New study says going on about “moral duty” will convince the skeptics (Sure, load on the guilt trip)
Last weekend a Reuters IPSOS survey found that if you ask the right questions, a majority of Americans see climate change as a moral obligation. The brains trust inferred from this that the climate propaganda groups ought to load up on discussing values to convince conservatives as if that might be the magic key.
“The moral imperative is the way to reach out to conservatives,” said Rev. Mitch Hescox, president of the Evangelic Environmental Network, a large evangelical organization that advocates for action on climate change. “Talking in terms of values is the only way forward if we are to bring our fellow Republicans along.”
UPDATE: Results of the online poll 2,412
Thanks to Pat for finding the survey. How the full results change the picture. Half the population are skeptics. And most people distrust experts, politicians, and even UN scientists.
| Q6. Which of the following people, if any, do you think can speak with authority
about global warming? |
||
| UN scientists | 43% | |
| Bill Nye (the Science Guy) | 31% | |
| Al Gore | 18% | |
| President Obama | 18% | |
| Neil deGrasse Tyson | 13% | |
| Pope Francis | 10% | |
| Democratic leaders in Congress | 10% | |
| Republican leaders in Congress | 9% | |
| Senator James Inhofe | 4% | |
| None of these | 31% | |
The public don’t trust anyone much. When asked “Which of the following people do you think can speak with authority about global warming?” Politicians from both sides rated very low: Democrat leaders, 10%; Republican leaders , 9%. But look out: Pope Francis scored the same, 10%. The public trust the Pope as much as the average politician.
But wait, here’s the real shocker: UN Scientists 43%. How devastating! 57% of people don’t think UN scientists speak with authority on climate change. Wow.
More than half the population are skeptical. Reuters didn’t report that 52% — of all respondents think climate change is mostly natural or are unsure. 47% think that human activity is mostly to blame.
Nor did they say that 46% didn’t think the Pope should even talk about climate change, and 49% think he should stay out of politics.
If these results are accurate (it’s only an online survey) it shows those pushing man-made global warming have pushed too hard. They have burnt through a lot of the credibility of the UN and “scientists”. Pushing the meme through the Pope isn’t going to help.
Sure I say, let’s talk about “values”– bring it on.
Warming kills less people than cooling. How about our moral obligation to help people dying of cold, or the 1.3 billion people without electricity? In Niger, Africa, 17 million people use less electricity than Dubbo, NSW, a town of 40,000. Children in poverty are suffering from lung damage now. The Greens priority is to spend billions to stop them dying in 2100 from seas rising at 1mm a year. How many people does expensive electricity kill? (How many birds does it fry?) Biofuels led to nearly 200,000 estimated deaths in 2010. Let’s talk about feeding corn to cars instead of starving children?
There are lots of ways the climate religion hurts us. Bad climate predictions kill people when authorities plan for “no snow” and run out of salt, or when they hold back floodwater in dams thinking that the rains won’t come. Researching pointless things means some people die who could have been saved. Fake markets feeds corruption, farmers die, rivers run dry and some are left homeless.
As I’ve said before the opportunity cost is the killer:
The real price is often invisible. It’s all the things we won’t do that we could have: $3.4 billion dollars spent on carbon sequestration is not just “money”, it’s 46 million people who didn’t get cured of blindness and another 100 million who won’t get clean water — some of whom will die from cholera or dysentery.
The highest moral imperative is to speak the truth about what drives our climate, to have free debate, open science, and honest disclosure of the uncertainties.
Does anyone think world leaders have no moral obligations? Anyone?
The Rev. Mitch Hescox appears to think the “moral” message (ie. guilt trip) would be something to try. Where has he been for the last 3 decades?
The results were clear that approaching the issue of climate change from a moral standpoint could be more effective in swaying opinion, and this approach could even help unlock the endless debate in the United States. Those invested in fossil fuels have been resistant to those that seek to reduce carbon emissions in the United States, much to the disappointment and alarm of climate scientists in both the United States and around the world.
The extended guilt trip won’t make any difference to skeptics. We’ve heard it all before. What we want is honest debate and real evidence.
As far as the survey went, who knows what the questions were, as Reuters don’t link to the questions or results. But 2,827 2,412 Americans were asked some things in February about the climate (See the update above). We know people are quite good at guessing what the surveyors want them to say and two thirds earned a jelly-bean that day.
Two-thirds of respondents (66 percent) said that world leaders are morally obligated to take action to reduce CO2 emissions. And 72 percent said they were “personally morally obligated” to do what they can in their daily lives to reduce emissions.
The Daily Science Journal repeats the results, but doesn’t have a link to the questions either. Not so “scientific” then?
Does anyone think world leaders have no moral obligations? Anyone?
So 30% of people think world leaders are morally free to pour out as much CO2 as they want? That’s a fairly assertive skeptical statement.
POST NOTE: How bad are these questions?
Question 10 asked Has the Pope’s views on climate change impacted you in any of the following ways? Paradoxically, 47% said “No” that the Pope’s views have “not had an impact on my own views.” (It’s a double negative which may explain the paradox). When further prompted “I am now less skeptical of the scientific arguments about the existence of climate change”, fully 70% said “No”. So if half changed their minds, but 70% are not “less skeptical”, then the Pope made some people more skeptical. We’re at the overdone point and when even The Pope tells us to worry about the climate –– the punters know it’s junk-science.
The survey has the usual ambiguous loaded questions about “climate change” and “global warming”. Does that mean man-made climate change? Yes, if you are a UN employee; No, if you read a dictionary. Technically, I believe climate change is real (does anyone deny ice ages?) Any question with meaningless terms is not worth asking (unless you want a PR headline of the “right” kind).
The Last Word: Why didn’t Reuters give us the interesting bits in the press release?
Is Reuters a news service or a political advocacy group? These results were run through the half-truth sieve and only the parts that fitted the “story” were written up.
Here a result, below, that bundles people who “strongly agree” with people who “somewhat agree” and on a question that has a “most” in it. Is a somewhat-most, more than half, or less? The vagueness is then piled into a loaded sentence which includes a statement that was never in the question about mythical generic scientists saying it drives climate change.
Sixty-four percent of those polled agreed with the pope that human activities are largely responsible for the rising CO2 levels that scientists say drive climate change.
Readers of Reuters would not come away knowing half the population are skeptics, that 90% don’t think the Pope has any authority to speak on climate change, or that most of the public don’t even believe UN scientists do either.
It doesn’t matter what the polls say. The world dominance of the US and Europe is ending. China and India and SE Asia and the old USSR and South America and Africa are not going to listen. The 20% of the population in the old first world countries can pay all the taxes and build all the windmills they like. The so called developing countries are right. There is no problem. It was always a politically motivated and money driven fantasy.
A hundred years from now the problem will not be global warming but the fact that all the oil is gone. Then you would wish those windmills were actually worth the cost. Useless things.
443
I have noticed that the further people are, geographically, from Brussels and New York, the less credence they give to this meme.
It is, and always has been, on permanent life support, which is why we are constantly bombarded with propaganda. If the media, and the political script writers, and the activist NGO’s, took a month off to go sailing, the whole scheme would collapse before they returned to port.
It is, and always has been, a huge Ponzi scheme. The perpetrators just hoped, and still hope, that it is too big to fail. The Russians and Chinese aren’t falling for it.
340
RW: how do you explain FlimFlam and co?
20
There are a lot of fellow travellers created by publicity.
What becomes fashionable in Europe, and the US, tends to become fashionable in the Antipodes about six months later. And this is not just with clothes and accessories, it also applies to social memes as well.
Europeans in particular, are encouraged to go along with the “majority”, for the greater good. The population density is one factor, as is a social legacy of doing what the establishment authorities demand. So when somebody in the UN tells people that they are responsible for summers being to hot, and winters being to severe, they collectively, if tentatively, accept the blame, and do whatever is demanded as penance. Generations of European Serfdom is a hard legacy to overcome.
A lot of Australians and New Zealanders still have connections with, “the old country”, and England is often the first destination for the vast majority of people departing on their “OE”. So it is hardly surprising that we tend to look to Europe as a source of information, and a guide.
But Australians and New Zealanders have a much more independent spirit, and are much more entrepreneurial, when it comes to jumping on band-wagons, for fun and profit.
If an Australian, or a New Zealander, happened to be in the right place, when this particular meme came out of Europe and hit the international press, and if they were aware of how much money, status, and fame, could be made (using the Ozone scare, as a model), then why wouldn’t they get stuck in as well? After all, if everybody else is jumping on the gravy train, who wants to be left on the platform?
Anybody who could claim or construct a link to “the biggest moral dilemma of our age”, stood to make a lot more money than just their salary. Perhaps even enough to buy a large house, overlooking the sea, somewhere.
100
Rereke, they did go sailing . . and got stuck in the ice, of course.
If you want to send them off again, that’s fine with me but please ensure there’s some adult supervision this time.
30
As soon as they move the argument to “marlas’ it mores squarely into the political/touchy-feely sphere.
