If the current egregious insanity makes you angry, join us on Sunday at Langley Park. If you have No Confidence in the current Australian Government. Let them know! It doesn’t have to be this way.
ELECTION NOW!
RALLY THIS SUNDAY, 18th SEPT 2 PM
LANGLEY PARK on the PERTH FORESHORE (Terrace Rd near Hill St)
MC’d by 6PR’s HOWARD SATTLER
David Evans and I will be there. Hope you can come too and bring all your friends.. – Jo
Too frightening for words. Henry Ergas has a bone-chilling warning.
It takes time to get a feel for how spectacularly insidious the Australian carbon tax could be.
Firstly there’s the anti-democratic nature of it: apparently Gillard is doing things that are considered utterly beyond the pale in other nations. Ergas suggests that by granting “property rights” she is threatening to make the cost of removing her legislation all but insurmountable. (For all the world, it appears she’s determined to stop the opposition offering the people the choice to remove the carbon tax. Could it be, that for the sake of an advantage in the next election campaign she’s tossing the country down the nearest black hole?)
Secondly, the Australian Carbon Tax is a freakishly large sacrificial offering: Australians will be hit for $391 for every man, woman and child, and that’s just the first year (according to the government estimates). Compare this to the EU. There in the land-of-exploding-economies, each good citizen has had to fork out the vast grand sum of (wait for it) … one dollar fifty cents each (yes, $1.50). And, it gets worse, (how do you satirize this?) — that’s the cumulative total since the EU started trading in 2005.
(…!)
It’s not like we want to copy EU economic policies in the first place, but why take something that doesn’t work, and outdo it by 3000%?
Hello to the new global patsies!
‘The EU was aiming for a global scheme, but only Australia and New Zealand were daft enough to join them in their carbon follies — the rest of the world is backing out the exits. The Europeans get China to do their manufacturing and thus emit their carbon emissions for them, so they pay virtually nothing. But we are the land of coal-gas-iron and aluminium, we are emitting for the world. Is this the new cultural cringe in Australia?
The former democracy known as Australia…
The carbon tax will affect virtually every part of our national activity, and is one of the most sweeping economic transformations to hit the country ever (suicidal is the word). There are 18 pieces of legislation, and 1100 pages. (Insert manic laugh…). Yes, we-the-citizens have one Earthling week to “comment”. Bhahahha ha ha….ha….. (Go on. Laugh til you throw up. One week.)
(See the bottom of this post for the links. Please! Bring out your uber caffeine and read those docs.)
Is it possible that a strong modern democracy could decay so fast? Could a government run for an election, specifically promise not to do something, be barely elected, then do it, and worse, do it in such a way that even when the people finally get the chance to vote NO — it can’t be unwound without inordinately crushing costs?
On this economic transformation, there was no debate, not of the science, nor of the policy. And if news outlets, and even new media, are forced to hold a license, there may never be one. We need an election (and by next Tuesday). What are the odds?
In Henry Ergas words is a message we can’t ignore.
On The ConversationMatthew Bailes, Pro Vice Chancellor at Swinburne University of Technology, is feeling sympathetic towards those poor climate scientists who have to deal with daily criticism, but he doesn’t seem to know much about how climate science works. I’d like to help him out, but don’t think the Conversation team would let me add my comments into his article, so I’ve done that here, responding to Bailes:
“Imagine for a minute that, instead of discovering a diamond planet, we’d made a breakthrough in global temperature projections. Let’s say we studied computer models of the influence of excessive greenhouse gases, verified them through observations, then had them peer-reviewed and published in Science.”
Verified?”#$%^!! Sorry, what’s that? No one in the official world of climate science has mentioned “verification” since the mid 1990’s. Shhh. In climate science they verify the observations first: when they fit the models, then they know the equipment worked. 😉
“Instead of sitting back and basking in the glory, I suspect we’d find a lot of commentators, many with no scientific qualifications, pouring scorn on our findings.”
“People on the fringe of science would be quoted as opponents of our work, arguing that it was nothing more than a theory yet to be conclusively proven.”
“Conclusively proven?” This is the theory that has narrowed climate sensitivity all the way down to between 2.0 to 11.1 degrees C (none of which match the observations). Yes, I’d call that “conclusive”.
