lots and lots of nastiness, and cliches, and nonsense. tried to post on WUWT, but not sure it has gone thru there. links to the original:
5 Jan: PlanetSave: Zachary Shahan: Republican Presidential Candidates Win Climate B.S. of the Year Award
Climate scientists and communicators got together to come up with a list of 2011′s biggest climate B.S.-spewers recently. B.S. standing for Bad Science, of course. Here’s the full list, via Climate Progress:
by Peter Gleick
Fifth Place: Anthony Watts for his BEST, and worst, climate hypocrisy…
Steve McIntyre
And finally, the “dishonorable” mention of the year goes to Steve McIntyre for his despicable smear of climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State University (and to Anthony Watts for amplifying that smear) by drawing a parallel between the Penn State pedophilia investigation and their separate scientific investigation of questions about climate research (in which Professor Mann has been completely and repeatedly exonerated). Joe Romm discusses this disgusting case here. http://planetsave.com/2012/01/05/republican-presidential-candidates-win-climate-b-s-of-the-year-award/
———————————-
Obviously this was reported – but it’s posted to draw attention to how nasty the alarmist machine can be, and it’s no doubt a badge of pride to all who are named. I will move the comment to unthreaded. — Jo
Donna Laframboise has a lucid explanation of how (but not why) the Australian intelligentsia and the current, temporary Australian political ruling class are virtually alone in the world outside Europe in adopting the extremism of the IPCC as government policy.
Murdoch media beats ABC and Fairfax with this one!!!
check the photo illustrating the first piece. WUWT reaches 100m, so congrats to them and Jo and the Bishop and everyone else who has played a part in the fight to save the scientific method:
7 Jan: Adelaide Advertiser: AAP: Climate warning on rare animals
NATIONS may need to abandon saving certain animals because of climate change and habitat loss, scientists say.
The University of Queensland and scientists from the CSIRO said that for the first time they have measured the relationship between climate change and habitat loss and how it impacts on plants and animals on a global scale.
When you combine the two, they discovered potentially “catastrophic” effects.
“Human population growth has caused significant habitat degradation across the globe, typically in support of agriculture and urban development,” lead researcher Chrystal Mantyka-Pringle from University of Queensland said in a statement.
“This alone has negatively impacted many species, but combined with rises in temperature and reduced rainfall as a result of a changing climate, there could be catastrophic results for some populations.”…
The scientists findings were recently published in the journal Global Change Biology. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/climate-warning-on-rare-animals/story-e6frea6u-1226239069347
7 Jan: Australian: John Ross: Climate change’s best survivors: bugs
The study was designed to provide background information for Mrs Mantyka-Pringle’s PhD thesis on priority actions to conserve Australian biodiversity…
The study found the most important determinant of habitat loss impacts was current maximum temperature, followed by changes in rainfall patterns over the last century.
The impacts were greatest in areas with high maximum temperatures and lowest in areas where average rainfall had increased.
Mrs Mantyka-Pringle said all terrestrial species including plants and birds were responding similarly, with the exception of arthropods – the taxonomic group which includes insects and spiders.
She said this could be due to the diverse characteristics of arthropods, which constitute more species than any other animal group. “If you’re a generalist species you have a better chance of succeeding through climate change,” she said….
She said the study would help identify areas vulnerable to biodiversity loss.
“Australia is a major target. Not only do we have high maximum temperatures, but places like north Queensland, south Western Australia and even Tasmania have all suffered from decreased rainfall.” http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/climate-changes-best-survivors-bugs/story-e6frgcjx-1226238460071
President Obama and the Secretary of State have both repeated that Darwin is essential to USA’s strategy in the Asia-Pacific region.
USA is cutting $500 billion in defence over a decade, but not in this region. Although there is no Cold War situation vis a vis China – USA, China is building its forces rapidly.
The major sea routes of the world will be in this region. India is another growing power. USA can’t sit back in isolationism as in 1941.
Remember, it took a lot of lives, blood and effort by USA to crush the Japanese in the Pacific. The “Battle of the Coral Sea” was fought just off Townsville!