To me its smacks of inability to reason with logic and facts, and moves it squarely into the “You dont love me!!!!!!!!!” last gasp negotiating tactic, with lots of tears and drama…
It should be seen as a desperate grasp at trying to influence mentally diminished dimwits, with pure emotional drivel.
We win….
130
I need more ocffee….“marlas’ should read “morals”….
🙂
90
Oh. I thought Marlas may have been an up-market bar or resort we were all going to. 🙁
40
I don’t have any morals.
Perhaps I should check to see if I have any marlas, that I could use as a replacement?
30
Ocffee at marlas sounds good….
20
Are you offering … ?
20
It’s bring your own marlas for ocffee … … …
You’ll have to include me out, as I lack marlas (or those other things) as well … … … … …
10
Moral duty?
Just talked to a Dutch and tied to get something about Shell working with the nazis. Avoidance complete. Asked him about obamer and his moral challenge. Full of praise. Then after a little while a withdrawal after pointing out debt. Said about liberty and doing something about it he said he was too old.
Is this really the moral excuse?
I believe not because of me. I do this for my boy. What I got is hatred and defence.
Morality is for sale and means nothing to most people. Nazis killed people and slept at nights. If you believe that humanity has morality you barking.
This applies to climate scientists, new age nazis.
20
You are right.
A lot of people accuse the Green movement of being communist. But the original green political movement were actually the Hitler Youth, who were National Socialist.
Introducing the Communist meme is just a red herring (to mix colour metaphors) to divert attention away from that fact.
I have now invoked Godwin, which is another meme that attempts to divert people away from the facts.
20
Right up there with the word “conspiracy”, used to divert attention.
01
it’s an ONLINE poll of 2,414 Americans, not the 2,827 as Reuters reported. done 13-24 Feb not 13-25 Feb as Reuters reported – the results are the same as you noted in the thread.
did Reuters slightly change the details to make it more difficult to look up the data?
3 pages: PDF: IPSOS Poll Conducted for Reuters
Climate Change 24 Feb 2015
These are findings from an Ipsos poll conducted for Thomson Reuters from February 13-24, 2015. For the survey, a sample of 2,412 Americans 18+ were interviewed online. The precision of the Reuters/Ipsos online polls is measured using a credibility interval. In this case, the poll has a credibility interval of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points.
Q6. Which of the following people, if any, do you think can speak with authority about global warming?
UN Scientists, Bill Nye, Al Gore, Obama, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Pope Francis, Dem leaders Congress, Republican leaders Congress, James Inhofe
None of these 31%.
Q7. Are world leaders morally obligated to reduce CO2 emissions?
66% yes.
Q8. Are you personally morally obligated to do what you can to reduce CO2 emissions?
72% yes.
http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=14298
the results of this one was so predictible given the 24/7 anti-Putin propaganda:
Q4. Would you say your opinion is favorable or unfavorable towards each of the following people?
Pope Francis, Dalai Lama, Cameron, Merkel, Hollande, Ban Ki-Moon, Putin
Pope Francis least “totally unfavourable” with 23%
Vladmir Putin most “totally unfavourable” with 76%
WHAT A MEANINGFUL ONLINE POLL, IF INDEED IT EVER HAPPENED AT ALL.
270
Pat, thank you. That is most helpful, and how interesting. I shall update the post.
Reuters didn’t report that slightly more than half – 52% — of all respondents think Climate change is mostly natural or are unsure. 47% think that human activity is mostly to blame. Nor did they say that 47% didn’t think the pope should talk about climate change.
181
Why would they contaminate their poisonous rhetoric with facts?
Abe
131
Q6 shows 187%, am I reading it wrong?
07
If 31% of people said none of the above then only 69% actually voted for the rest and 42% of that 69% said UN which I think may mean 60% said yes to UN?
07
Scary but if 31% voted none of the above on Q6 then only 43% of that 69% voted for UN which is only 30% of everyone surveyed. :/
14
Michael Whitmore,
And if 11,875 scientists surveyed opposed man-made climate change and 69 scientists surveyed supported man-made climate change then alarmists would turn that into a 97% consensus supporting man-made climate change… oh wait, you did.
91
James are you talking about this paper: “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature”
11,944 climate abstracts from 1991-2011 matching the topics global climate change or global warming. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article)
Because if it is this paper, it clearly states out of 4013 papers that held a position on “man made global warming” 97.1% agreed it was happening.
19
Michael Whittmore,
Please don’t try to revive a dead horse. That paper is wrong on so many levels it should be the focus of a high school course on how not to do a survey.
Abe
71
Why don’t you point out something you “feel” is wrong with it and I will see if its true?
03
James is, of course, not referring to that paper at all, even though his figures are wrong.
He is referring to Doran 2009 where 10,257 surveys were sent out where 3146 responded and 79 of those responses were cherry picked to reach their conclusion.
30
Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? 82% of all 3146 individuals in the Doran 2009 survey said yes to this, is this what you are talking about?
04
I didn’t think the fact that human activity has an impact on mean global temperatures was in dispute. I know many people, including sceptics who would tick yes to that question.
What the question doesn’t address are what peoples view of the impacts of any potential temperature rise may have, be it net beneficial, virtually no impact or catastrophic, nor does it provide any response to be able to ascertain as to what these people think the proportion of mad made vs natural warming occurs. The question mentions ‘significant’ but doesn’t quantify what significant is, which means the question is subjective.
Besides, the 97% figure isn’t truly relevant as we don’t do science by counting the number of raised hands. The reality is the figure is used as a PR tool for alarmists.
00
Its not in dispute and that is what this paper explains. The definition of significant is “sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy” and that is what the individuals in the survey would have been expected to think when addressing the question.
03
That is very interesting.
The Scientific and Mathematical definition of significant is,”conveying information about the value of a quantity”, as in significant digits.
In Sociology and History, “Significant” means “Important, notable, consequential”, to subsequent events or outcomes.
In Statistics, “Significant”, means “Having a low probability of occurrence, if the null hypothesis is true”.
Given Michael’s definition, he appears to be approaching this discussion from a sociological point of view. Whereas many of us are approaching this from a Physics or Statistics perspective.
It is not correct, and is unscientific, to assume that all the individuals in the survey would have used the same definition of a phrase, when addressing the question.
That is why surveys can never be trusted. They do not give you facts. They only give you opinions, based on the respondents’ personal interpretation of the question.
00
Its a very simple straight forward standard question,”Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” Its not about “significant digits” or “Having a low probability” that simple absurd.
One thing I do have to admit is it is a broad statement. I would have liked it to say “Do you think human induced CO2 is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures”
02
You miss my point, Michael.
In the way the question is phrased, it is asking for opinion, or belief. The answer is not quantifiable, other than by a counting of hands, as Heywood previously pointed out.
Beliefs are often based on what people have heard or learnt previously, or answers that they have given to similar questions in the past. Asking people very similar questions, and eliciting repetitive answers, reinforces conviction in the answers given, and so the question, and the answer, become self-reinforcing and self-perpetuating.
It is a classic propaganda and indoctrination technique used in social engineering, and in other less genteel occupations.
The word “significant” is used, but that term is entirely undefined and unquantified. What is significant to one, may be of no consequence to another. The word is meaningless except for implying some level of importance that is also not quantifiable, and usually unwarranted.
A thousand people, when asked this question, will produce a thousand, different, unquantified, answers. The researcher can then interpret those answers as they see fit, and then draw the conclusion they expected to reach, in the first place.
10
The paper is not about a consensus on the amount of warming attributed to human activities, its a more simple yes or no question to see if the individual feels humans are contributing to global warming. The phrase “significant contributing factor” strengths the consensus position to weed out skeptics and to push for a more true consensus.
01
A bit mathematically challenged, you are.
The questions are independent.
All that answer to Question 6 means, is that 31% of the respondents declined to choose one of the people on the list.
It in no way invalidates or influences other answers they gave to other questions.
110
The survey should not have allowed people who choose “none of the above” to pick others and if they were given the option to pick “none of the above” and others, it should still be implied that most of the 31% did not pick any other. My point is from the numbers, 31% did not vote on any of them and of the 69% that did vote, 60% choose UN. The Math for my point is fine.
13
You have a good point. I was assuming that those people who voted “none of the above”, would have been honest enough to not also cast other votes, as well. But as you point out, they could have, at an extreme, voted “none or the above”, and still have voted for everyone on the list as well. How would we know?
If people can vote for any combination they fancied, then how come only 43% bothered clicking on the UN? That is supposed to be the gold standard, is it not?
Thank you, you have pointed out that the survey was a total crock, with little or no controls. So my following comments still stand.
20
And a final point, survey questions must stand on their own. It is not valid to imply, or manipulate the responses to a question, based on an implication of what respondents may have selected in answer to another question. That is creative accounting, and is one of the hallmarks of both climate science and epidemiology. I suggest you read, “The Epidemiologists, Have They Got Scares For You”, by John Brignell.