Ominously, the embryonic markers of solar cycle 25 are three years late and are nowhere to be seen. Scientists are asking if this could be the start of another Maunder-type Minimum. (The bummer with that, being that during those 70 quiet years the world slipped into the Little Ice Age; animals froze in barns, people starved, disease raged… see The brutal cold of the Maunder Minimum and the Great Irish Frost for some light entertainment.)
If it were going to happen, we ought to start preparing now, right? You know, take precautions, “buy insurance”, figure out if CO2 actually does any useful warming (and if so, pump more of it into our atmosphere). You know it makes sense…
Seriously, if the cold is coming, we really ought to pay attention. — Jo
————————————————————
From the press release today (June 14):
Major Drop in Solar Activity Predicted
“This is highly unusual and unexpected,” Dr. Frank Hill, associate director of the NSO’s Solar Synoptic Network, said of the results. “But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.”
Normally cycles begin with activity at 50 degrees (See 1999). New jet stream activity should have started in 2008 inside the circles.
Latitude-time plots of jet streams under the Sun’s surface show the surprising shutdown of the solar cycle mechanism. New jet streams typically form at about 50 degrees latitude (as in 1999 on this plot) and are associated with the following solar cycle 11 years later. New jet streams associated with a future 2018-2020 solar maximum were expected to form by 2008 but are not present even now, indicating a delayed or missing Cycle 25.
“We expected to see the start of the zonal flow for Cycle 25 by now,” Hill explained, “but we see no sign of it. This indicates that the start of Cycle 25 may be delayed to 2021 or 2022, or may not happen at all.”
No one from the big scare campaign is even pretending that this is about the science anymore. It’s just tribal name-calling, voo-doo dolls and poo jokes from preschool.
Al Gore hopes he has reality on his side. But the reality is the relentless slide of the polls. It’s the crashed Chicago Climate Exchange, the kaput green jobs. It’s the long list of countries who are are shaking themselves free of the eco-shackles. The apostles of a bygone cult are reduced to saying that warming causes cooling, death, disease and even prostitution in Ghana. The babbling last players standing are talking about saving the world from aliens. Sadly, those are not the nutters, no, they’re the ones from NASA.
The NASA crew worry that the aliens who have been blind to the last 60 years of I love Lucy beamed out to space, have instead been transfixed by a trace gas composition change from 0.028% to 0.039% on the third rock from the sun in a distant galaxy. I’m scared now, not of the aliens, but of our collapsing collective IQ. This is modern public debate (and from the team that got the man on the moon.)
Another big La Nina could mean another cold winter for the Northern USA, and another wet flooding summer with potentially nasty cyclones for Eastern Australia (and the rest of the Eastern Pacific nations). La Ninas even affect the Indian Monsoon Season. If only we could predict them accurately.
Frank Lansner on HideTheDecline has noticed that one set of models (NCEP/CFS) is predicting a large La Nina brewing, while most of the others are still forecasting “neutral” conditions. The NCEP/CFS models were more accurate last year. If they are right now, we could be in for a large La Nina. On the other hand, Australia’s Bureau of Met is predicting only that “La Nina remains possible in 2011”.
Guest Post: Frank Lansner
Another Large La Nina Imminent?
For months the NCEP/CFS has been predicting a stronger second La Nina dip. Prior to the last La Nina, the NCEP/CFS was much better at predicting the La Nina — and personally I feel confident with the NCEP/CFS Prediction. It does seem to suggest that a La Nina will be upon us in a very short while. If so, global cooling is likely to shift into a faster gear.
The death threats scare that was widely publicized in June 2011 turned out to be opportunistic hyperbole based on a five year old letter, one unverified remark at an event a year ago, and recycled old boorish emails. Yet the shameless propaganda machine continues to repeat the baseless claim without admitting that it was a transparent attempt to score sympathy points.
Why can they get away with it? Because media outlets like The Canberra Times won’t apologize for printing such vacuous unsubstantiated claims, and they won’t correct the record. And Catalyst (which soaked in the one-sided hyperbole with Science Under Seige last night) won’t do enough “investigation” to get the story straight.
The facts on the “death-threats”:
The only “death-threat letter” the ANU could name in June 2011 was five years old. (It was posted in 2006 or 2007.) Even that was not serious enough to officially report to the Australian Federal Police. (Issuing a death threat is a criminal act punishable with a 10 year sentence in the ACT.)
The other threat the ANU could “confirm” was a year old off-hand remark by an unknown person at a university function.
Other reports of threats were vague, without details, and are not being investigated by the Australian Federal Police.