After all that, USA is not going to meekly hand over power to China in the Pacific as one Chinese admiral chided that USA should stay on one side and leave the other to China.
We have a bit of a dilemma because we do not want to be a puppet of China or be in its military orbit should it expand like the Japanese with its ‘co-prosperity sphere’.
Yet, much of our economy depends on trade with China. Given the choice I would rather be under the protection of USA as in the 40s onward.
There was a short period of just two years where for the first time since WW2 it actually made sense to ask the question of who Australia should be allied towards, because the american economy was going down the gurgler and their ability to wage war on multiple fronts was not sustainable. The rise of china looked like an economic pie that would be nice to get a slice from, and since we are essentially in Asia (no matter how much white bread australia wants to deny it) a greater chinese-australian mutual investment and security relationship began to move from impossibility into the realm of being remotely possible at some future point.
Well that might lead to continued peace, which isn’t as profitable as the alternative, so by the New World Order hypothesis one would predict the banksters will delay and sabotage any attempt at closer sino-austral relations. Hmmm… cue Barack “GS” Obama… and bingo.
Within 10 years we may see a new Pearl Harbour event occur at the USA’s new (under construction) Naval base in South Korea, which China doesn’t like at all. It seems as though it is being built entirely for the purpose of serving as a stage for a Chinese attack on the USA military, and I use the word “stage” there quite specifically. It “worked” before, so it can work again, that’s the logic of it.
Given a free choice, I’d rather Australia build up its own defence industry as the enormous monetary savings of using the Pentagon as your primary defence force seems to have had occasional moral and corporeal costs. Well it’s nice to dream. Here in the real world it does not make much practical sense to not be allied with a force you could never hope to beat, especially when caught between China and USA geographically. We are the new Midway Island. Pine Gap, Geraldton, and Exmouth already have critical USA footprints. So as infuriating as this new USA base may be, one has to ask how much more cost and risk is involved in saying No to USA imperial expansion towards the Indian ocean. Again politics is the art of the possible, and our own politically substantial defence force is currently impossible.
To recycle an old hawk phrase, the USA is now basically saying “How did our gold and iron get under Australia’s sand?”
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE WORLD WOULD BE A BETTER PLACE WITHOUT amerika and its war machine and the only danger we are in from China is through our own piss weak government.We wouldn’t have troops dying in Afghanistan and there would not have been a “bomb” in Bali.
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE WORLD WOULD BE A BETTER PLACE WITHOUT amerika and its war machine and the only danger we are in from China is through our own piss weak government.
But the world was a much better place in late 1945 because of ‘amerika’. And still is. The PM of Australia in 1939 was none other than Robert G Menzies. He allowed trade with Japan especially of pig iron. He was called ‘pig iron Bob’. People reminded him of the iron being returned via bombs.
Trade is no guaruntee against conflict. In 1914 both Britain and Germany were major trading partners. Their leaders were related by blood. But when WW1 got under way leaders on both sides asked themselves, “How the heck did we get ourselves into this mess?”
One reason was too much reliance on treaties that were so meshed that a single shot in Serbia started dominoes falling. It is better to have a simple strategy than one that is convoluted like spaghetti.
6 Jan: BigPondNews: Govt can’t sell carbon tax – Turnbull
Opposition frontbencher Malcolm Turnbull says the federal government has done a terrible job in selling the carbon tax.
‘This mob could not sell fresh fish to starving seals. They are the worst advocates I’ve ever seen,’ Mr Turnbull told ABC Television.
Mr Turnbull said Climate Change Minister Greg Combet has done a much better job than Prime Minister Julia Gillard at selling the tax.
‘Greg Combet in a dour sort of way does a pretty good job of explaining the mechanics of it, but the prime minister is the chief salesman of any government and she’s been unable to explain her policies.
‘Wayne Swan on the other hand always radiates anxiety and uncertainty and a lack of confidence.
