated to be false. Science is not a belief system. A priori, then, head-counts are inappropriate tests of scientific results.
Problems in defining the climate consensus
… the definition of the hypothesis should be expressed quantitatively. An imprecisely defined hypothesis, especially if it is not quantitative, may be insufficiently rigorous to be testable. If it be untestable, then, stricto sensu, it is not of interest to science. It is a mere curiosity. Yet Cook et al. do not confine themselves to a single definition of the hypothesis to which their consensus is said to adhere. Three definitions of climate consensus coexist in the paper –
Definition (1): “the consensus position that humans are causing global warming” (abstract);
Definition (2): the “scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)” (introduction);
Definition (3): that our enhancement of the greenhouse effect will be dangerous enough to be “catastrophic”; (implicit in the introduction, in discussion of the need to raise awareness of scientific consensus to justify a “climate policy”, and explicit in Table 2 of Cook et al., citing a paper opposing “the catastrophic view of the greenhouse effect”).
Definitions (1, 3) fall short of the criteria for definition of a Popper-falsifiable hypothesis, and definition (2) could have been clearer. Not only do Cook et al. adopt the definitions interchangeably, but each definition is imprecise and insufficiently quantified to allow rigorous Popper-falsification. None of the definitions specifies the period to which it applies, or how much global warming was observed over that period, or whether the warming is continuing, or, if so, at what rate, or whether that rate is considered dangerous, or what rate if any is considered dangerous.
Additionally, definitions (1) and (3) do not specify what fraction of warming was considered anthropogenic, and definition (2) assigns no quantitative value to the term “very likely”. Such imprecisions render the hypotheses unfalsifiable and hence beyond the realm of legitimate scientific inquiry.
(see the full commentary for more discussion of this)
[Cook cites Doran and Zimmerman and Anderegg, Monckton explains why they are wrong too]
Doran and Zimmerman (2009)
The two authors sent a 2-minute online survey to 10,257 earth scientists at universities and government research agencies. Only 5% of the 3,146 respondents identified themselves as climate scientists; 90% believed mean global temperatures had generally risen compared with pre-1800s levels; and 82% believed human activity was a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures. Only 79 of the respondents listed climate science as their area of expertise and had also published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Of these, 98% believed human activity was a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures. However, the sample size was insufficient to deliver a statistically reliable result, and the respondents were not asked whether they believed the anthropogenic influence on temperature might become sufficiently damaging to require a “climate policy”.
Anderegg et al. (2010)
From publication and citation data, the authors selected 908 of 1372 climate researchers, defined as people who had published at least 20 climate papers and had either signed petitions opposing or supporting the IPCC’s positions or had co-authored IPCC reports. Of these, 97-98% believed that “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming of the Earth’s average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century”. The definition of the consensus in Anderegg et al. is less imprecise than definition (2) in Cook et al. Yet, like Cook et al., Anderegg et al. did not seek to determine how many researchers considered global warming to be actually or potentially damaging enough to require a climate policy. Nevertheless, the two surveys are often cited as demonstrating a near-unanimous scientific consensus in favor of a climate policy, when in fact, like Cook et al., neither survey had asked any question either about whether and to what extent the anthropogenic component in recent warming might be dangerous or about whether a “climate policy” should be adopted in attempted mitigation of future warming.
Incomplete statement of the survey results
None of the seven “levels of endorsement” by which Cook et al. categorize their selected abstracts provides evidence that any of the 11,944 abstracts encompasses the catastrophist definition (3):
- “Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of global warming”
- “Explicit endorsement without quantification”
- “Implicit endorsement”
- “No opinion, or uncertain”
- “Implicit rejection”
- “Explicit rejection without quantification”
- “Explicit rejection with quantification”
The first endorsement level, “Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of global warming”, reflects definition (2) and is akin to the other definitions in Table 1. The second and third levels, “Explicit endorsement without quantification” and “Implicit endorsement”, reflect definition (1) in that, like it, they are not quantitative. Yet the first three levels of endorsement are treated as one in the results:
“To simplify the analysis, ratings were consolidated into three groups: endorsements (including implicit and explicit: categories 1-3) …”.
Results of an inspection of the Cook et al. data file
It is not possible to discern either from the paper or from the supplementary information what fraction of all abstracts endorse definition (2). A file of raw data was supplied, though it was only posted online some weeks after publication. This comma-delimited text file was dowloaded and the abstracts allocated by Cook et al. to each level of endorsement were counted. Results are given in Table 2:
|
E.Level |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
Total |
|
Explicit support +quant |
Explicit support –quant |
Implicit support –quant |
No opinion /uncert |
Implicit rejectn. –quant |
Explicit rejectn. –quant |
Explicit rejectn. +quant |
||
|
Papers |
64 |
922 |
2910 |
7970 |
54 |
15 |
9 |
11,944 |
|
% all |
0.5% |
7.7% |
24.4% |
66.7% |
0.5% |
0.1% |
0.1% |
100% |
|
% opin |
1.6% |
23.0% |
72.5% |
1.3% |
0.4% |
0.2% |
99% |
Table 2. Abstracts in the seven levels of endorsement specified in Cook et al. (2013). Only 64 abstracts, according to the authors’ data file, explicitly endorsed definition (2), the quantitative hypothesis. NB: “+quant” indicates “with quantification”; “–quant” indicates “without quantification”; “% all” indicates the percentage of all 11,944 abstracts that fell in each level of endorsement; “% opin” indicates the percentages of all 4014 abstracts, excluding the 7930 that expressed no opinion but including the 40 that expressed uncertainty (1% of all papers). These 40 are not shown separately in the datafile or in the table. Therefore, the percentages of papers expressing an opinion sum to 99%, not 100%.
Evidence that the climate consensus is declining
(see the full commentary)
Has there been any ‘current’ warming?
(see the full commentary)
Discussion
The defects identified in the surveys of climate consensus by Cook et al. and by the authors of some of the papers they cite follow a pattern to whose existence peer-reviewers should be alert. First, any argument from consensus on a question such as the extent to which anthropogenic global warming may prove dangerous is defective a priori and ought really to be rejected without further review.
Secondly, no survey of opinion for or against a consensus hypothesis ought to be regarded as scientific where it is not made clear which hypothesis is under test, or where the hypothesis under test is not clearly and precisely formulated. A fortiori, a survey paper that exhibits multiple definitions of the consensus hypothesis and fails to state clearly the identity and definition of the hypothesis on the basis of which the survey was actually conducted should surely be rejected.