When they had “quotes” they turned out to be just rude emails with lots of “f” words. Regrettable, unnecessary, but not death threats. (See: To a climate scientist, *swearing* equals a Death Threat (no wonder these guys can’t predict the weather.) The weak emails include things like: Just do your science or you will end up collateral damage in the war, GET IT,” and “If we see you continue, we will get extremely organised and precise against you,” reads another.
The “worst” rude emails they could find were shamelessly recycled from a year before. That says a lot about how frequently these type of emails are sent.
The security cards issued to climate scientists turned out to be a standard issue upgrade. Brice Bosnich reports that every member of the ANU Chemistry department got a new card.
The evidence confirms that those claiming “death-threats” are serial exaggerators, without evidence, seeking false sympathy to distract from their disintegrating scientific case.
“Respect the Science?”
After all this, Anna Maria Arabia — who heads up a scientific body FASTS (the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies) launched a “Respect the science” program. She strangely tried to set the tone by calling independent scientists insulting names, “deniers”, and repeating the vague, out-of-date and false claim that there were many death threats. Stooping to conspiracy theories without any evidence, she asserted that it was part of a “coordinated campaign”.
Let’s do what the government does, it works for them, it might work for us,
so I forgot my ethics and morals and swallowed my pride
We took out every credit card we could get and took out the maximum debt
You wouldn’t wish a wounded government on any nation. They’re too dangerous.
The timing could hardly be worse. We’re about to force our nation to spend far more on its energy than it has too, while our competitors are decidedly not doing that, and the world faces a economic meltdown of the “generational” type. We’re the last cab off the rank in a race to nowhere and most of the competitors have moved on to other events.
“Far from saving the worker, the ALP have become the unwitting schmucks who screwed the workers to help the banksters”.
The 15 minutes of fame or a face saving “legacy” will last only until the rest of Australia wakes up to just how monumentally stupid, utterly pointless, and expensive and ineffectual this tax is. And they are waking up. The rise of skepticism in the polls is a one way street, a monotonic increase. No one is shifting into the believer camp.
Only an idiot would think a tax can change the weather.
Far from making skeptics “give up”, the legislation will galvanize the activists, industry, and the disorganized grassroots campaign. There will be no let up, no escape from the relentless bad news as Australia becomes the last nation on Earth to fall headlong for the witchdoctor’s scare campaign.
The storms are coming. Pay us your tithe!
The growing ridicule and satirical jibes will eat ALP credibility for breakfast.
“DESTRUCTIVE hurricanes such as Katrina and Rita are likely to be more common … Tim Flannery warns.” “These hurricanes have been a catastrophe just waiting to happen.”
…
The IPCC concludes:
“Studies showed … future tropical cyclones would likely become more severe with greater wind speeds and more intense precipitation.” AR4 10.3.6.3 Tropical Cyclones (Hurricanes) pp786
…
Wow, that’s scary! Let’s look at the studies:
“These studies fall into two categories: those with model grid resolutions that only roughly represent some aspects of individual tropical cyclones, and those with model grids of sufficient resolution to reasonably simulate individual tropical cyclones.”
Oh? That’s models, or er… other models?
But where are the observations?
CO2 levels have risen to the highest level in a million years, presumably Hurricanes, Tornadoes and Cyclones are at all time highs, stronger and nastier than we’ve ever seen.
Records of actual tropical storms or proxies for storms show:
Global energy levels haven’t changed since records of that sort of thing began.
Global frequencies haven’t changed either.
Neither Australian or US extreme storms are becoming more common
US Tornadoes are not getting worse either.
Long term studies show it’s not about CO2, and not much about temperature, but more about La Ninas and El Ninos.
…
Globally tropical storms show no correlation with our CO2 emissions. Their global energy levels are no different to what they were 40 years ago.
Last 4-decades of Global and Northern Hemisphere Accumulated Cyclone Energy: 24 month running sums through August 31, 2011. Note that the year indicated represents the value of ACE through the previous 24-months for the Northern Hemisphere (bottom line/gray boxes) and the entire global (top line/blue boxes). The area in between represents the Southern Hemisphere total ACE. Ryan Maue
Tony Abbott’s record lead over Julia Gillard: Newspoll
After a devastating decision in the High Court last week wiped out the Prime Minister’s Malaysia Solution for asylum-seekers, Labor’s primary vote has stuck at a record low of 27 per cent.
The Coalition’s has risen to 50 per cent – the highest since John Howard was prime minister at the time of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.