30
In other words, and for the avoidance of all doubt: The poll is total rubbish, and it is staged to produce whatever conclusions the authors wish to draw. It is a rigour-free zone.
120
Much like MW’s head it seems.
What is it with the name “Michael” on this blog? Could this be another incarnation of Mr Fab?
50
I don’t think so. This is like Mr Fab, without the YouTube links.
20
I reckon you are confusing Mr Fab (aka Michael, Michael the Realist, Holier-than-though-Micheal etc.)with BlackAdder4th. Now BA4th was the YouTube king! The one BBC documentary was his evidence for everything.
30
You reckon right.
20
Thanks Pat,
Some of the questions are quite difficult!
eg:Q10. Has the Pope’s views on climate change impacted you in any of the following ways?
Yes No
1. The Pope’s views have not had an impact on my own views about climate change. Y53% N47%
2. I now believe that climate change is real. Y45% N55%3.
3. I am now less skeptical of the scientific arguments about the existence of climate change. Y30% N70%
4. I am now less skeptical of the scientific arguments about the causes of climate change. Y28% N72%
The format is not ideal.
For myself the answers are:
1. Yes, ( ie Popes views have not altered my view).
2. No, I never believed anything, least that climate change is real.
3. No, I an not less skeptical. I have been sceptical about scientific arguments for a long time.
4. No, I am just as sceptical as I was before.
The answers to question 3 and 4 seem clear ie 70-72% sceptical. However the answers to question 1. seem confused. Q2 seems to suppose an answer from Q1. However the answers do not accord with the answers to Q3 and Q4, which suggests that people have not understood the question. And why would they given the awkward formatting.
30
When you start having to involve psychologists to frame questions so that the correct answers are given in surveys, you’ clearly lost the technical argument or at least are struggling mightily to avoid it. A drunk leaning on a lamppost for support.
221
With a bottle of Kool-Aid in their hand. 😉
110
The polar bears are ok. Frogs are still croaking. It must be time to bring soft squelchy feelings into the climate thingumy. The latest effort on The Conversation has surpassed moral duty imperatives – Understanding grief can help us adapt to climate change.
151
What ‘grief’ is Celeste addressing? Perhaps it is the sick feeling that warmists get when they see snow on the beach in Los Angelos. Some time ago the Flim Flam man and his merry band of self-obsessed rent-seekers were lamenting the pain and anguish when nobody takes them seriously.
110
She’s referring to her narcissistic sense of loss — the kind of thing you would get if you took a toy duck away from a five-year-old.
Remember Nicole Thornton and her ‘climate depression’?
These people are desperate to shore up their egos by appearing as heroes in a planetary drama, so when they don’t get what they want, their immature egos break down.
70
Anybody available to scrape a violin in lament for her? Sigh.
50
“That’s when I lost hope that we would survive as a species
Pity Tom Lehrer didn’t write a song about when we evolve into the next version of the human species?
30
I had a similar thought the other day G in E. Someone, somewhere, mentioned “Poisoning Pigeons in the Park” (maybe on WUWT) and I can’t get various Tom Lehrer offerings out of my head. I should think he could compose some very succinct stuff on MMGW.
10
oops. where i typed “totaly unfavourable”, it should have been “total unfavourable”.
70
If one can convince a majority that emitting CO2 is ‘a sin’, then that opens to the door to a ‘sin tax’, a la alcohol and tobacco.
160
As twisted as it was ,at least with “Old School” puritanism it was only the acts of enjoying and creating life that were considered sinful , under the new puritanism not only these but the very building block of life itself is considered to be sinful . In Their green utopia the body count from green power , green fuel and green lifestyle that They want to inflict on the masses isn’t considered an unfortunate side effect but a desired outcome .
140
It’s a round-about way to tax humanity for breathing.
Abe
150
“We are all sinful” seeing as how we all breathe! This must be the original sin in the MMGW religion.
60
Why? Think of all the plants we’re feeding. Without animals—which includes people and their SUVs—to convert their Oxygen emissions to CO2, they’d starve!!
50
You forget the volcanos. They will save the plants. There were here before animals, and plants thrived.
30
I suppose I should have added the sarc tag! I don’t feel in the least bit guilty for living. Added to which, unlike the majority of soy latte coffee sipping greenie urbanites, I have actually planted hundreds of trees and endeavour to live as non polluting a life as is compatible with a healthy life. I resent all the townies who drive past our place throwing out bottles, cans, plastic bags, etc.
30
Hey Annie, don’t be knocking the latte sippers, apparently here in Oz we have just had bumper retail sector results for the economy, boosted they claim, by higher than usual cafe patronage. 🙂 No kidding.
30
And people plead poverty? We rarely have a coffee out…a packet of decent coffee costs no more than a couple of cups in a coffee shop and I can make it how I really like it in a decent sized mug. I can’t believe how much some people spend in coffee shops…good luck to them supporting the economy! 🙂
20
All Rev Mitch has to do is point us to the past era, long or short, when climate was stable and easier on humans.
He might want to skip the 1970s if he wants to avoid cataclysms like global cooling scares, lethal drought in Africa and mega-cyclones in the Pacific.
The thirties are out for everywhere, especially if you are living near any large waterways in China, but also if you don’t like breathing dust in the US.
The 1890s monsoon failures in Asia, and associated Killer Heat of 1896 and Fed Drought in Oz, make that decade a no-no. And the fact that Cyclone Mahina in 1899 was only separated by weeks from the Great Blizzard which reached down to Cuba is just to scary. So no 1890s.
But here I am pre-empting Mitch. Of course he must have some nice climate in mind for us. Over to you Mitch. Name the decade or the century we need to emulate. One big tip, however…
Do not, under any circumstances, tax and regulate us back to 1878. Better to just dial in something easier on people…like 2015.
140
Controlling/influencing the weather/climate can be traced to the roots of all religions. I suppose we should be thankful they’re no longer throwing virgins into volcanos.
110
They’d be hard put to find any these days!
70
Virgins or volcanoes?
40
Obvious answer to that, surely?! 🙁
40
Please don’t call me Shirley!
10
I knew a virgin, once.
10
When Virginia came to town, they called her Virgin for short, but not for long!
00
How about the moral principle of “duty of care” in administering treatment?
One aspect is that most countries will be worse off pursuing policies than doing nothing. I a bit like a doctor administering a treatment expecting the patient to be worse off than having done nothing.
http://manicbeancounter.com/2014/02/23/why-climate-change-mitigation-policies-will-always-fail/
110
When it comes to global warming, the attitude of the so-called organised churches is beyond any common decency, never mind Christian charity.
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/tell-me-why/
Pointman
190
G’day Pointman, I missed that post when you put it up but have read it just now. Very much to the point, and pointedly relevant not just to the religious leaders or individual worship leaders, but to our politicians, NGOs, charities (particularly those supposedly dedicated to helping the sick and disadvantaged in developing countries), and even ourselves as individuals.
Blackswan’s comment at the time was interesting with hindsight, as a very real and destructive danger asserts itself, and yet the same leaders and useful idiots just as steadfastly refuse to see that danger as they have relentlessly pushed the imaginary one of “global warming”.
40
So the Reverent thinks that asking a series of hypothetical questions based on lies about global warming without telling the respondents of that fact is somehow ethical? Which evangelic church is that? The Green’s religion that is out to gain political dominance across the globe thereby bringing prestige, privilege and prosperity to the proponents at the expense of the rest of us.
161
I’m sure Hitler thought he had a “moral duty” removing Jews from the planet…..
We all knew he was a blood-thirsty evil thug.
The Left, once again, are trying to redefine the concept of “right” – use of the word “morals” ( which is ironic, since they clearly have none ) is an attempt to make right, wrong.
A clear warning:
“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
( Isaiah 5:20 )
God sees all….
70
They probably had mixed feeling and care about their dear leader, until the “Night of the long knives”. That would have been a wake up kick in the pants to everyone.
What would you do after that event?
10
On the truly unsustainable, a pro-renewables think tank concludes (PDF):
Agora Energiewende is a joint venture between the Mercator Foundation and the European Climate Foundation which is itself partly funded by the Mercator Foundation. The Mercator Foundation is a partner in the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) of which one Ottmar Edenhofer is the director; alongside his Directorship within the Potsdam Institute for Climate Catastrophism (PIK) where he is the Chief Economist.
Edenhofer recently called for the global expropriation of owners of coal, oil and gas resources (article in German) in order to achieve the necessary decarbonization.
This Chief Economist seems woefully unaware that all mineral resources in most countries belong to the people (via the respective State) and extraction rights are granted in return for royalties that are notionally applied for the public good. vis e.g. the oil company that looks like a nation; Norway.
N.B.: PIK advises the German government on energy and environment policy.
(I have vague recollections of meaning to post this previously. Please excuse the duplication if there is.)
130
Truly weird stuff, Bernd. Imagine a high carbon price leaving Germany dependent on Gazprom and grimy solar panels at 50+ degrees north. I’m sure France will be happy to sell some electricity (plus their grannies’ rosary beads)…and the branch of Shell called the Netherlands will always help out a neighbour.