Thirdly, the consensus hypothesis under test ought to be expressed in quantitative terms. Mere qualitative definitions of any scientific hypothesis run the risk of appearing more political than scientific in their formulation, and papers based on such definitions may also prove more political than scientific in their effect.
Fourthly, if several “levels of endorsement” are specified, then the number of abstracts, papers, or scientists considered to have supported each level of endorsement ought to be explicitly stated in the paper under review. Cook et al. specified three levels of endorsement that supported the notion of anthropogenic warming (however defined); yet, on the stated ground of simplifying the analysis, the number of papers allocated to each of the three levels of endorsement – a key result on any view – was not stated. The analysis would indeed have been simpler if one endorsement level supporting one definition of climate consensus had been adopted.
Fifthly, all data files and programs should be archived at the time of submission to the journal and included at the time of publication as part of the supplementary material. Reviewers should ask for the datafiles and programs if they are not available.
Conclusion
The non-disclosure in Cook et al. of the number of abstracts supporting each specified level of endorsement had the effect of not making available the fact that only 41 papers – 0.3% of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0% of the 4014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1% – had been found to endorse the quantitative hypothesis, stated in the introduction to Cook et al. and akin to similar definitions in the literature, that “human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)”.
——————————————–
Some previous posts on Cook’s work:
- Cook’s fallacy “97% consensus” study is a marketing ploy some journalists will fall for
- Lewandowsky, Cook and the Barack Obama tweet that wasn’t
- Dear John, you want “deniers” to help you do a fallacious survey eh?
- Lewandowsky, Cook claim 78,000 skeptics could see conspiracy survey at Cooks site where there is no link.
- John Cook of (un) SkepticalScience, admits “climate change denier” is inaccurate. Will he stop name-calling?
- The Unskeptical Guide to the Skeptics Handbook
Monckton, as fine a man as he is, is wasting his time I fear. The “97%” was never more than an accidentally arrived at yet gleefully accepted emotional trigger figure guaranteed to glean a reaction from a largely apathetic, easily mislead general public. The purveyors of this particular lie wouldn’t have the guts to admit to anything let alone the ethical grounding to know why that would be important to themselves or the rest of us at large. Seems to me that the statistics are all about the answer rather than the question for them. We keep winning battles but are prevented by means greater than we can muster against by forces out of our control. Our media and politicians are rubbish. Democracy is dying, perhaps by design or maybe apathy I don’t know.
372
Both. The design of a few and the apathy of many.
300
Regarding Truthseeker’s comment about democracy dying because of the design of a few and the apathy of many:
Part of the problem is that people lead busy lives, raise families, work, and so forth. Somewhere, people have to take what they glean from the media as correct, at least for some matters.
I became immediately suspicious of the idea of CAGW as soon as I read Al Gore’s book. I’d never seen such a blatant, well-crafted piece of propaganda. Yes – Al Gore made me a ‘skeptic’. Thanks Al!
I’m semi-retired, hence I’ve had the luxury of having time to ponder further. I think there are grounds for optimism.
Thankfully, here in the UK we have journalist Christopher Booker (read his excellent book ‘The Real Global Warming Disaster’), and also David Rose and of course Lord Monckton. All writers give robust counters to all the rubbish more usually seen in the press.
Furthermore, we have websites such as this one, ‘Watts Up With That’ and ‘Bishop Hill’, all put together by people with the will and courage to challenge the nonsense.
A friend remarked ‘Well – I’ve never seen this before!’ when I gave him a copy of the Central England Temperature Record (CET). It made quite an impression on him to see a temperature record going back to 1659. This is a good example of the sort of information which I suggest people haven’t on the whole seen.
So – don’t despair, all is not lost and judging by recent articles about wind turbines in the UK the tide may be starting to turn.
302
@Carbon500. You sort of hit the nail on the head insofar as your comment re all of us having lives to lead, kids to raise and bills to pay. This is basically why I never attacked the common sense aspect of the general public. We don’t all live in the rarified atmosphere of the scientific endeavor of academia but we have every right to expect whatever they do, they do with the utmost integrity since their authority informs all aspects of our lives. We are fast becoming a reincarnation of the slow decline of the Roman Empire. They say a fish rots from the head down. This fish reeks.
30
As much as I respect Lord M, his gravitas fertilises barren soil.
He should drop the Latin, for the moment, and concentrate his focus, humour and considerable ability in straightforward Anglo-Saxon vernacular suited better to getting the message over to the majority of voters.
I love the ease with which he lobs grenades at the zombie hordes of pseudo-intellectuals but despair at how little damage he inflicts on the already brain-dead.
It’s the average John (uncooked) and Jane, untainted by delusional, academic egotism who’ll fix the problem at the ballot-box.
Pearls before swine may stimulate the senses but inflating the nostrils, to better smell the coffee, …
40
Roy, I’d have to agree somewhat regarding your view that Christopher should drop the Latin, not to mention some of his other antics.
I can’t remember whether it was in Sydney or somewhere else (on YouTube, possibly 2010), where Monckton was more putting on a “show” of his intellectual grasp of garden implements and in-depth radiative forcing mechanics than simplifying the facts for the layman. Most of it went right over the heads of the audience. Had I paid for a ticket I would have been even more disappointed.
Lord Monckton, most of your earlier presentations are far easier for the layman to understand. I hope you return to that formula. Best wishes.
31
I understand the rationale for your argument but I suspect Monckton is trying to sound less like a politician and more like scientist. Latin is an inscrutable language to almost all of us but anyone who had enough interest in this subject to buy a ticket would surely understand it’s role in the bedrock of our knowledge. Rather that than sanitized drone of the inveterate trained monkey that is your average polly. Also, I’m pretty damn sure he would have been happy to explain himself had anyone asked.
01
Off Topic and I apologise for that, particularly so early in the thread.
I felt very depressed when I read The Age editorial today!
All the careful analysis. All the appeals to reason. All the scientific analysis. All for nought as far as The Age editorial team is concerned.
How does one ever prevail?
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/australia-needs-to-push-ahead-on-climate-change-20130630-2p5cu.html#ixzz2Xmk0lcry
71
If they allowed comments they would see just how many people disagree with this ongoing climate change charade.
At least people are starting to realise that the media under complete control by political groups.
Deception is the new currency.
Oh, did you know that the Boston Bombing injuries were all faked?