An editor has resigned after committing the dastardliest of crimes: He helped publish a skeptical paper in a peer-reviewed journal. God-forbid, imagine a paper being reviewed only by people who have some sympathies with your results? It’s unthinkable. We all know that Nature and Science, for example, dutifully send all the papers by alarmists to at least one skeptical reviewer, and since 97% of 77 climate scientists are alarmists, that means the other two scientists who aren’t, are very busy people. (75 of 77 climate scientists “agree” that the world is going to hell because of CO2). And who knows where they found that third skeptic?
Naturally, lots of journal editors have resigned when they’ve realized that, accidentally, they’ve only sent alarmist papers to alarmist reviewers.
As if we needed reminding about how bizarre, unbalanced, and unscientific is the creed of climate. Normally, if egregious mistakes are found, a paper would be retracted. If “normal” mistakes are found, those who found them could publish something called a “reply”. This resignation appears to be a first. Wagner chucked his job without even so much as phoning Spencer or Braswell, which makes you wonder if it was all a bit convenient.
To the editors who are thinking of resigning from peer-reviewed journals, or finishing up as presidents of Science Associations, or winding up their position at a government funded institution, instead of just resigning, why not go out with a bang? You too, could quit, and leave a blockbuster-press-release-for-the-cause, pretending that (insert spurious reason) provoked you into going.
See, it’s really handy — Roy Spencer and William Braswell have a paper out there that’s peer reviewed, but very difficult to answer, Wolfgang Wagner has provided the perfect reply: That paper was so bad that the editor of the journal quit because it was published. See, no one needs to discuss the evidence in it now; they can just pour scorn, and talk about the editor resigning, case closed, it’s obviously a crap paper you know. Brilliant!
*Me. Of course, I’ve got no evidence, or even a hint that Mr Wagner was thinking of resigning anyway, but if he wasn’t and he really did resign over this, it’s all the more pathetic — like a cult victim sacrifice. In which case we ought be feeling sorry for poor old Wagner, who has been got too, excommunicated from his peer group for accidentally letting through an evil paper.
For those who want science and not politics, the enormous scientific compendium known as the NIPCC reports has been updated to incorporate new results. There are hundreds of references to peer reviewed research. It is as always, thorough, professional and comprehensive.
The authors of the new NIPCC report conclude that “the net effect of continued warming and rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is most likely to be beneficial to humans, plants, and wildlife.”
There’s not much point in me posting scientific information at the moment. Let’s face it, the political situation Down-under has reached new peaks of grand maladroitness and irascible incompetence, and most of the comments will want to unpack that.
Julia Gillard. Source Herald Sun. Photo: Lyndon Mechielsen
For those of you overseas, sorry if it’s all so Australian-politics dominated, but really, there haven’t been that many democratic governments who have bollocksed up so many things, for so many people, in so short a time. This is history in the making. The cattle trade, insulation installers, building groups, asylum seekers (shutting down a working system, announcing East Timor , then Malaysia), Green loans, and cash for clunkers. And now of course, just in case there is a single business group left undamaged, they want to tax-the-rest to change the weather.
When the Rudd government took over in 2007 there was a chunky$20 billion dollar surplus, now there is $82 billion in debt and $200 billion in liabilities (see also $200 b in securities on offer); there were 150 asylum seekers in detention in 2007 (or something like that) now there are 6,000. They had a landslide type win getting in, then the thinnest marginal “win” with the aid of lies, and now they’re reduced to the lowest polling figures ever recorded. All in just three years and nine months. Impressive.
It’s an interesting case-study in just how much damage a modern democratic party can do.
A local Liberal Party branch president recently confided to me. When he asked his long term Laborite friend if Gillard was as bad as Whitlam, the Labor friend indignantly exclaimed they weren’t in the same class, and then he defended Whitlam.
I know you non-Australians are all proud of your Worst Ever Governments, and some of them have been doozies. But go on, try to think of ways as to how this government could have botched up more things in a lesser span of time.
Bad governments don’t just “waste millions of dollars” — mismanagement kills.
We live in one of the richest nations on Earth. But waiting times for one type of cancer treatment in Australia have blown out to the point where 2,500 people are dying every year. Why do we have money to waste on fruitless efforts to change the weather?
NEARLY 2500 cancer patients are dying prematurely each year due to poor provision of radiation therapy services, experts have estimated — with many more waiting far longer for the life-saving treatment than clinically recommended.