Gawd. Let’s hope those credits keep going like Weimar era Marks. And then some.
90
Bernd Felsch,
Quick math for a bit of insight.
According to wikipedia, each carbon credit or certificate is the equivalent to one tonne of CO2.
There are 2.5 billion certificates in reserve. At five euros per credit, that’s 12.5 billion euros just sitting around burning a hole in the carbon market’s pockets.
According to the PDF you linked to, the price of these credits has gone as high as 27 euro per tonne.
Meaning that there’s a potential right now for an additional 67.5 billion euros to enter the carbon market.
That right there answers the question of why The High Priests of AGW want so desperately to conclude a deal on carbon trading in Paris this year.
That right there answers the question of why all opponents of the AGW cult and the CO2 is pollution meme must either be silenced, or shamed into compliance.
They have 67.0 billion reasons to perpetuate the meme.*
Abe
*This is a preliminary estimate based on their figures. The PDF also discusses various mechanisms for controling the supply of these credits through policy. As we all know, an artificial control on supply leads to an artificial control on the price.
170
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA
The Youtube link is to a scene from a BBC show from the 1970s called ‘Yes Prime Minister’. It is about how the result of an opinion poll is easily manipulated by the preceding questions – in this case whether the public supports the reintroduction of national military service. The demonstration starts at about 30 seconds in.
10
Funny how evangelists and even the Vatican are aligning themselves with the pagan Green Religion. Have they forgotten the First of the Ten Commandments?
171
If I may comment – there are some Christians who see the paganization of much of the christian church ( through wrongly letting mystic and pagan teachings and fads infiltrate the church ) ocurring. The green religion is pagan earth worship.
However, this was prophesized to occur so we are not surprised.
[snip]
[OriginalSteve, Joanne, has instructed us to curtail discussions of religion except maybe in “unthreaded” (open) posts. I have snipped this short so that we don’t have a problem with off-topic debate. Discussion of religion can be very problematic on a blog mostly concerned with science. Please consider this in future posts.] ED
30
Maybe we can read about this on the weekend?
10
Dear ED, I would have thought as the topic mentions Rev. Mitch Hescox, the Evangelical Environmental Network, the Pope and a proposed emphasis on moral duties to convince conservatives, that the topic is already replete with religious references. From the leftovers from his snipped post, it seems (big guess here) OriginalSteve is right on topic. And surely this very topic – the Church using its moral authority to push other institutions’ secular financial schemes (AGW), is the one to make a singular exception to the otherwise excellent, if a tad unintentionally Bolshevistic, rule to curtail discussion of religion?
[Oksanna, I appreciate your point and that is why I did not delete the first paragraph. The remainder was leaning towards proselytizing. Original Steve is a valued writer here and I don’t want to discourage debate however we have had threads descend into flame wars over religion in the past. The fact that readers here are not all Christian, some are atheist and you might imagine why this “rule” is in place. You might be surprised at my personal beliefs.
If you still find this unreasonable, create a series of tests that we moderators may use to determine what to leave and what to snip. It has always been something of an art. Then too, applications for volunteer moderator can be made to: [email protected]. Supply an essay in 200 words “why I want to be a volunteer moderator” and your CV.] ED
50
Dear Mods,
Fair cop…..I guess it is a balancing act….happy to abide by the umpies descision.
And for those making much hay out of my caffeine dreprived condition, you will be happy to note I’m about 40mg, up and feeling the better for it!
Rereke et al, you are all scally wags, but its enjoyable banter…
And yes, mea culpa, I left myself wide open for my keyboard shortcomings to being being much exploited in a very Asterix and Obelix pun-fest….
🙂
10
Pope Francis has been getting mentioned, but what has he said?
Above we read: “Sixty-four percent of those polled agreed with the pope that human activities are largely responsible for the rising CO2 levels that scientists say drive climate change.”
64% and the pope are absolutely right there. Now what about those scientists and their assertion? Nobody, including the pope, is said to have agreed with them yet.
Cardinal George Pell was called from Sydney to the Vatican to work on sorting out their financial affairs. He copped a bit of flak by way of leaks, but has the support of the pope. Changes are proceeding, according to today’s smh.
Cardinal Pell has over the years made a few cautious comments on the AGW matter. I got the impression that he and his advisors can recognise a scam when they see one.
Maybe we should hope that when Pope Francis does have something to say, he might be right. It might be a game changer.
He is burdened with The Doctrine of Infallibility. So, while he might make statements of ethical or moral issues on that basis, I would not expect him to apply that to any statements on the unsettled science of AGW.
30
The EEN’s position could hardly be considered a traditional Evangelical stance. Here is the more traditional response to Mitch Hescox from the Cornwall Alliance. Roy Spencer has had some association with this group:
“…And, despite the caveats expressed by the EEN, the group’s rhetoric, to conservative ears, has distinct undertones of nature-worship.
In 2005, conservative Evangelicals responded to the EEN by forming the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. The group’s national spokesperson, theologian E. Calvin Beisner, has described the environmental movement as “the greatest threat to Western civilization” because it combines “the utopian vision of Marxism, the scientific facade of secular humanism, and the religious fanaticism of jihad” into a pseudo-religion that undermines Christianity.
The Cornwall Alliance’s stated mission is:
Promoting Biblical earth stewardship… in a world permeated by an environmental movement whose worldview, theology, and ethics are overwhelmingly anti-Christian, whose science and economics are often poorly done, whose policies therefore often do little good for natural ecosystems but much harm to the world’s poor, and whose religious teachings undermine the fundamental Christian doctrines of God, creation, humanity, sin, and salvation.
Chief among the policies that the Cornwall Alliance opposes is reducing fossil fuel emissions to limit climate change, which, it argues, has no basis in scientific fact and threatens to hinder economic growth worldwide.”
The last paragraph indicates that unlike the Pope fairdinkum Evangelicals are no fools, at least, when it comes to understanding how climate science should work. (And it is more convincing when it sticks to the science rather than esoteric biblical interpretation).
http://io9.com/heres-what-happens-when-evangelical-christians-debate-s-16425284
20
POST Updated -See the table and red UPDATE near the top plus the POST NOTE at the end. There is quite a lot to say about these responses. Thanks Pat.
80
Hi Jo,
When I saw you mention “on-line poll”, I groaned thinking that here was another invalid poll where the sample selects itself, and gives nonsense results.
But when I looked at it, it was a proper poll. The organization selected the sample and interviewed the people they selected.
That said, I don’t understand how an on-line poll can ever be a representative sample of the entire population of the USA. They are making the assumption that the views of people who are on-line are the same as those of the general population. But,
a. There are a very large number of people in the USA, as here, who have don’t use the internet (they tend to be older types).
b. There are a large number of people who are not connected to the internet, some by choice and some because they are too poor to afford it.
In last year’s Credit Suisse World Wealth report, it showed that in Australia 6% of the adult population had net worth of US$10,000 or less. Whereas in the US, it was an amazing 29% of the adult population with net worth of US$10,000 or less. It seems very doubtful to me that the latter group would get interviewed on the internet by the pollster, and that as a group they would be anywhere as climate change savvy as those who were interviewed. Thus I think there would be a fundamental flaw in the poll result.
Regards.
100
How many of that 29% vote?
10
Interesting!. “Moral duty” is first and foremost to facts, evidence you can observe and record, things that can’t be honestly disputed. And after coming to that realization anyone with a moral sense worth noticing will ask questions and soon discover what the climate change world doesn’t want discovered. So I wonder why anyone pushing such a shameless pile of nonsense would put their plea to the world in terms of morality. I certainly would not if it was me.
If their ship sinks from lack of evidence, what can be gained by claiming it’s still afloat because of some moral duty?
Perhaps poll results show a widespread lack of a moral sense strong enough to prompt questioning.
90
This fellow Republican will not go along. The reverend Mr. Hescox has his head pointed in the wrong direction, as do many Christian leaders, thinking that faith trumps evidence. It does not.
80
That’s got to be an oxymoron if ever I’ve seen one. I say it’s a bunch of liberals naming things again. Who let them near a sharp object?
30
So I’m not misunderstood…
I don’t think those top several percentages, particularly 43% thinking the UN speaks authoritatively reflects a widespread good moral sense. Too many take the UN as gospel when they should be taking a closer look. I could hope the percentage was 20, 15 or even 10.
We owe it to ourselves to doubt and question, not swallow official dogma.
91
If you wanted to make me angry, tell me what my morals are.
If you wanted to get a strong reaction from me, tell my what my moral duties are.
Get Faraway.
90
Amen!
10
CAGW claiming a moral high ground is like any dictator that claimed the killings were necessary for the country’s future, except for those killed of course.
The real moral question has already been asked by skeptics when asking for hard empirical evidence to support an CAGW hypothesis let alone the massive drain of life saving funds that have been stolen by lies and a massive straw man argument.
Show me any of the Ponzi warmists that haven’t lined their pockets whilst apparently saving us and I’ll show you a real miracle.