132
More importantly Sonny the Boston Bombings happened at exactly the same time as a terror drill was being carried out, a drill whose scenario was bombs planted amongst the crowd it is fascinating how many drills in the past have coincided with live events…..7/7…..9/11….Boston…..
This will surely get me a few red thumbs………so thanks in advance to all who give.
62
I’m not sure if any injuries were faked or not (maybe some were faking to claim insurance?), but after viewing some sites that “report” the wheelchair amputee “has his prosthetics adjusted”, where in another video from another angle they state the EMT’s “hands are trying to cover up the cut point on his prosthetics” – although it looks perfect. I can clearly see all involved are pinching his femoral and other arteries closed which is why there’s minimal blood trail, if any, since the torn flesh has largely already bled out.
I agree Crakar that some things may seem amiss regarding drills which is why I gave you a green thumb. Without being there, how do we know what drill is connected to what incident? It looks largely like a bunch of nut jobs on the net trying to make a name for themselves by apparently “exposing” something and making stuff up as they go along, adding dramatic effect in order to convince people.
Many of these sites also contain exact copies of text as each other, including quotes of some purporting to be qualified EMT’s that, without having been there at the scene, say it was all faked.
I debated for some time over the 9/11 and “Apollo hoax” issue and found “Truthers” trying to convince me with edited video where unedited video of the exact same scene was easily available, amongst many other brainless claims. Maybe it won’t be long before we see 2 different versions of the same videos as per 9/11.
This is my first and last post on this off-topic. Until hard evidence besides simple speculation and added dramatics by 8 year olds in mummy’s attic becomes available, pushing this subject as fact is as reliable as AGW.
34
Olaf, what you saw was not a femoral artery but rather a red piece of material being used as a tourniquet.
This is clearly visible in photos.
21
In other words – “chemtrail science”. Let’s not get into it here.
12
Well i would not call it chemtrail science but if that is your preferred method of dealing with uncomfortable facts then so be it Olaf.
11
Oh, you mean like the moon landing was faked?
Lew Lew, skip to the Lew…..Lew Lew, skip to the Lew…..
Isn’t it just amazing that whenever we are talking around Lewandowsky and his associates that this kind of crap rears its head? Makes one wonder whether some of our regulars are just faking everything.
22
The moon landings has nothing to do with faking a terrorist attack.
Boston was fake. Photographs and video footage of the supposed injuries prove this beyond doubt. Anybody who has medical knowledge or has seen first hand carnage from a bomb can tell you that the injuries and blood stains were a clear fake.
Research it.
25
Sorry Sonny, but you are wrong.
Having been a victim of a bomb blast, I can claim first-hand knowledge. People generally die, or are injured from bomb blasts because of secondary effects.
The primary effects are the blast itself, which creates a pressure wave, and heat.
The blast itself will knock people over, or may throw them through the air, depending on where they are standing or sitting relative to the explosion. This can, and usually does, create internal damage – broken bones, and in my case a collapsed lung. If they are thrown through the air, they will probably get some grazing depending on how and where they land.
The pressure wave will also contain heat, and depending on the type and amount of explosive used, this may cause burns to exposed areas of the skin. Only in rare cases will clothes catch fire, unless some sort of incendiary explosive or additive has been used.
The secondary effects consist of debris from the bomb containment vessel (or bag), and any other loose material that is within the blast radius. The damage caused by debris decreases the further away you are from the blast, and depending on the mass of various pieces of debris, may cause serious injury, or may cause little injury at all.
The majority of people who die from explosions, do so, not because of the blast, but because the secondary affect of the structure they are in collapsing, as a result of the blast.
The Boston bomb was allegedly in a rucksack, and out in the open. It was also allegedly quite a small bomb. Whether or not the bomb was real or not, cannot be judged from photographs unless you do a full forensic study of where the injury occurred, relative to the explosion, what material caused the injury, and where that material was originally in relation to the explosion, etc.
I am not going to comment on the large number of eye witnesses at the scene, because that is a conspiracy theory too far.
But I will add, that this is a site that is dedicated (mostly) to establishing the truth through scientific analysis, and not through personal opinion based on third-hand evidence seen out of context.
73
You gotta love Youtube! :-/
11
RW,
Was this around the same time you had a heckler and Koch under your desk? 🙂
00
Actually Rereke – it is you that is wrong.
The bomb was a fake. The injured were played by crisis actors. The boys labeled as guilty without evidence were patsies.
This is the truth.
http://fauxcapitalist.com/2013/05/10/dr-stan-monteith-a-35-year-orthopedic-surgeon-on-jeff-baumans-leg-amputations-i-believe-that-this-young-man-was-an-actor/
22
Research it.
The evidence is compelling that this was a false flag hoax terrorist attack.
22
“Grandpa Liberty”, Dr. Stan Monteith, a 50-year veteran researcher of alternative information suppressed by the mass media, a radio broadcaster since 1993, and a 35-year orthopedic surgeon who has performed many leg amputations said (starting at 1:06) concerning the Boston Marathon bombings on the May 8, 2013 episode of Radio Liberty (emphasis mine and pause words removed):
“I wanted to just call to your attention the Boston bombing on April 15. What really happened? And I’ll tell you, I don’t know what happened. But I know that they’re lying to us.
And basically, I know that they’re lying to us because of a picture that I saw on that very first day. It was a devastating picture. It was a fellow that had both legs blown off. A young man sitting in a wheelchair, being wheeled, certainly by a gentleman — a cowboy figure — who had a cowboy hat on and he was actually holding a tourniquet on the left leg, which was a below knee amputation, and there below, certainly, the stump of the below knee amputation, was the tibia — a bloody tibia — sitting and certainly, but the interesting thing is why the tourniquet wasn’t applied.
The tourniquet was just sort of underneath the leg, holding it up, it wasn’t stopping any flow of blood because there wasn’t hardly flow of blood on that side. It looked like there was some blood on the right leg which was taken off above the knee. But why would they take somebody who had just had both legs blown off and put him into a wheelchair? He would’ve been in profound shock. And why weren’t the tourniquets on both legs, certainly clamping off the blood supply? And when I saw that, I knew something was wrong.
And then of course as you know, I was a trauma surgeon for many years, I was an orthopedic surgeon. And basically, I looked at that below knee amputation on the left side, and it was a well-healed below knee amputation stump, and certainly, the kind that I would’ve done. I did many, many times, so people could wear prostheses. And there was no tear in the skin, no blood, no nothing at all — just a bloody tibia sticking out of the end — and it looked like it had been attached to this stump. Why would they do something like that?