‘Now no matter how good the message he has to deliver he always appears to be somewhere between uncertain and slightly terrified.’… http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Finance/2012/01/06/Govt_cant_sell_carbon_tax_-_Turnbull_704513.html
They voted against his Republican Referendum proposal and the same people will question his truthfulness about the Big C Tax.
The blatant use of ABC to help get this tax up and help That Big Bank which shall Not Be Named across the line and into the black, is sickening.
On the other hand, a young person who has never worked and wondered why they pay so much tax, might think the world is being saved by the most noble group of people imaginable.
JULIA Gillard has invoked a doomsday-like scenario of metre-high sea level rises and a 2000km southward shift of Australia’s climactic zones as she battles an opposition scare campaign over her proposed carbon tax.
“It is equivalent to the climate of Cairns being the climate of New South Wales.
It’s equivalent of the climate of Melbourne being the climate of southern Tasmania.
Ms Gillard said she was determined to act on the advice of climate scientists….
Sydney is the new Melbourne, or even Launceston – at least according to weather the harbour city has experienced this summer.
Sydney recorded a lower average than both the cities, 22.3 degree during the first 22 days of this month, compared to Melbourne’s 24.4 degrees and the northern Tasmanian city’s 22.4 degrees, Bureau of Meteorology climatologist Acacia Pepler said.
Yesterday’s Syd Morn Herald carried wonderful stories that would tug the heart strings of a compassionate person.
Paul Gilding’s struggle for green awareness and the best one is the article about our new responsibilities under the climate change regime.
All of the Maldives and all of Tuvalu want to migrate to Australia as “Climate Refugees” obviously with all of the privileges and rights associated with that status.
Real, heart wrenching stuff.
If only the SMH would take a trip around the burbs in Australia and see the difficulties most Australians exist under.
Our taxation, hard earned, is set to pay for more.
KinkyKeith, I hadn’t heard of the Maldives, and the climate refugee stuff, but did about Tuvula, who have approached New Zealand too, they made a pathetic plea at the 2009 Copenhagen plea. The problem is some islands and especially atolls tend to erode or sink. Add removing sand from their foreshores, as in Tuvula for building purposes (by the yanks I believe)adds to their woes.
Atolls come and go, but often rebuild themselves. They are very vulnerable to storm damage and Tsunamis. Problem is people have built in places that were subject to these problems, natural problems, like earthquakes, (Christchurch) and in parts of Japan. Floods like in Brisbane, and on the foothills of still active volcanoes. Like Etna, Vesuvius and Stromboli and places that really haven’t been occupied for a long time or on rather geographical time lines with a resident not mobile populations. Japan was not occupied until after the last ice age, when their islands were fraught with seismic and volcanic eruptions,(worse than today) but still joined to mainland Asia. However, these islands wanting UNCCF dollars, are asking for help to remain in situ. And perhaps, like on Easter Island, their days are numbered because the natural environment can no longer sustain them especially with increasing population growth.
The Maldivian president made astriking impact on the intrepid SMH reporter who braved her life to get the story before theisland went under.
Back to reality.
A figure of 1.7 square kilometres was given as the area of the main island and the population as 110,000 souls.
For a small coral island the crushing weight of even a little bit of infrastructure to go with the population puts a load on the sand / coral support base.
I calculated, roughly, it amounts to about 110 kg per square metre of surface space.
This load would be OK on Manhattan island which is all granite, but on a coral island you have to be joking.
As you say, they are overpopulated and my figures do not include allowances for modern airport and high rise buildings.
Poor management of a fragile resource places them in line for the prize of “Eco Vandals” of the decade.
They have been greedy and don’t need our hard won taxes to bail them out.
7 Jan: Herald Sun: Neil Wilson/AAP: EU carbon tax turbulence hits Qantas
The Federal Government has joined criticism of the EU by foreign airlines and governments disadvantaged by the tax.
Qantas passengers will now face a carbon tax in three jurisdictions — Australia, New Zealand, and Europe. Qantas said it would meet its obligations but its position illustrated the “problems with a fragmented approach to pricing aviation emissions”.