130
“Three years ago the thin-skinned wizard of Penn State let everyone in the world know in the clearest possible terms that his version of climate science is not a process of discovery based on research and new information, but a proselytizing mission:
Climate scientist Michael Mann, who has appeared at political events supporting candidates calling for the U.S. government to act more forcefully, said in 2011, “I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but it’s not helping the cause.”
(emph. mine)
Why is his work still being cited by warmists? When a scientist who touts an unproven theory denounces as heretical those who continue to do honest research, no scientist, regardless of his views, should ever take him seriously.”
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2015/03/onward-climate-.html
110
Question 10 asked Has the Pope’s views on climate change impacted you in any of the following ways?
Via ABC, and Clive Hamilton:
The Sacrament of Creation: What Can We Expect from Pope Francis’s Ecological Encyclical?
> Maybe the Pope will endorse this:
Birth control access key means of reaching climate goals: experts (reuters)
> Maybe the Pope will blame buddhists:
Semitic religions are the root cause of global warming: RSS leader Suresh Soni
“RSS leader Suresh Soni said the idea that “God created the world in five days and man in one and said to him that the world has been created for his benefit, has created the problem.”
> Will it be a Biblical Armageddon or a Global Warming Doomsday:
Christian Groups: Biblical Armageddon Must Be Taught Alongside Global Warming (youtube)
40
The grand wind up for Paris, playing the name and shame game, the divest to invest, the stinking obfuscation of progressive science and politics with the stated goal of dumping capitalism for eco-impoverishing totalitarian lunacy.
The interminable confusion of ethics with morality, enabled by moral relativism and political correctness in an endeavour to create a new-age religion out of greenpus that stinks from the top down, as the IPCC railroad engineer graphically illustrated so well.
It all urgently needs to implode.
111
The moral imperative is to tell the truth.
90
HJ 100 + Annie
40
I meant bemused…need coffee!
I think telling the truth is essential.
40
A more pointed question is why do our politicians remain unquestioning of this questionable global disaster?
80
Politicians ride any popular wave going through the community, (at least the ones that stay in power do). As soon as they introduce something novel, they get voted out.
Weather or not they believe these popular waves is unclear, but some sure do ride it in the media until it’s long past it’s use-by date.
70
‘…why do our politicians remain unquestioning of this questionable global disaster?’
Sadly they have been brainwashed and cannot think outside the square.
http://theconversation.com/for-this-generation-and-the-next-its-time-to-bring-back-the-carbon-tax-38224
10
Generally the politicians are following public opinion. So if the majority of the public is skeptical about global warming why are leading politicans, Cameron, Obama…. ably assisted by the media and the green folk, trying to stitch us all up with carbon trading, abatement etc.? Apart from the fact they all have an interest in even more government control over our lives, or a pecuniary interest, it doesn’t make any sense.
70
In pluralist societies where there is no state religion within the law morals are an individual matter.
No-one is forced to use fossil-fuelled energy.
These types of surveys never include a cost provision, but I guess people are waking up to the fact that in a free capitalist system the existing energy sources are, by definition, the cheapest.
70
Anyone else notice how high people placed Bill Nye? Good god we have a problem.
120
Yes Houston, we have a real prblem.
Surely Bill Nye is the most discredited science comunicator of all.
Has every one forgotten! He even faked his own “Greenhouse in a jar” demonstrtaion.
140
Yes, I noticed that, and it was one of the few things Reuters noticed about their own survey.
Perhaps I ought pay more attention to him?
90
Always keep an eye on a guy in a bow tie! 😉
30
one should be more concerned when they are out of their bow tie.
(Peewee Herman comes to mind)
speaking of moral duty…..
00
Jo says:
Well you have something in common he was also involved in many educational programs aimed at children. Unfortunately, I don’t think his approach has grown up.
20
Some questions on climate are framed,
To give the ‘right answer’ as claimed,
By that ‘moral’ brigade,
From the warming crusade,
To make sure, that mankind is blamed.
150
news.com.au did not have a hot weather alarm article this morning! As we slide into autumn, perhaps someone is taking a day off at the end of an exhausting summer of elaborately manufactured heat records rather than record heat.
So where is Climate Council chief Tim Flannery’s annual piece on the mildly vexatious summer? Is the windmill lobby losing puff? There is an election in NSW coming up, so surely the Greens have to get some press about those poor koalas and Palestinians. What a quiet summer without Prof Turkey’s amazingly silly Ship of Fools stuck in the Antarctic ice for Christmas. Surely something will turn up to warm a warmists heart, an extreme event perhaps like the annual cyclones?
70
Wrote too soon. Andrew Bolt has noted the Greens have skipped the Victorian Koala cull and gone straight for the NSW Kangaroos.
Moscow trained second generation communist Green Senator Lee Rhiannon shows her ignorance of Australian wildlife while protesting the culling of kangaroos. Too bad she has no idea what a kangaroo looks like or apparently anything else about them. Hilarious comments.
90
Renato says –
“But when I looked at it, it was a proper poll. The organization selected the sample and interviewed the people they selected”
2014: Canadian Press: Tired of trying to make sense of Ontario election polls? Ignore them, say experts
Online polls survey a pool of participants who have volunteered to offer their opinions. As a result, pollsters say the findings are not random and are therefore not necessarily representative of the whole population.
This view is shared by the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association, the polling industry’s professional body, which says online surveys cannot be assigned a margin of error due to their lack of random sampling…
http://www.680news.com/2014/05/30/tired-of-trying-to-make-sense-of-ontario-election-polls-ignore-them-say-experts/
am guessing this is most likely the process for the IPSOS-Reuters poll under discussion.
60
climate change kills!
3 March: CBC: Nova Scotia aquaculture fish killed by superchilled water
Cooke Aquaculture sites in Annapolis Basin, Shelburne Harbour, Jordan Bay reporting mortalities
Fish at three aquaculture sites in Nova Scotia have died and a so-called superchill is suspected, the provincial Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture said Tuesday…
The department said a preliminary investigation has found a superchill happened, meaning sustained cold temperatures dropped the temperature of the water to the level that fish blood freezes — around –0.7 C.
Tides in late February and early March also tend to be high, the department said, contributing to to lowering temperatures in sea cages by flooding more shallow areas than usual. Low air temperatures cool the water and receding tides flush the cages with superchilled water.
The Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture said superchills happen every five to seven years and the deaths ***do not pose a risk to the environment…
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/nova-scotia-aquaculture-fish-killed-by-superchilled-water-1.2980172
***except to the fish, which are not part of the environment, when COLD WEATHER is involved.
60
Pollsters truly hate the Lukewarmer position.
All of their questions are designed to fold their responses into the same categories as the alarmists.
80
Without CO2 all life ceases.
“Q8. Are you personally morally obligated to do what you can to reduce CO2 emissions?
72% yes.”
No safer to increase them. Mark me as a devoted 28 percenter!
100
March 2000: UK Independent: Charles Onians: Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said…
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
surely the MSM has a “moral duty” to show Dr David Viner the amazing pics of Boston below & ask him to explain what went wrong with his year 2000 prediction?
4 March: Daily Mail: Ashley Collman: Keep digging until you see spring: People of Boston pictured from the air as they toil to get their city back from under more than eight feet of snow
It may be the first week of March, but it still looks a lot like Christmas in snow-covered Boston…
Boston has received some 8 1/2 feet of the snow in the past few weeks, and is just a few inches shy of their snowiest winter yet – a record that was set 20 years ago.
That record could be broken as soon as Wednesday evening, when yet another storm front is expected to hit the city…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2978513/Keep-digging-spring-people-Boston-pictured-air-struggle-remove-tons-snow-blanketed-city.html
51
perhaps the MSM don’t know where Dr. Viner is!
Nov 2012: Mott MacDonald Consultants: Mott MacDonald appoints Dr David Viner as principal advisor for climate change
An internationally recognised expert, David brings with him 20 years of experience working in the area of climate change.
David worked for 17 years at the University of East Anglia’s (UEA) Climatic Research Unit, where he developed a worldwide reputation working across all areas of climate change. He led UK public engagement on climate change adaptation and advised both the UK government and international agencies. During this time he was also director of the UEA’s innovative climate change masters course…
In 2008 David was appointed global director at The British Council where he developed a ground breaking cultural relations strategy and programme that was delivered through 250 offices in 109 countries. Working across UK government departments and in collaboration with international agencies, businesses and national governments, the programme was publicly endorsed by the UK government, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and other leading agencies…
Mott MacDonald’s environment manager Ian Allison said: “We are delighted to welcome David to Mott MacDonald. Sustainability and climate change are important drivers for our business. As awareness of these issues increases, the consultancy is continuing to develop its services and skills to help in strategies for adaptation, mitigation and institutional reform to respond to these challenges. David’s outstanding expertise in areas such as water resources, agriculture and environmental systems together with his extensive publication record make his appointment a real coup for the company…
David contributed to the reports of the IPCC, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007…
https://www.mottmac.com/article/614/mott-macdonald-appoints-dr-david-viner-as-pri
what has Mott been up to lately?