Graeme Morgan, former director of radiation oncology at Sydney’s Royal North Shore Hospital, said it appeared state governments were attempting to give preference to other treatments such as chemotherapy due to the high upfront costs of installing the linear accelerator machines required to deliver radiation treatments.
Yet he said the result was that nationally, 15,600 Australian cancer patients were missing out on radiation therapy each year, and 2500 dying early — figures he described as “a disgrace”.
Thirty percent of one cancer patient group was missing out on starting radiation therapy within six weeks (ideally, it ought to be within 4 weeks):
“If you don’t treat patients in the recommended time, there’s maybe a 1 per cent drop in their likely survival for every two to three days that they miss out” beyond the recommended limit, Professor Morgan said.
What if we just said “No” to any more solar subsidies, or windfarm waste, and instead spent that money reducing waiting times and increasing lifespans?
Alan Moran of the IPA estimated that the 20% renewable energy scheme loaded a deadweight loss of 1.8 billion a year on the Australian economy [2009 IPA report]. That’s $6 billion spent from 2009 to now that could have been used to buy medical equipment and pay specialists (not to mention the money left over). How many lives did it cost us to make a symbolic statement on about “renewables” which achieved nothing for the environment. Where are our priorities?
Would our lives be improved more by spending $60 billion on a fibre optic network (cost: about $5,000+ per Australian household), or by installing enough linear accelerator machines and MRI’s so that patients have the peace of mind and possibly years of life to boot? I expect there would be some change too, like possibly enough to fund 50 years worth of medical research or so (oi!).
Our annual medical research budget is just $800 million.
“Science broadcaster turned climate-sceptic blogger and convoy backer, Jo Nova, let loose. “The ABC coverage is so shamefully biased, a government PR agency could hardly have done a better job,” she claimed.
“They carefully avoided selecting any of the key messages in the speeches or petition (but they put in any odd unconnected grievance they could find). They didn’t interview the organisers, instead just showing a snippet of a song and a truckie tooting.” But the opponents of the rally were no less inclined to conspiracy.”
When the media coverage of the Convoy was so dismally biased, I wasn’t suggesting a conspiracy. No one needs a conspiracy when good old fashioned incompetence will do. I have documented some of the poor media coverage of climate science, and especially ABC coverage, at length.
Indeed, Mark Scott, director of the ABC himself admitted that the ABC is there to help the government. The fact that he thought it was OK to admit that publicly tells you how far the ABC has come from any notion that it is there to serve-the-people.
Who needs a conspiracy?
My issue with the ABC, and some other outlets, is their culture and their dismal standards. No one has to issue an order from above, or conspire to get mostly left-learning journo’s to pull the punches or ignore stories that threaten their favorite party. As I said, ABC radio in Perth found time in its 6pm bulletin to talk about back-burning in Broome, but not to mention that some 600 vehicles, some that had actually driven from Broome, were protesting in Canberra that day. What issue do you suppose West Australian citizens would find more interesting? Fire control, or a historic protest asking for an election?
If 600 vehicles from all over the country had turned up to protest against the Howard Work Choices policy, would the ABC ignore it? Would news headlines read “No confidence convoy suffers small numbers”. If a disparate group of farmers, miners, road freight workers and business people were protesting about Industrial Relations, would the ABC have dismissed them as grumpy “truckies”? (Louise Maher even complained that the Convoy caused no traffic delays, which was an “unexpected inconvenience”, people got to work early, or had to make up other excuses if they slept in. The travesty!). Where were the thanks that the Convoy had taken so much trouble to consider the people of Canberra? Where was the admiration that the Convoy was so well organized?
Would they have repeated the denigrating claim that it was a convoy of no consequence (sometimes without even quoting it as an Albanese special, but rather adopting it as their own home-made-scorn?) Maybe they were disappointed they didn’t think of it first?
That’s what’s so interesting about the Convoy. The ABC, and the Labor Party used to pretend to be considerate about working Australia. They paid lip-service to “respecting” their views. Not any more. They detest, show contempt and look down on them, and they don’t even bother to hide it anymore.
Bob Hawke would have handled it very differently.
Everybody knows a journalist ought to keep their voting intentions out of their reporting — in theory — but they aren’t even trying anymore. And go on, name the ABC journalists who are conservative, or libertarian…
Welcome to the Land of the Endless Conspiracy
At least Christian Kerr acknowledges the real conspiracy theories tossed by the other side. Though he missed that this particular one he quoted backs up my point to the hilt.