A spokesman for federal Transport Minister Anthony Albanese said a global tax levied through the International Civil Aviation Organisation was preferable. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/eu-carbon-tax-turbulence-hits-qantas/story-fn7j19iv-1226238582629
thou shalt love unilateral taxation by our CAGW masters:
6 Jan: Toronto Star: Tyler Hamilton: Air Canada’s snub of EU carbon tax governed by ego, not eco concerns
Yet Air Canada and its fellow airlines in Canada, the United States, China, India, Russia and Japan insist on demonizing the fee and amplifying talk of trade wars and unproven claims of job destruction. It doesn’t matter that the European Union Court of Justice ruled recently that the new tax does not contravene international law.
“This ruling by no means settles this matter,” George Petsikas, president of Canada’s airline council, said defiantly after the European court ruling…
What’s admirable about the EU approach is that it’s about more action and less talk. Understandably, it’s tired of waiting for the rest of the world to get its act together…
So what, exactly, is the fuss all about? It’s about the rest of the world not liking Europe taking the lead and telling it what to do, and even though it’s clear that we need to do it… http://www.thestar.com/business/cleanbreak/article/1111647–hamilton-air-canada-s-snub-of-eu-carbon-tax-governed-by-ego-not-eco-concerns
After the oil collapse, trains are going to be big BIG business. I still regret not having bought shares in QR National when their prospectus came out 15 months ago. After the float their share price went up by 40% in 12 months. In the USA, Warren Buffet has been buying up every railway company he can get. One of the world’s richest and smartest investors buying railways, naahhh, that can’t be a sign of things to come. :-S
Some one please clear up some confusion on my part, regarding Qantas and the European airline tax. I was under the impression that the tax would only be impossed on airlines from nations the E.U. considered not doing enough to fight the dreaded evil climate change.
Doesn’t Juliars world leading tax exclude Australian airlines from the European tax.
“…..The Temple’s purpose is to facilitate the one world religion, through the promoting both the acceptance and the embrace of all religions, beliefs and rituals. The Temple of Understanding’s Meditation Room was to be known as the “Hall of Illumination”‘ where the Illuminati, Masters of Wisdom, Our Leaders of the Temple of Understanding will train the public in the new humanistic cult…to create a new type of mystic”
The Temple has received full UN accreditation and has been a key actor in the “spiritual” department of the UN. Twelve individuals listed as Directors or Advisors of the Temple of Understanding are also members of the UN’s Global Forum councils. Those Forums have received numerous speakers who’ve openly supported a neo-pagan world religion based on Earth worship. James Lovelock, one of the speakers mentioned that “Gaia” (an ancient term describing the Earth as a Goddess) was the giver of life and had the capacity to heal herself. He describes humans as being cancers to Gaia, an “illness too overwhelming for her to heal herself”. In other words, humans are parasites to the goddess Gaia.
Al Gore has been a guest several times at the Cathedral of St.John the Divine where he infamously said “God is not separate from the Earth“. Well, in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, God IS in fact separate from the Earth (in the Heavens). If you decipher Gore’s phrase:
God = Earth = Earth is God
Gore has been repeatedly applauded by Pagan groups for his books and lectures. The Church of All Worlds congratulated the Clinton/Gore victory in 1996 by writing:
“We are Neo-Pagans — implying an eclectic reconstruction of ancient Nature religions, and combining archetypes of many cultures with other mystic and spiritual disciplines — and our beliefs and values are no different from those you describe as your own. Your book, Earth in Balance, is heralded by our People as a manifesto for all we hold dear…Know that there are half million NeoPagans out here who support you, and who voted for you, and who will rally to the aid of your policies for the salvation of the Earth and the reunification of the Great Family”.
Another member of the board of directors of the Temple of Understanding is Thomas Berry. He believes that the world is being called to a new, “post-denominational”, even a post-Christian belief system that sees the earth as a living being — with mankind as her consciousness.
Ok, so what the heck does this mean?