26 Feb: Mott MacDonald joins with Khudairi Group to deliver Iraqi projects
Mott MacDonald has joined up with Khudairi Group to deliver oil and gas projects in Iraq. The move combines the consultancy’s full range of engineering and procurement technical support services with Khudairi Group’s procurement, inspection, expediting and construction management services.
Khudairi Group is a leading provider of solutions to the oil and gas and construction industries in Iraq…
The consultancy also supported increased production from the Rumaillah oilfield – the second biggest field in the world…
https://www.mottmac.com/releases/mott-macdonald-joins-with-khudairi-group-to-deliver-iraqi-projects
31
Dec 2014: WaterPowerMagazine: Making hydropower resilient to climate change
Dr David Viner from Mott MacDonald says that the hydropower industry cannot ignore climate change…
The result is that institutional investors, increasingly aware of the risks posed by climate change, are requiring risk assessments to be undertaken before committing to finance and planning…
Dr David Viner is the principal climate resilience advisor at Mott MacDonald.
http://www.waterpowermagazine.com/opinion/opinionmaking-hydropower-resilient-to-climate-change-4462635/
Dr. Viner not keen to name Mott on LinkedIn, but love the “exceptionally experienced…” boast:
LinkedIn: David Viner
***Exceptionally Experienced International Climate Change Expert: Science, Impacts, Resilience, Adaptation and Mitigation
Current: World Leading Infrastructure Consultancy
Principal Adviser working for an global company. Responsible for Strategic Business Development, Project Director, Stakeholder Management and Strategy Development.
My Climate Change Programme at the British Council was described by the Foreign Office as a “National Asset”…
Specialties: All aspects of the Climate Change and Development, working at the highest international level in global roles since 1991.
https://uk.linkedin.com/pub/david-viner/30/766/14a
from Mott’s About Us – Sustainability Approach page:
Carbon as a metric of business success
For us carbon reduction is synonymous with business success.
***We pledged in 2008 to cut our carbon emissions per employee by 5% year on year because we want to play our part in tackling climate change…
Since 2008 we have embraced the Carbon Disclosure Project to provide external visibility of our performance which we report annually as part of our corporate responsibility report.
—
***with 16,000 employees in 140 countries, i guess they are doing their bit to save the planet from CAGW. bless them.
41
Ah, but all that BS could generate lots of methane, which is a very potent green house gas.
Could anyone enlighten me as to how potent? I remember when it was 14 times as strong as CO2 then 25, followed by 43 and the last time I saw anything it seemed to have reached the mid 70’s. A sort of hockey stick of seriousness without any actual proof.
I hope the first thing that schools start teaching about Climate Change is that any number multiplied by zero doesn’t indicate a massive threat to life as we know it ( except to the usual suspects who might have to work for a living ).
20
“Sixty-four percent of those polled agreed with the pope that human activities are largely responsible for the rising CO2 levels that scientists say drive climate change.”
Have none of these seen Murry Salby’s work that shows almost no correlation of anthropogenic CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2? Even this statement of belief is misleading as it doesn’t say “some scientists say….”. I am left wondering if there really are people that will read this poll information and conclude it is immoral to think.
By the way. I see Dr. Salby will be appearing in London soon. Does anyone know how he is doing in his kerfuffal with the university?
50
There are UN scientists? Actual climate scientists? ‘Working’ for Ban Ki Moon’s crack Thunderbirds-R-Go! International Rescue? Or the particularly lazy perverse parasitic zealots who occasionally put out a verbose little newsletter about everybody else’s work, then take the credit, and pretend to be scientists? Is that what the survey refers to?
Seems a bit grandiose.
80
I think people often make the mistake with the term ‘UN scientist’, I am sure it is supposed to be ‘un-scientist’, as grammatically poor as that may seem.
90
From a grasp on reality perspective, after spending time with physics groups, it is like stepping into a kindergarten playgroup here at JN.
If products were made by the standards of evidence and accuracy expressed here nothing would ever fit, nothing would ever work, water would never boil, and people would die of thirst as their glass would forever be half empty.
The experience does, however, provide actual proof for the Many Worlds Theory of
quantum physics.
[BillB, so nice to see you back after your trip to the asylum. I hope it was worthwhile. Good that you started off on the right foot since you stubbed the left one last time you were here.] ED
221
BilB,
You continue returning to this site, trying to discredit people who comment here because you fear the truth.
Tread warily, BilB, when you look into the abyss, the abyss looks into you.
162
This is quite ironic from a guy who espouses such an optimistic view that we are all going to fry and die. Good job BilB-0.
101
Actually, Heywood, the 97% of the population know that the certain consequence of doing nothing about global warming is Frying and Dying, this being the choice of the 3% Libertarian brigade rather than spend any money to save themselves. There seems to be a belief here that rapping oneself in banknotes will effectively insulate from opressive humidity and heat.
010
BilB I believe you’ll find the opposite of that statement is true, the warmists seem to have developed an expensive taste for insulation but don’t want to share the warmth with the ones they claim to represent and need saving.
You actually summed up the important point Jo was making with this thread, the two moral poles of warmists and skeptics or as you put it the Left and the Libertarian, do you really want to compare the track record of Left wing governments compared to conservative/democracies concerning human rights and mortality rates?
50
BilB,
You mean like Pachauiri, the High Priest, (now defrocked), of the AGW Pseudo-Scientism Cult?
I mean, here’s a guy whose supposedly in the know on all things Klimate, preaching how we’reall going to fry if we don’t stop the CO2 production and what does he do?
He invests in an engineering start-up that’s going to develope, (they already have), get this . . .
A way to extract more oil from a dead well! WTF!
So, who want’s to wrap themselves up in money?
Abe
50
” A way to extract more oil from a dead well! WTF!
”
Isn’t that just a metaphor for the tired old Global Warming scam, or is it a euphemism ?
30
BilB,
Or maybe you’re refering to the progressive(wolves) dressed in democrats/republicans(sheeps) clothing who now mandate the use of corn to fuel automobiles instead of feeding ppl?
Now here’s a plan that kiillls two birds with one stone(pen).
Because of the higher price for corn-as-fuel, the rapacious are now clear-cutting to plant auto-fuel, putting trees out of their misery.
And diverting corn-as-food away from ppl, thereby contrbuting to the misery caused by starvation.
Great team, you’re rooting for there B.
Abe
20
Your mob love that 97% figure, and your use of it in this case is just as
fraudulentmisused as all the others. Care to back up your latest claim that 97% of the population think we are going to fry and die with some evidence?20
I don’t have to try at all hard, Heywood. David Evans provided the basline in declaring 2015 as being the ice age plunge year, he eaven invented a special solar phenomenon to encourage it to happen. How is that “notch filter” working out for David and Jo? What happens instead?
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2015/03/05/107328/icebreakers-essential-assets-for-a-changing-arctic/
…we get a stampede to take advantage of a melting polar region. No doubt JN will scurry around and bring a flurry of icey pictures as “proof” of an ice age, but business is ignoring the pathological doubters and going with the thawing flow.
05
Not even close to addressing what I asked.
20
….and 97%+ of governments openly accept the reality of Global Warming, Climate Change, and the need to take decisive action and move rapidly to low or zero carbon economies. Australia is an outlier and that is because we have a wacko for a Prime Minister who is now openly being described as a Sociopath.
No doubt, Heywood, you are lined up behind Toxic Tony Abbott, among the 3 percent, are you?
04
BilB,
Just like China…
10
Bilb-O
E V I D E N C E…
Back up your original claim!
00
The BilB is such a comedy goldmine. No sense of irony or hypocrisy at all.
Accuses the skeptics of cynicism, but tells us we’re all going to fry.
Accuses the skeptics of being too dumb to make products that boil water, when people were boiling water with open fires thousands of years before the fossil fuel age.
Accuses skeptics of having a low standard of evidence, but supports warmist arguments with opinion polls.
Accuses skeptics of having a poor grasp of reality, but believes money can’t buy air-conditioning.
Accuses skeptics of being mistaken that amassing money will mitigate the impact of climate change, but has nary a bad word to say about carbon emissions pricing which is designed to amass money in developing nations to mitigate their impact of climate change.
Damn right we’re “rapping” ourselves in banknotes, BilbyBro. Hip-hop your way to the top and you can join the winners club. 😉
60
BilB’s been spending time with physics groups, what area of Astrology does that fit into?
I’ll guess he’s a Cesarean or Torana, I’d better consult my IPCC tarot cards.
82
Yea, that has me concerned too.
I can’t figure out if it’s a room full of physicists like him, or perhaps a parody site. I do worry that he’s telling the truth though.
10
I’m sure it does. Now when you decide to return from whatever alternate world you are inhabiting let us know.
A yes, the internet, where you can claim to be or have done anything. Your claim would be far more convincing however if you were able to demonstrate that you actually learned anything about physics. I notice that nothing in your comment accomplished that.
91
“Many Worlds Theory of Quantum Physics”
Weird as!