Ramon Glazov, ABC “Contributor’
“The ABC’s The Drum website published a 1300-word dissertation hinting at dark links between the rally organizers and US industrialists David and Charles Koch, the alleged bankrollers of the Tea Party movement.”
Dissertation is a flattering word for the Ramon Glazov unresearched speculation, based on desperately tenuous links, no cause and effect connection, and nothing resembling evidence. Christian missed that Glazov can’t substantiate almost everything he says — sure he was at the Convoy launch in Perth that I was at (at least, he has photos). But what kind of “journalist” attends an event in a carpark where he has easy access to the two people he then writes about at length yet doesn’t bother to “interview” either of them (that would be myself and Janet Thompson by the way). Then — with a straight face — he headlines his story… “Unanswered Questions”?
Please, will the original artist comment so I can give credit and a link?
UPDATE #1: Could be Alex Werchon on CAN-Do? 4-Mar-2011? (h/t Dave N if so).
UPDATE #2: Andrew Bolt describes the Thomson meltdown as “out of control” — Senior members of the Gillard government are being accused of heavying the Health Services Union for reporting the allegation that M.P. Thomson misused Union funds to hire prostitutes... “overnight a dirt-covered shovel is left outside the door of HSU secretary Kathy Jackson, who was home alone.” Bolt also notes that the Labor Party connection with union thugs and conmen has some history.
“What we are witnessing is more like scenes from a mafia vendetta, not the processes of a responsible government.”
Who knew they conquered the low energy density, high maintenance, poor performance, bad weather, and general darkness at nighttime — all in the last weekend? This changes everything… oh, but wait, that’s odd — this only applies in some parts of New South Wales?
Silly me, and I thought the sun shone on the whole nation (and sometimes on the rest of the world too)?
THE cost of solar power in parts of NSW has for the first time crept below that of coal-fired electricity – seen as a key tipping point for the expansion of renewable energy. [SMH]
The dead-set give away is the “parts of NSW” — straight away you know that either someone is stealing sunlight from neighboring councils, or this isn’t a real “cost”, not in the same sense that you and I would use the word. When we think of the cost of something, it means we want to know how much we’ll pay. If we pay less up front, but five times as much tax, then the item is not cheap. And if we pay in lost jobs, ruined businesses, and damaged superannuation then the real cost cost is not just dollars but marriages and lives.
Indeed solar power is so hideously, prodigiously expensive for the people of New South Wales, the subsidies for solar electricity threaten to bankrupt the state.
Anton Lang (who writes as TonyfromOz) has the devastating numbers that Ben Cubby, Brian Robins, or Melissa Lahoud (the SMH journalists) didn’t try to find. To understand why the words “cost effective” and “solar panel” should never be used in the same article, follow Anton’s reasoning:
The three main problems listed below: 1. Night-time; 2. pitiful average power output, and 3. worst of all — Coal is dirt cheap.
…climate scientists are losing the fight with climate sceptics. That the sceptics are so well funded, so well organized, have nothing else to do, they kind of don’t have day jobs, they can put all of their efforts into misinforming and miscommunicating climate science to the public, whereas the climate scientists have day jobs and this isn’t one of them. All of the efforts you do in an IPCC report is done out of hours, voluntarily, for no funding and no pay, whereas the sceptics are being funded to put out full scale misinformation campaigns…”
Tom Nelson caught him telling prospective students in the Adelaide Advertiser that they ought to rush to study climate science so they can get paid well, be political activists, and change our understanding of the climate.
Almost invariably, climate PhDs with a physics or maths background find themselves in demand overseas and with excellent salary packages,” he said. ”This is a growing area with a small number of such specialists, making them an elite that are coming in at the ground floor of a worldwide demand, so it is a great way to fast-track a career.”
I rather scathingly explained the 7 errors in Pitmans paragraph last year. (Skeptics are unfunded, with no salary packages, no PR team, no UN department, and little support, yet can name hundreds of studies to support them. Pitman probably gets close to $200k a year for being a professor, yet despite the high salary, makes unscientific ad hom attacks that are unworthy of a grad student, and can’t provide empirical evidence to support his models).
So much for volunteering, he received $60k in grants to attend IPCC events.
But what’s the story with the “new” field of climate science? I thought the science was settled? You mean there are things we don’t know?
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
Print This Post | | 
Follow Jo's Tweets
Recent Comments