And then of course, we’re told, this fellow’s name was Jeff Bauman. Some people said he was actually a lieutenant who had lost both legs in Afghanistan. He had a different name, but that gentleman had two above knee amputations, not below knee amputations, and this was definitely a below knee amputation, and I puzzled over this for some time.
Until, until recently, and you can get this on the internet, you can see these pictures for yourself, until basically, Jeff Bauman, 19 days after losing both legs, why, he was let out of the rehab hospital. How could that happen?
It takes a long time after you’ve lost both legs, you know, to get prostheses fitted, to get strong enough, and get the strength in your arms., but 19 days after the attack there in Boston, why this young man, Jeff Bauman, went to the Boston Bruins hockey game, and you can see pictures of him — go up on the internet.
And you can see pictures of him — he’s waving a flag, and he has two above knee amputations. Above knee amputations. Now wait a minute, the Jeff Bauman we saw initially had a below knee amputation and this is an above knee amputation.
I puzzled over that. How could that be, until I talked to a gentleman named Jim Fetzer who will be a guest in our programs and we said he was wearing a prosthesis, they put a prosthesis on him. There are even pictures where the prosthesis accidentally fell off, so they put the prosthesis on to give you the idea that it was a fresh amputation — it wasn’t, it was all contrived.
Look at the pictures, ladies and gentlemen — ask yourself, how could he have possibly have had a BK amputation in the initial pictures and now he has two AK amputations? We’re being lied to at every turn.”
Then, at 34:44:
“Of course I’ve tried to call the Spaulding Rehab Center on three occasions, and of course, I’ve tried to talk to the fellow there in charge of the press, and he always says if you’re from the media, and you certainly have a deadline, give us a call. We keep calling and leaving a number and we never get a call back. And the only reason I can think that that is because the last thing they want is for the media to know that this whole picture, this picture that was implanted in our minds, and there was articles in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal about Jeff Bauman who lost both legs there, this is all fraudulent. And if that is fraudulent, then what else is fraudulent?
And quite frankly, we don’t know, ladies and gentlemen, if they had this whole thing contrived. And I believe that this young man was an actor.“
32
Tell me Sonny, what exactly does any of this bullshit of yours have to do with the “consensus”?
42
Sonny. get help mate. You are being ridiculous.
32
No I’m not being ridiculous.
The criminals who put the plan in motion to stage a drill/fake terrorist attack and present it to the world as of it were real are the ones who are redicilous, or to put it more aptly, criminally insane.
To me it is utterly horrifying that so many people are secretly employed to make such live deceptions a reality. It is difficult to believe that people can act so maliciously – to cause fear and dread in their fellow man.
I ask you – what is more sick and morally repugnant ? To commit an act if terror or to fake an act of terror?
32
Tell us again Sonny, how this is [not] a prosthetic attached to an above the knee amputee?
And you don’t suppose that what the guy in yellow was picking up might have been the clothing and FLESH that was getting tangled in the wheel chair?
And you don’t suppose that the woman looking through her pockets, supposedly for the fake blood, may have been looking for her cellphone?
Have a nice life in your conspiracist sorld Sonny, but don’t bring you crap here, thanks.
22
Thanks for linking to those photos.
These are some of the photos that I showed to a friend of mine who is a surgeon which convinced her that these are fake injuries and fake blood.
Do you know what actual blood pooling looks like?
Apparently not.
30
Bullshit. You do not know any surgeons. Besides, surgeons are not forensic experts.
There is absolutely nothing unusual with the blood, I have seen my fair share.
01
“I’ve seen my fair share of blood”
Then you may want to get your eyes tested.
Blood pools under an injury – in this photo and the more panoramic view there is no evidence of blood pooling or blood splatter.
You may want to ask yourself other questions as well:
Why was this guys moved in a wheelchair by an EMT and a fucking cowboy with an American flag rather than moved in a stretcher? Why is there not asingle drop of blood under or behind the wheelchair?
Why is there an unskilfully applied tourniquet that is falsely claimed to be a femoral artery?
I suggest you listen to the bogus testimony of this cowboy actor and compare to the video and photo evidence.
20
And how would you know whether I know a surgeon or not?
What a stupid assertion!
11
Its clear from the photo that he has moved around… not unusual.
Maybe that’s all they had at hand. Your “fucking cowboy” reference is deplorable.
Ever heard of a tourniquet?…. plus they move along.
Did you not see one of the guys bend down and move the clothing and flesh that was tangling in the wheels? It is your assertion its not an artery, but you have no proof. I have not seen it argued either way, except by you.
I know the smell of bullshit.
03
No he wasn’t, he was holding one of the arteries to stop the blood flow.
Right…. perhaps this person should look closer. It certainly does not look “well healed”…. sure looks like torn flesh to me.
This tourniquet looks pretty tight to me. Plus you can again see that the guy in the cowboy hat is holding one of the arteries to stop blood flow.
Never ceases to amaze me the kind of conspiracist idiots we have in the World…..
03
Rereke, you should well know that being sceptical makes some people uncomfortable and defensive. Best to leave them to their echo chambers.
01
Peter C.
Depression? That’s the “Age”.
If you read the “Age” you are in a very small minority. Stop reading it and certainly stop buying it.
The “Age”s Monday to Friday sales fell by 14.5% year-on-year to 157,480 copies, as at Dec 2012; with readership sitting on a paltry 566,000. Most of them can’t even finish the crossword.
Why would you want to be part of that?
110
If one subtracts the number of people in Adam Bandt’s electorate from Pravda-on-the-Yarra’s total sales, there doesn’t seem to be too many real people – those with real jobs, real economic hardship, concerned about feeding and housing their family, and so on, that is – really buying it, let alone reading it.
Hence I’m not overly concerned about the aging Age of irrelevancy.
60
A great article. This should be used as a basis for an ad, or a youtube video. Title it “We’re the 99.7 percent”. Content would include stating millions will starve, most of them children, women and the poor, life will be miserable, etc. Point out (using those unflatering photos of a bloated Al Gore) that Obama’s climate initiative only helps Obama’s 0.3% donors. End by asking folks to call the White House and support the 99.7%. It’s for the kids.
One must use the same weapons (children, women, race, etc.) the Left uses and with as much emotional “umph” as one can manage.