Maybe a discussion for the Weekend. What do physicists actually know?
40
____
I stopped listening to the Pope on climate change issues after the Galileo thing. Maybe it was the bit about being a stand-in who speaks for God that put me off, but even he can’t beat ‘UN scientists’ for raw abomination-that-maketh-desolate, and self-genuflecting usurped authoritah!
70
haven’t listened; won’t be listening:
AUDIO: 5 March: ABC Breakfast with Fran Kelly: Climate change and environmental degradation
Today sees the release of the fifth Intergenerational Report – Treasury’s blueprint for the economic and social issues facing Australia over the next 40 years.
The last report in 2010 described climate change as ‘the largest threat to Australia’s environment and one of the most significant challenges to our economic sustainability’.
It predicted that the economic and social consequences of not acting on climate change would be ‘severe’.
Five years later, many Australian scientists say the credibility of today’s report rests on how it deals with long term climate change and environmental degradation.
Guests:
Lesley Hughes, Professor of Ecology, Macquarie University; Councillor on the Climate Council
Harry Recher, Senior fellow, Australian Museum
Kelly O’Shanassy, CEO, Australian Conservation Foundation
John Woinarski, Conservation biologist, Charles Darwin University
Reporter, Gregg Borschmann
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/climate-change-and-environmental-degradation/6281722
but they will probably be on ABC again soon, expressing outrage, after they read the relatively hyperbole-free report:
Climate Change is covered on PDF pages 61-67 only.
PDF: 170 pages: 5 March: Treasury: Intergenerational Report 2015
http://www.treasury.gov.au/Policy-Topics/PeopleAndSociety/Intergenerational-Report
p61 A significant challenge over coming decades will be the protection of the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef supports nearly 70,000 jobs and is worth $5.6 billion a year to the economy.5 While it remains the best managed marine ecosystem in the world, it is facing threats, including from climate change. A growing population with rising per capita incomes, as well as expanding tourist numbers, will require careful policy management to support economic development in the region whilst minimising the environmental impact.
p62 Improved water quality is one of the most effective ways to improve the Reef’s resilience, including against climate change…
p64 Clean air The Government’s Clean Air Plan incorporates strategies both to address climate change and to reduce air pollution. The strategies to address climate change are discussed further in Section 1.5.4, below…
Specific measures include investing further in science to develop a greater knowledge of the impacts of climate change on Antarctica and the Southern Ocean…
p65 Nevertheless, there are costs associated with changes in the environment and climate. The Government is already making significant investments to mitigate the impact of climate change including the $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF), along with major investments to support biodiversity and, in particular, the Great Barrier Reef.
p65 1.5.4 Climate change
Australia will meet its Kyoto target for 2020 and will join with the international community to establish post 2020 targets with the aim of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. The international community has agreed to aim to keep global warming to a less than 2oC increase above pre-industrial climate levels.
The Government has committed to reducing Australia’s domestic emissions by 5 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020 through its $2.55 billion ERF.
The ERF will provide incentives for cleaning up Australia’s environment through activities such as revegetation, investing in soil carbon, increasing industrial and commercial building energy efficiency, cleaning up power stations and capturing gas from the millions of tonnes of waste deposited in our cities’ landfills each year.
This will reduce Australia’s emissions through direct investment in projects that improve the environment and increase productivity. By achieving verified domestic emissions reductions through incentives, the ERF will avoid achieving such reductions simply by driving domestic production offshore — a process which would cost Australian jobs for no decrease in global emissions.
The ERF will also achieve other direct environmental and economic benefits, beyond its role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For example, improvements in energy efficiency can reduce emissions while boosting productivity for a range of businesses.
The Government will also introduce a safeguards mechanism to complement the ERF. The safeguards mechanism will ensure that emissions reductions paid for by the ERF are not displaced by a significant rise in emissions elsewhere in the economy.
The ERF and safeguards mechanism align with actions being taken internationally (Box 1.6).
p66 Box 1.6: International approaches …(details)
p67 Box 1.7: Summary of the state of the climate 2014
Data and analysis released by the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) shows that:
***• Australia’s climate has warmed by 0.9°C since 1910, and the frequency of extreme weather has changed.
• Rainfall averaged across Australia has slightly increased since 1900, with the largest increases in the northwest since 1970.
• Rainfall has declined since 1970 in the southwest. Autumn and early winter rainfall has mostly been below average in the southeast since 1990.
• Extreme fire weather has increased, and the fire season has lengthened, across large parts of Australia since the 1970s.
• Global mean temperature has risen by 0.85°C from 1880 to 2012.
Average rainfall in southern Australia is projected to decrease and heavy rainfall is projected to increase over most parts of Australia.
Research
Governments must continue to plan for the potential economic and environmental effects of climate change. Some economic effects may be beneficial — where regions become warmer or wetter this may allow for increased agricultural output — while others may be harmful. For example, lower rainfall may reduce crop yields, or transport infrastructure (such as roads, ports and rail networks) may become more susceptible to damage from extreme weather events.
To inform and support action on this issue, the Government has committed $9 million over three years to re-fund the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF). NCCARF will provide decision-makers, including state and local governments, with advice and guidance on assessing and responding to the risks associated with climate change. Particular emphasis will be placed on responding to risk in Australia’s coastal zone.
Under the new NESP, more than $23 million over six years has also been allocated to an Earth Systems research hub to improve our understanding of how the climate system may change in the future.
This research hub will be led by the CSIRO, in partnership with the BOM and several Australian universities, and will build on the knowledge and expertise developed under the National Climate Change Science Programme.
10
UN climate official: real plan is “change the economic development model”
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/un_climate_official_real_plan_is_change_the_economic_development_model/
Here we see the REAL MOTIVE behind this global warming SCAM !!
40
Better perhaps to change the broken Climate Models before getting ahead of herself.
10
NASA/NOAA/GISS persist in spreading incorrect information!
The most recent issue of Gliding International included a short story from NASA/GISS titled HOT TIME IN THE OLD TOWN TONIGHT. This was a report from NASA and NOAA about 2014 being the hottest on record.. It quoted Dr Gavin Schmidt of GISS at length.
I wrote to the editor, complaining that NASA had modified thier claim and now say that they are only 38% certian that 2014 was the warmest year on record (ie more uncertain than not).
The editor sent the following reply” The NASA report we published was a press release to aviation magazines and only arrived 9 days prior to the printing of the March issue. It is interesting that we have not had a follow up press release covering their modified views.
We will check this out.”
The retraction came out on or before 18 Jan 2105.
Daily Mail 18 Jan 2015
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html
So weeks after issuing the amended statement NASA are still sending out the original incorrect alarmist statement.
Who needs a lesson in morals?
80
In 1988 NASA said that US winters would become warmer, but this has failed to materialise.
We have here a clear regional cooling signal.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01b7c7575a8a970b-pi
NASA should stick to space exploration and Martian weather, its a lot less chaotic than here on earth.
60
This is encouraging……..
Republicans To Investigate NASA Over Climate Data:-
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-22/republicans-investigate-nasa-over-climate-data-tampering
50
Go Republicans!
If only our Liberal Party was a bit more proactive and actually had a clear philosophy!
20
I agree Peter, all they have to do is replace Greg Hunt with Dennis Jensen. The MSM would go ballistic.
20
And climate change is no longer a budget problem.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/cut-from-a-chapter-to-three-pages-intergenerational-report-accused-of-ignoring-climate-change-20150305-13w6fc.html
10
a poor attempt (lengthy) to debunk Susan Crockford’s data. hope she sees it and replies:
4 March: CarbonBrief: Roz Pidcock: Polar bears and climate change: What does the science say?
Just recently, Peter Hitchens said in the Mail on Sunday polar bears are “doing extremely well right now” and that claims otherwise are “just hot air”.
Carbon Brief has dug through the literature and spoken to polar bear experts. While little is known about some remote polar bear populations, it’s clear there’s no scientific basis for such optimism. As temperatures rise, polar bears face a bleak future ahead, scientists tell us.
The crux of Hitchens’ argument is that polar bear numbers are rising around the world, not falling. He quotes biologist Dr Susan Crockford…
Update: This article was updated at 16:50 on the 4th March to include the most recent polar bear subpopulation map from the IUCD/PBSG and further explanation.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/03/what-does-the-science-say-about-polar-bears-and-climate-change/
30
4 March: LA Weekly: Alan Scherstuhl: Merchants of Doubt Shows How Corporate Lies Infect Our Minds, From Tobacco to Climate Change
The Amazing Randi insists that the public wants to be fooled, that it’s easier and more comforting for us not to see unromantic truths — you can see him proclaiming this, a little sadly, in Justin Weinstein and Tyler Measom’s documentary, An Honest Liar, which plays like a companion piece to Robert Kenner’s sly and enraging Merchants of Doubt. Randi, now north of 80, dedicated a lifetime to exposing frauds, deceivers and liars, only to see such scoundrels triumph again not long after their exposure. Now, Merchants argues, those frauds have co-opted the spirit of Randi — committing their deceptions (and jeopardizing our world) as they themselves adopt the mantle of principled skepticism…
The film, based on the book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, lays bare the way that moneyed interests sell doubt to keep us from believing in things that actually are true — and damaging for business…
Kenner finds a magnificent antihero in Marc Morano, a cheery, chatty prevaricator who has made a mint by muddying water. His job is to promote skepticism of a truth that even Skeptic magazine believes in, and since Morano’s cocksure, and good at yelling on TV, he steamrolls over climate scientists on cable despite his lack of expertise. In interviews, he’s disarmingly guileless, happy to brag about all the times he’s posted online the email addresses of climate scientists, some of whom turn up to read aloud from the death threats they get.