If you read my article about the Georgia Guidestones or the Denver International Airport, you’re already aware of unusual monuments and art placed by powerful yet secretive groups calling for a new type of global spirituality. Key words or expressions are often used to make this religious shift socially acceptable: “Peace” , “balance with nature” or ”harmony with the infinite”. How can you be against peace? You can’t. Those buzz words hide however the means that will be used to obtain those objectives: “Peace” will only happen when all there will be a single world government. “Balance with nature” will only happen when the world population will drastically decrease and “harmony with the infinite” will only happen when the world will give up traditional religions to embrace neo-pagan humanism.
The St. John the Divine Cathedral acts as a nervous center for the spiritual side of the global shift. Through numerous forums and UN summits, the Temple of Understanding reunites leaders from all major religions to devise a universal message. This message will later be communicated to the masses through local religious networks. In a slow yet steady manner, all religious faiths are leaning towards the same sets of values and will eventually converge into humanism….
I missed the whole article on Sky News last night –just saw Brown rabbiting on about Tony Abbott missing the boat and Gillard getting it right on the carbon tax.
Is China going to introduce a low level carbon tax ?? or is it just talk??
Ross,
The Australian had an article yesterday which appeared to say China would definitely be having a Co2 tax. However, if you read the article carefully it is anything but certain. What is certain is a penalty on genuine pollutants. Below is an extract of the nitty-gritty,
“Su Ming, deputy director of Financial Science Research Institute, told the state-run Economic Information Daily that under the proposal, the tax rate would increase gradually.
Mr Su said the institute originally proposed the tax to take effect this year, but considering that economic growth may slow down due to the European crisis and government moves to deflate the country’s property bubble, “2012 may not be good time”.
“For the carbon tax, the energy industry might be given certain tax reductions at certain stages when their businesses are much affected,” Mr Su said. “Companies which are actively adopting emissions reduction technology and recycling technology might be given preferential tax, too.”
He said pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, COD (chemical oxygen demand) and nitrogen oxide would be the first to incur tax and, as conditions matured, other emissions would be included. The proposed tax would focus on big consumers of coal, crude oil and natural gas.”
The Chinese are ‘considering’ a possible tax commencing with NOX and SOX but not for three years. Not part of the present five year plan (2010-15).
I suspect the whole scam will be exposed by then.
The manipulation of the so called ‘news release’ is typical of the Australian media in an attempt to justify Gillard’s tax. Gillard must think we are idiots.
Thanks for that KinkyKeith,
In truth, I’ve never tried to argue with warmists on terms other than just CO2 as a GHG.
May I ask for a source for the 4% and 5% figures? Hopefully from a source that warmists might accept, ie, Wikipedia, or some other warmist site.
As I understand it, we humans contribute less than 3% of the CO2 each year. Is this your 4% value?
“As I understand it, …….less than 3% of the CO2 each year. Is this your 4% value?” Yes.
There are a number of sources for the water being 95% of the GHG Effect and I think that even the IPCC acknowledges this but gets around it and confuses the ill informed by saying that “Water” is part of Nature’s cycle and therefore somehow not involved.
The basic physics and thermodynamics of the situation are so indisputable that they even were forced to invent the concept of CO2 absorbing ground IR and radiating it back to Earth.
This also is total rubbish as they ignore the basic physics that says the path length of ground IR is about 10 metres in the atmosphere. This obviously means that convection is the prime heat transfer mechanism at work from just above GL to about 5 km altitude.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Oops words from the past have the ability to haunt those in the present.
Forgot to honor the person who quotes those words
None other than “Joseph Goebbels”
Hitler’s propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels, supposedly said:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Rush Limbaugh, the popular American radio commentator, is just one of the many influential Americans who has cited this quotation. During a May 2007 radio broadcast he claimed that these remarks are “from Hitler’s war room, the Nazi spinmeister-in-chief, Joseph Goebbels,” who was “speaking for his cronies in the Nazi party.” Limbaugh went on to claim that American “Democrat Party” leaders were using “a version” of Goebbels’ technique to try to “repress dissent.” And in January 2011 US Congressman Steve Cohen, a Democratic party politician of Tennessee, accused Republicans of propagating “a big lie, just like Goebbels” about a proposed national health care plan.