140
“One must use the same weapons…”
Unfortunately it seems that apathy begins at home. Count the skeptic links on this site and on WUWT, for instance. There’s enough just there alone to organise a powerful, unified lobby group. And Christopher Monckton would make a great CEO. Someone needs to get our brains together before it’s too late.
61
It is too late.
Methinks most AGWers will quietly sail into the night with our money. No repercussions for the lies.
90
I think this helps to point out the problem. The Climate Scientists are just no good at Maths. Climate stuff ya probably but math hmm. So no wonder their getting this stuff so wrong. 97% no 0.3% percent that’s a very long way of the mark don’t you think ? Things need to add up now don’t they. That and they believe in crystal balls or something similar and think that their computers can predict the future. If these Scientists really had such a computer they would be so rich they wouldn’t need to work as Climate Scientist now would they. Its just impossible to predict the future someone should remind them of that. Maybe we should also test there math skills first then their theory’s and models while we’re at it. What do you think ? Just an idea.
111
Climate scientists of the alarmist variety invariably are environmental activists. For example David Karoly is a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists. Thus they forfeit any credibility as unbiased climate scientists.
It would be an interesting exercise to see how many of the infamous 97% are first and foremost environmental activists.
180
Good point, thanks for pointing that out Lew Jones it would be good to find that out. Maybe Jo being a good friend of Mr Christopher Monckton could pass that suggestion on to him to have a look at. It may lower the number of Scientist even more than he already has. Thanks Lew.
60
Jo,
O/T but don’t miss
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/7/1/the-insanity-of-central-planning.html
50
A great critique; if there was any justice in the world it would be this which was published and acclaimed not the devious little work from Cook.
142
A fortioris, de facto, et ad infinitum, Latina mortua est!!
Here is a British schoolboy’s chant from the 1960s:
Latin’s a dead dead language.
As dead as dead can be.
It killed all the Romans.
Now it’s killing me!
But with Google anyone can play the Latin game…
Cook decocta fuerit intra Cook scriptor sucos.
The argument from Consensus just keeps coming back to life no matter how many times it is shot down.
Forget World War Z, how about World War C ?
70
It was popular here in the same period; well, at Melbourne Grammar at least. I learnt French, Latin and later German. I can recall some French, a lot more German, but Latin? Hello Google. And why not?
30
Cook’s anser is coctus, or consensio erit damnatorum.
I saw World War Z it’s pretty good and a lot more believable than CAGW 🙂
50
What percentage of climate research papers published since 1988 (the inception of the IPCC) contain the words ‘model’, I wonder?
70
T’would surely not be larger than 400ppm. w/w at STP.? Maybe the rising frequency of the word ‘model’ in the climate change literature over time, is associated with ( and ignoring Popper and other luminaries for a tic) a belief in impending doom via CAGW. .?
0.3% =/=97% !!!!
20
It is all about the money. No grant money no job, it is that simple. The coterie of climate
criminalsscientists at the core of the mythical consensus use means and methods to maintain control that are worthy of a mob boss or a politician from the windy city. They attack anyone who disagrees, blackball and intimidate those who challenge the orthodoxy and threaten the funding of anyone with the intestinal fortitude to buck the party line. You go along to get along or you be gone, it is that simple. The attitude is one of “to hell with the scientific method and let the devil take all.”The accomplices in the lame stream media are loathe to cover anything that disparages the meme. That is why many people don’t realize that there is peer reviewed literature which disputes the “consensus.”
http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full
In general, scientists tend to support the CAGW hypothesis as long as a financial gun is pointed at their heads.
112
If a CEO of a pharmaceutical company said their new drug was safe because he had taken the medicine himself, would you buy the medicine?
If the CEO further said that he had also given it to 97% of his most loyal employees and that they said it was OK, would his credibility rise? Or would you think he maybe should be in prison?
A self selecting bunch of activists who include their own opinions as part of the alleged ‘data’ being analysed? Strewth. The frightening bit is that anybody pays any serious attention at all to what seeps out from the website that cannot be named.
110
Taking it himself might not be proof of its safety ( you’ve gotta get the dosage right), but there have been cases where treatments have been found effective by from self administering.
Before exposing others too it it would need to go through effective evaluation for safety at least.
20
Apart from all the errors of misclassification I said from the start that the survey was based on a flawed premise.
No scientist investigating a particular area would insert ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ into the abstract unless they had some conclusion. It’s therefore a self selecting criteria and filter.
It’s like basing a survey of dogs on the word ‘fluffy’ and then deciding that 97% of dogs are Poodles.
100
Green groups cool on carbon tax as long as they are kept funded to continue more anti business and anti economic greenmail.
In Australia the Conservation Foundation director says the carbon tax could be dumped – as long as environmental bodies keep their funding.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/01/climate-advocates-carbon-tax
Greenfleecing environuts prove again that their fakes. It’s all about parasiting business and the public purse.
60
What do you all reckon to these MOOC – Massive Open On-Line Courses being offered for free by lots of Universities , with minimal if any ore-requisites for participating ?
Inspired by Monckton’s command of classical analysis I’ve signed up for introduction to Philosophy, beginning in October, just to get a taste.
You might also sample the state of Climate Education with this course on Climate Literacy: Navigating Climate Change Conversations from British Columbia.
This one looks particularly tantalising Critical Thinking for Global Challenges from Edinburgh. Hmm. I wonder how honestly free thinking or directive that one might turn out.
10
Hey, I just jumped straight into the middle of that 10 week Climate Literacy course, took the latest test without even glancing at the course material and got 100% (11 out of 11) straight off. That seems rather suspicious.
11
Hey GreensInCharge,
Which module did you do, and which week?
Your answer seems rather suspicious.
10
Just this week’s, Module ‘s quiz, on impacts.
( Nothing about impacts on an unfortunate white throated needle tail though ).
10
Module 7 that was.
01
Birds don’t vote, who cares! //sarc off.
10
“If a CEO of a pharmaceutical company said their new drug was safe because he had taken the medicine himself, would you buy the medicine?”
Great question Michael that just begs another question.
How much would you trust a politician whom at the height of the CJD, Mad-Cow and we’re all going to die horribly but don’t panic, in the UK fed beefburgers to his daughter to prove how safe it was?
If I further told you that the present UK PM, David Cameron, actually nominated the aforesaid blue-tie, hero as Chair of the Climate Change Committee, I’d bet a dollar to a penny that you’d look upon the Juliar Years as a Ruddy Miracle!