The film and Morano agree on one thing: All that the deniers of climate change have to do to succeed is reduce the country’s certainty. They’ve been wildly successful, as Kenner demonstrates — remember back in 2008, when Mitt Romney, John McCain and Newt Gingrich all stated publicly that carbon emissions are the cause of global warming? Today, what office-seeking Republican would dare?…
http://www.laweekly.com/film/merchants-of-doubt-shows-how-corporate-lies-infect-our-minds-from-tobacco-to-climate-change-5416545
at Village Voice the article is titled: “Strong New Docs on Hoaxers and Debunkers Reveal a Country Eager to Be Fooled”
writer’s profile at VV: Alan Scherstuhl is film editor at The Village Voice. He also covers books, music, and other matters for the Voice, in addition to writing Studies in Crap, his ongoing humor column about bizarre books and ephemera found at junkshops.
weather forecast for day before the premiere in LA & NYC (nationwide US 13 March) of “Merchants of Doubt” – the Al Gore Effect:
4 March: Accuweather: Oklahoma City to Boston: Snow, Ice to Snarl Travel for 1,500-Mile Corridor Into Thursday
A new storm will spread a swath of snow and sleet spanning more than 1,500 miles from northern Texas and Oklahoma to southeastern New York state and Massachusetts into Thursday.
Daily activities will be affected for close to 100 million people.
Major travel disruptions are in store, ranging from snow-clogged roads to many flight delays and cancellations. The flight disruptions will likely extend well beyond areas directly affected by the storm as crews and aircraft are displaced.
The atmosphere is gearing up for a rare event. The new winter storm will occur during a press of cold air invading the Central and Eastern states in the wake a storm that produced snow and ice Tuesday night and rain Wednesday…
While snowfall will be light in northern Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, the snow will fall heavily at times from the middle part of the Mississippi Valley to the Ohio Valley, central Appalachians and mid-Atlantic coast…
A large part of Kentucky and West Virginia will receive 6 inches of snow with locally higher amounts possible. This same 6-inch swath will also reach eastward across southern Pennsylvania and into New Jersey…
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/oklahoma-city-to-boston-snow-ice-storm/43277612
40
“Warming kills less people than cooling.”
Wrong!
Warming kills FEWER people than cooling.
“Much” and “less” go with uncountables.
“Many” and “few” go with countables.
It isn’t hard.
30
Quite so RoHa…thank you.
10
PDF: 4 pages: IPSOS: Credibility Intervals for Online Polling
Why is the Classical Approach to Margins of Error Not Appropriate for Online Polling?
In order to produce an accurate margin of error, one must know the probability of participation for each member of the survey population or everyone in the population must have a known chance of participating in the survey.
Online polling, most often conducted by the use of panels of consumers/citizens, does not meet this condition because of two effects: non‐response bias and coverage bias. In order to use classical margins of error for online polling, one would have to assume that non‐responders to online surveys are completely random, or that the effect of leaving out non‐users is so minimal that it can be overlooked. We know that both of these are false, as we can make the following claims about online polling and those who complete online surveys:
• Not everyone has internet access;
• Online panels are created through an opt‐in process, rather than through a random
fashion like a random‐digit dial telephone call;
• Less is known about the profiles of individuals who complete online surveys versus those who do not, or about the likelihood of an online person to complete an online
survey or to participate in a survey panel.
Therefore, the probability of being included in any given online survey sample is unknown, very difficult to ascertain, or simply zero (non‐internet users). Further, the nature of use of the internet is not uniform within the population, so this limits one’s ability to calculate the
likelihood of reaching a person through an online poll. In short, without this knowledge, a margin of error cannot be calculated.
Despite these challenges, online polling conducted in a scientific manner has proven to yield
similar results to probability sampling conducted via telephone. Put simply, online polling works!*** …
https://ipsos-na.com/dl/pdf/research/public-affairs/IpsosPA_CredibilityIntervals.pdf
***why the exclamation mark after “works”?
read the rest, if interested.
00
Milne gets her say, but it’s almost a footnote near the end of the piece:
5 March: ABC 7.30 Report: Intergenerational Report predicts booming and ageing Australian population
Australian faces the challenge of a growing and ageing population that’s expected to reach nearly 40 million by 2055 with nearly a quarter of that over the age of 65, according to the latest Intergenerational Report.
SABRA LANE: The latest report says it will be a significant challenge in coming decades to protect the Great Barrier Reef, one of the threats being climate change. The Greens argue the threat’s been downplayed.
CHRISTINE MILNE, GREENS LEADER: The Government has insulted the intelligence of all Australians. Scientists around the country are just going to be in despair when they read this. It is an appalling document…
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4192193.htm
00
Christine insults my intelligence very time she opens her ill-informed mouth. I would be insulted if she only told me the time!
10
A particular survey was conducted a few years back.
It concluded that 99.99% of lawyers give the others a bad name.
It is the most accurate poll I have come across.
30
John Oliver gets another opportunity to slam the PM, having already covered the Faine/Wink beat-up, & having been rude to Howard, but never having made a joke at the expense of Gillard or Rudd. Pip Cummings is the Facilitator:
5 March: SMH: Pip Cummings: Tony Abbott is a car crash of a human being, says comedian John Oliver
Prime Minister Tony Abbott may have survived a recent challenge to his leadership, but his days are numbered, John Oliver says.
“It’s like watching a truck jack-knife on a road,” Oliver says, clearly relishing the suspense. “It’s like, ‘It didn’t crash this time. Let’s give it five minutes, then it’s going into a ditch’.”
Oliver, host of Last Week Tonight, the satirical take on the world’s news and current affairs that is fast becoming one of the world’s most popular programs of its type, describes Abbott as “a car crash of a human being”, albeit terrific fodder for comedy…
“I’m not a huge fan of [Howard], so hurting his feelings was not the worst thing that had ever happened to me,” he recalls. “And because what I needed to do was embody everything that critics of gun control [in the US] would throw at him – which is clearly infuriating to him – it was pretty bumpy.”…
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/tony-abbott-is-a-car-crash-of-a-human-being-says-comedian-john-oliver-20150302-13sog5.html
i hope a message goes to our Consulate in NYC not to have Pip Cummings at any future events!
Australian Consulate-General NYC: 3 NYC based Australian Writers
When: Wednesday June 11, 2014
Come along to hear three up and coming Australian Authors speak about their careers and most recent books.We are delighted to host Georgia Clark, Rachel Hill and Christine Piper in a panel facilitated by journalist Pip Cummings.
Facilitator: Pip Cummings is a writer and editor whose career spans newspaper, magazine and digital publishing. She has worked as an online news editor, a newspaper section editor and features writer and a magazine deputy editor, as well as as a freelance writer for a range of titles, including the Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne Age, the ABC Arts Gateway, and US glossies Gotham, Hamptons, Art Basel Miami Beach and Capitol File.
Pip is a founding co-editor and contributor to the specialist women’s travel website Holiday Goddess and was a co-curator and launch team member of the TEDx Sydney conference, now in its fifth year. Pip was born in the US and raised in Australia, returning to live in New York in June 2011. She is a member of the Newswomen’s Club of New York and was a judge of the the 2013 Front Page Awards, which honour journalistic excellence by newswomen across all media.
http://www.newyork.consulate.gov.au/files/nycg/AWNY%20June%20Authors%20panel%20flyer.pdf
10
I hope someone has pointed out to the ethically challenged warmist that the most effective fuel for electricity production after pulverised coal, is pulverised carbohydrates, similar calorific value and burns great, even explosive… Totally organic, just one problem, what does the world do for food when all the flour (pulverised carbohydrates) are diverted to running furnaces
Now that the approaching 7 billion souls on earth are totally dependent on the higher crop yields that 400PPM CO2 supports, the morally challenged warmie thinks we should stop and go back to 270PPM near starvation level does he? Killing half the worlds population must be ok with that church of green dogooding hey?
Not to mention the other 11 morally indefensible effects of the diversion of billions of dollars into climate fairy tales. See my previous posts on this topic.
I say let’s have this debate, I am happy to wipe the floor with them in a debate on AGW morals any time he wants! Bring it on!
60
Then why are they lacking the “Moral Duty” of telling the truth in their efforts?
10
[…] of science, but even with every six-member-science-committee on the planet reciting the hymn, half the citizens on Earth don’t believe them, […]
00