00
Like the desperate search for Trenberth’s “missing heat” my feeling (as an amateur psychologist) is that Cook and Lewandowsky with their silly surveys are trying to convince themselves, it’s their way of coping with profound feelings of looming utter failure.
50
o/t for handjive –
more on Henbury:
handjive –
2 July: PropertyObserver: Patrick Stafford: RM Williams Agricultural Holdings is put into receivership
But the apparent failure of this project has sparked a warning from the Australian Farm Institute, which says the company’s situation raises questions about the government’s “Carbon Farming Initiative”…
The company was founded and is run by former News director Ken Cowley and counts Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman Rod Sims as a shareholder – although Sims was trying to sell his stake as long ago as 2011…
News Corporation put $30 million into RM Williams Agricultural Holdings back in 2009.
Mick Keogh, executive director of the Australian Farming Institute, said it was never clear how the RM Williams project was ever intended to produce carbon credits.
***”We’ve just remained completely confounded about it and why the Commonwealth put millions of dollars into it.”
“We’ve never been able to sort out exactly how the project, under the known rules, was able to make credits.”…
In a blog post on the AFI’s website, Keogh said the receivership should serve as a warning to any company involved with the Carbon Farming Initiative.
He writes that “in the absence of considerably more clarity about carbon prices and future carbon trading rules”, the best option for landholders getting involved in a carbon project is to ensure the project structure transfers risk to the buyer of any carbon offsets generated…
http://www.propertyobserver.com.au/rural/rm-williams-agricultural-holdings-is-put-into-receivership/2013070162878
50
Pat,
Amazing so quick an end to the GREEN vandals belief in this CO2 trade.
1. Government gives RMWAH $9 million to buy Henbury Station.
2. RMWAH puts in $3 million to the $13 million sales price.
3. QANTAS pops up and says it’ll buy 1.5 million carbon credits.
4. Henbury station owners state they don’t even know what CO2 credits are.
5. All the GREEN investors & managers take home huge bucks.
6. RMWAH goes bust (amazing that – do nothing and the money stops).
7. $9 million of our money down the drain.
Never was going to work, and never will. Now the problem is, will Henbury station be reverted back to cattle, or will it retain it’s preservation status and be unproductive land lost forever thanks to Gillard and Combet.
60
Thanks for that comprehensive link, Pat.
Quality Quotes:
Mick Keogh, executive director of the Australian Farming Institute, said it was never clear how the RM Williams project was ever intended to produce carbon credits.
“We’ve just remained completely confounded about it and why the Commonwealth put millions of dollars into it.”
In a blog post on the AFI’s website, Keogh said the receivership should serve as a warning to any company involved with the Carbon Farming Initiative.
.
Government Fraud by any other definition.
10
As we circle the bowl
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Consider the tales of two female prime ministers, one a complete fool and the other one a strong leader who puts her people first above anything else
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/germany-delays-eu-decision-on-lower-co2-emissions-for-cars-a-908176.html
21
winding down:
EU CO2 vols fall for 2nd quarter as banks cut staff
LONDON, July 1 (Reuters Point Carbon) – European traded carbon volumes fell for a second straight quarter, data compiled by Reuters Point Carbon showed, after some banks reduced the size of their trading desks and speculators shied away from placing large bets…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2441815
updated price: 4.24 euros today:
28 June: Bloomberg: Mike Anderson/Ann Koh: World’s Highest Carbon Price Bedevils Australia’s New Leader
World’s Biggest Emitter
Gillard won approval in 2011 for a Clean Energy Act that set a price for the first time on greenhouse gases in Australia, ranked as the world’s biggest emitter per capita among industrialized nations…
European prices, by comparison, fell as much as 2.3 percent today to 4.33 euros ($5.60) on the ICE Futures Europe exchange in London…
Rudd is likely to move forward the plan to link the European and Australian carbon markets, Daniel Rossetto, managing director of Climate Mundial in London, said June 26 in an e-mail…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-28/world-s-highest-carbon-price-bedevils-australia-s-new-leader.html
10
nice try, McCrann:
2 July: Herald Sun: Terry McCrann: Our future is poised between Kevin Rudd and China
If Rudd goes straight to the ETS, the Emissions Trading Scheme, it would still really be a carbon tax. But there’d be less need for it to be immediately abolished. And Abbott might want to plead Rudd had already done that…
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/our-future-is-poised-between-kevin-rudd-and-china/story-fni0d8gi-1226672814959
20
another made piece from Syvret – jo might like to read it all:
2 July: Courier Mail: Paul Syvret: Tony Abbott’s vow to abolish the carbon tax but keep the compensation smacks of populist politics at its finest
So on the one hand you have a carbon price, moving to a full trading system perhaps earlier than planned if speculation about Kevin’s Rudd’s intentions is right, and, on the other, you have direct intervention straight out of the Politburo’s central planning handbook…
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/tony-abbott8217s-vow-to-abolish-the-carbon-tax-but-keep-the-compensation-smacks-of-populist-politics-at-its-finest/story-fnihsr9v-1226672519966
strictly for the Disclosure:
4 June: Courier Mail: Paul Syvret: We all have the power to reduce our electricity bills
Disclosure at end of article:
The author’s wife works in the energy sector.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/we-all-have-the-power-to-reduce-our-electricity-bills/story-fnihsr9v-1226656369212
perhaps Syvret should have disclosed the following as well:
March 2005: Crikey: ABC insider on a curly Brisbane appointment
The Brisbane newsroom has been a fertile recruitment centre for the Beattie government over the past couple of years. Highlights include senior ABC journalist, Anne Delaney, walking out of the ABC to take up the position of senior media adviser to the premier, no less, and from all reports, she became something of a headkicker when her former colleagues wrote nasty things about her new boss…
http://www.crikey.com.au/2005/03/11/abc-insider-on-a-curly-brisbane-appointment/?wpmp_switcher=mobile
20
should have included this (and i am presuming Delaney is still his wife)
2005: Crikey: Hundreds of journalistic couples
Paul Syvret, Bulletin Brisbane correspondent, and Anne Delaney, ABC political reporter turned Beattie spinner…
http://www.crikey.com.au/2005/07/25/hundreds-of-journalistic-couples/
10
Obviously Cook got his 97.1% from the %opin of E.Levels 1, 2 and 3 added together, irrespective of E.Levels 2 and 3 being unquantative in his study. There’s far too much missing to make a case for 97%, including Cook miscategorising many authors.
10
Completely off topic but still in keeping with the intent of declaring things that make your bovine excrement meter explode
http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/26/bloomberg-if-sparklers-are-legal-the-terrorists-will-win/
I only have one question, how stupid can you be? Not only to make such a law but to willing accept it.
52
O-M-G….
Taking the “precautionary principle” to extremes.
20
Well next thing you know you will be arrested if you have a screwdriver in your car because as we all know you need a screwdriver to build a bomb, this may sound stupid but not as stupid as declaring war on a tactic 🙂
42
A few years ago mates of mine were riding motorcycles down the Hume hwy, one had a long duffel bag on the back with a tent in there, and one of the tent poles was poking out of the bag a little.
Well a highway cop pulled them over and when the young cop saw the tent pole at a distance he assumed the worst and pulled his gun on the 3 riders screaming orders at them, with them face down he soon realized his mistake but offered no apology.
When questioned on his actions the cop turned the blame back on the rider and asked why he didn’t say anything, “because I thought you were going to shoot me” was the answer he got, apparently the cop was shaking and out of control when his gun was out.
I wouldn’t have said anything either, one false move and bang, the 3 riders professions were, Teacher, Public service and Carpenter, not everyone who rides a Harley is a 1%er.
30
A mate was driving my car down the Hume a few years ago and was pulled over by a cops he did not have his P Plates on so got a fine, the cop then check my car for raod worthiness. There was a problem apparently it needed new “king pins” when my mate (motor mechanic) pointed out that Ford do not make cars with said king pins the cop got a bit upset. He then searched the car for a particular product which he could not find (plenty of hiding spots in an XB falcon) he got really upset and defected the car. I had to get it towed back to Geelong simply because the cop made himself look like a fool.
11
Yep it’s best to shut up with most cops, “Smile and wave boys, smile and wave”.
King pin’s in an XB, classic. 🙂
40
And what exactly is wrong with 1%ers? Best people I have ever met. Trustworthy, loyal – teachers, tradesmen, business owners. You listen too much to the MSM……
10
Backslider you have taken it out of context, I was referring to the police attitude to harley riders and 1%ers.
Don’t get me started on the stupid attitude I copped from people when I rode an FXR, which I brought from a local club member.
I’ve got some good photos of it, can’t work out how to post them though?
10
Bloomberg is an idiot.
00
Obama plans to power Africa, how will he do this i hear you ask, well he could spend 7 Billion of tax payers money on a new developing gas/coal/oil reserves. He cold spent 7 Billion on Hydro were applicable he could even piss it away on solar and wind but no he wants to waste 7 Billion on soccer balls……….seriously all you trolls have a read of this crap and tell me this is a good idea whilst keeping a straight face.
how could anyone be so stupid.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-plans-power-africa-soccer-balls_738193.html
41
Hi Crakar,
I can’t believe this is real, but apparently it is according to the news broadcasts.
These Socket Balls cost $100 each, plus freight and distribution, and a Socket Ball State Department set up, the $7 billion will distribute about 50 million balls. (You can buy retail, a wind up torch for $10)
With the average wage of poor worker, being about $1.25 a day, this ball will represent 4 months income. How in the world are they going to afford portable LED lights to plug in to these after they’ve been kicked around all day??
This is definitely a sample of Christine Milne’s brain power at work.
I still reckon it has to be a joke of some kind, surely?
20
Dave,
Unfortunately it is no joke this is now what passes for good government these days.
To my red thumbed fetish friend i hope you are an American tax payer paying for those stupid soccer balls in Africa rather than getting your crumbling roads and bridges fixed.
31
It takes a lot of balls to plan a balls up on this scale, if the ball was a replica of Obummers head I could run a small town on the batteries I’d generate alone!
40
Oh wow!…. after the kids have kicked the ball around all day (because that’s all they have to do because there is no education system) mom and dad can plug in the cellphones THAT THEY DON’T HAVE!!!!
30
Backslider, my boss is part owner of a remote lodge in Lesotho, Africa. The local villagers have no running water or power. The weekly wage is about $12 and around 40% of the adult population have HIV. Severe poverty conditions by any yardstick.
Recently, a telco put in a mobile tower for the lodge. Within a month nearly all adults owned a mobile.
10
Another nutjob idea from the green loons this one will use 2.5 mile square (4Km) tempered glass with a tower 2600 feet high and for all this you get …………..200MW………yep thats it and you wont get 200MW 24/7 of course how much of this crap do we need to endure?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/update-on-enviromissions-arizona-solar-tower-project/#comment-84376
21
OT. . .
130 years of global temperature data, converted to music.
http://io9.com/130-years-of-global-temperature-data-converted-to-musi-634152387
By using global temperature data collected since 1880 and charting it to music, University of Minnesota undergrad Daniel Crawford has composed a unique cello piece he calls “A Song of Our Warming Planet.”
What a crock of shit.
10
I was waiting for him to jump up and switch to a violin for a better dramatic effect.
Poor playing, very little imagination…. but oh, so touchy feely……
10
Here’s a good message with nice music thanks to Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKZ4RolQxec
also who could forget http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaUQQMv80Oo and the clown prince http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhpNJAKq7dE&list=PL1A453380DB6DBFF7
10
Only 0.3% consensus.
Monckton proves Cook et al are bullshltters.
But what is really going on is they are all stark raving mad as per follows:
1. Obama gives $7 billion in Socket Balls.
2. Arizona solar tower project?
3. “A Song of Our Warming Planet.” for sleepy CAGW nutjobs.
4. Desalination plant in Queensland.
5. Christine Milne says 90% power supply by renewables in 2030.
6. Carbon farming viable?
Millions more from this loopy group of bird killing and socket ball players & lovers.
THEY are all stark raving green lunatics.
10
Very interesting story today regarding CO2 capture, feeding back into a algae growth process to produce bio fuels – ie diesel. Warmists / Greenies will definitely be in conflict on this one..
Public company announcement:
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20130702/pdf/42gthnx44tsjh9.pdf
excerpt:
In what is understood to be a world first, Algae.Tec (ASX: AEB, OTCQX: ALGXY) has signed a deal with Australia’s largest power company to site an algae carbon capture and biofuels production facility alongside a 2640MW coal-fired power station near Sydney.
Macquarie Generation, one of the largest power companies in the world and owned by the New South Wales Government, has signed an agreement to site the Algae.Tec facility next to the Bayswater coal-fired power station in the Hunter Valley NSW, and feed waste carbion dioxide into the enclosed algae growth system.
Company website:
http://www.algae-tec.com/
20
Glenn,
This one is about the only feasible solution to the CO2 emissions.
1. CO2 in, with sunlight, and biofuels out.
2. Saves use of arable land for biofuel production.
3. Will allow fossil fuels to produce cheap power again for a long time.
4. Greens will hate this deal with Bayswater.
5. Greens will pronounce it as a non-renewable Bio-fuel?
6. Greens will want windmills as collateral.
7. This is not wave, wind, or solar power – it is fossil fuel CO2 emission reduction.
8. The power stations will all have this technology soon.
9. It is cheap for power stations compared to windmill, solar and wave power.
Just my opinion.
00
hopefully this will mean less CAGW nonsense from ANU:
2 July: ABC: Anna Morozov: ANU to cut 230 jobs
The ANU is set to lose $51 million in funding over the next two years as the Federal Government diverts money to pay for its Gonski education reforms
To deal with the cuts, the ANU has announced an early retirement scheme, an overhaul of administration, increased parking fees, a student recruitment drive and energy savings.
The early retirement scheme aims to cut 230 professional positions. There are more than 550 eligible professional staff aged 55 years and over…
An energy reduction scheme will be rolled-out and there will be changes to how travel, computers, software, phones, cars and printing are purchased and managed…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-02/anu-moves-to-cut-jobs/4794394
10
Anyone have any thoughts on stopping the next scam before it starts?
The credibility of scientists is now negative (thanks Michael). I suspect the next scam will be worse than AGW.
10
You mean like that all pervasive Agenda 21 Sustainability thing ?
That’s much worse because it’s more a way of thinking, of which CAGW was just a particular manifestation. If you thought CAGW was hard to falsify, just what is the null hypothesis for Agenda 21 ?
10
There’s been one or two candidates floated around here before. The one I remember was Biodiversity. They’ll call it Catastrophic anthropogenic species extinction, or Animal Armageddon, or something like that.
Must be easy to set records when they’ve only barely begun counting all the critters.
10
How can we take whatever Monckton says with any confidence?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTY3FnsFZ7Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpF48b6Lsbo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3giRaGNTMA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRCyctTvuCo
03
Is that the best you can do?
It is not even good propaganda. Just a whole lot of quick clips taken out of context, and reliant on people not really understanding how the world actually works.
For example, at one point, the narrative places reliance on Margaret Thatcher’s biography regarding who advised her on climate change. The assumption here is that only one person advised her on any matter. Anybody who has worked in politics or big business knows that “the boss” never takes advice from a single person, on any subject.
These five video’s are just an exercise in demonstrating the naivety of the producers.
20
Yes you are right! It’s not good propaganda, because as you can see it is more or less coming straight out of the mouth of Monckton! ‘regarding who advised her on climate change’ and it wasn’t Monckton! As is often claimed! These five video’s are just an exercise in demonstrating economies of the truth Monckton uses to put his spin on the evidence of AGW/climate change.
03
The answer is not to accept anything anyone tells you, whether it’s Al Gore, Lord Monckton, Robert Carter, John Cook, the Met Office or anyone else.
Do some researching of your own, ask yourself if what you’re being told seems plausible, and – importantly – what other explanations there may be for whatever is being discussed.
Buy some good books on meteorology, and obtain some of the published research papers which you think might be interesting.
Also look at historical records, and ask yourself if anything’s really changed that much. Sit and think, don’t rely on the internet. Make up your own mind, be constructively cynical, and trust no-one.
20
“How can we take whatever Monckton says with any confidence?”
So you can dispute the data provided in the subject report? Do tell….
Or is your post just a drive by Ad Hom?
30
‘So you can dispute the data provided in the subject report?’ well I dispute anything that Monckton claims! Going on his past claims.
00
Are you able to refute what Monckton has to say about the Cook study or not?
Yeah, I though not……..
00
Blackadderthe4th: I’d like to add a postscript and suggestion to my earlier comment.
Read Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, and Robert M. Carter’s ‘Climate: The Counter Consensus’.
Which is the propaganda publication, and which is scientific, properly referenced, and leads you to other avenues of exploration?
20
‘and Robert M. Carter’s ‘Climate: The Counter Consensus’’ I assume you mean this Bob Carter?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43CGvmOSD0M
03
Look up “Confirmation bias” it’s the basis of AGW thinking.
20
blackadderthe4th
I watched your video and then went back and reviewed his book
“Climate: The Counter Consensus’’. I did not find the spot where he is purported to have drawn a line between the 1998 peak and the next lowest point to prove global cooling. Did you make that up?
Even so there has been no hotter peak than 1998, according to your temperature graph. That must mean something.
20
‘I did not find the spot where he is purported to have drawn a line between the 1998 peak and the next lowest point to prove global cooling’, well is he likely to say ‘this is how I did it’? I think not, but we can conclude certain assumptions when presented with claims, that do not match the long term data!
How AGW deniers see climate change and how realists see it!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47
01
Blackadderthe4th: you end your comment with ‘I assume you mean this Bob Carter?’, and send yet another video link. Don’t be absurd.
You haven’t presented any arguments of your own which give any indication of your own thoughts on the matter. If Monckton is wrong regarding Cook’s paper, set your arguments out in your own words.
Stop playing games.
10
‘set your arguments out in your own words’ and what are yours? Without the aid of Monckton?
02
‘Look up “Confirmation bias”’. well I can assume you suffer from that!
04
Heard this crap on the radio this morning and just had to share. Australia has taken Japan to the international criminal court due to its whaling program apparently the Japanese whaling program is a “Parody of science driven by commercial interests”.
The irony is Japan could take us to court due to our AGW policies and cite the exact same reasons.
32
[…] scientists agree human CO2 emmisions are the primary culprite behind Catastrophic Climate Change http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-a-0-3-consensus-not-97/ http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html It is a lie […]
00
[…] Nova writes: The so called “experts” (say like Stephan Lewandowsky, and John Cook) either don’t understand what drives skeptics, or they know but do their best “not to […]
00
[…] believe human CO2 emissions from fossil fuel are the primary culprit behind Climate Change. http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-a-0-3-consensus-not-97/ Not only that Climate Change Theory has been proven false by reality. Co2 has gone up but […]
00
[…] Bullshit That’s a 0.3% consensus, not 97% by Joanne […]
00