In fact, Goebbels’ views were quite different than what this fraudulent quote suggests. He consistently held that propaganda should be accurate and truthful.
In an address given in September 1934 in Nuremberg, he said: “Good propaganda does not need to lie, indeed it may not lie. It has no reason to fear the truth. It is a mistake to believe that people cannot take the truth. They can. It is only a matter of presenting the truth to people in a way that they will be able to understand. A propaganda that lies proves that it has a bad cause. It cannot be successful in the long run.”
In an article written in 1941, he cited examples of false British wartime claims, and went on to charge that British propagandists had adopted the “big lie” technique that Hitler had identified and condemned in his book Mein Kampf. Goebbels wrote: “The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.”
Sounds mighty like AGW doesn’t it?
Whether he said it or not matters not … never let the truth get in the way of a good story, especially when it comes to pushing crap government policy.
One of the finest crafted speeches I have ever seen/heard. Ross McKitrick lecturing the Canadian Senate Select Committee, starts a few minutes in after the Senator does the introductions and drones on a bit.
When the Libs get in they say they will reverse the tax but also they should pull out of Kyoto.
This would be the same Liberals who, at the federal level, still have a “climate change policy”, complete with an “emissions reduction scheme”, and an “emissions trading scheme”.
This would be the same Liberals at the state level, in Victoria, who are installing sensors to high voltage power lines so they can cut the power off to whole, threatened communities rather than actually fire-proof the power lines with proper maintenance.
This would be the same Liberals, again at state level – this time in NSW where they have won a landslide victory – who are banning the sale of regular unleaded fuel from July First, to “promote the use of Biofuels”, to “save the environment”.
I’ve said it before, but I’m going to say it again.
Anybody who thinks simply changing from a Labor to a Liberal government at the next election, is going to “fix” all this climate insanity, is in for a big shock.
All the major political parties are beholden to those “in the club”, as George Carlin put it (coarse language).
Don’t you reckon the gubmen which ever flavour will be forced to wake up when the “Western Sydney Street Parties” become regular occurrences, i.e. at a time when the “Home & Away” brick veneerial Aussie dream has collapsed & the banks are the nation’s un-forgiving landlords?
My bet is the plastic/silicone lifestylers on the Gold Coast & all the way through Coomera & Kingston/Logan will be a good barometer.
So you believe that the next government won’t reverse the Carbon Tax and dismantle its associated qangos? If the Libs don’t they will lose their base that moved back when Turnbull was dumped. Got Katter’s party to park the protest votes so the game has changed.
Ah, the Libs have also a policy…the mighty catchcry of the alarmists to justify their beliefs! The Direct Action policy always came with the rider of being able to be abolished if circumstances dictate such, if indeed it is ever implemented in the first instance.
The emissions trading scheme was dependant on the rest of the world coming on board. How’s that shaping up? If it indeed come to pass then how would we be placed to take advantage?
That’s a good point. At this stage I’d rather vote for Bob “Wildcat” Katter than Tony “Unification of Church and State” Abbot.
Bob Katter wants to turn the Gulf country of Qld into “the fruit basket of Asia” and says there’s numerous water resources being underutilised.
Mr Katter said that as Labor struggled to form government in 2010 the PM gave him a personal commitment in writing that the entire 28,000ha scheme would be built. “The PM has put the pressure on,” he said. “She is pushing for her government to give me her agreement.”
Sounds great, assuming there is actually a hydrographic chance in hell of that being feasible.
His party’s policies surrounding food are thinly veiled nationalism, concurrent with an unabashed government support for more misguided ethanol production from sugar cane, not to mention their irresponsible aim to use government policy to boost population growth, whilst at the same time they oppose the carbon tax and bemoan the Nanny State! Very difficult to characterise them even as libertarians socially and socialists economically, though they are democrats politically of course. They are perhaps a grab-bag of policies that they view as practical in the present rather than single ideology puritans. To their astonishing credit, nearly every stance they have on every issue is explicitly aligned with one of their “Core Values and Principles”, so whilst their CV&Ps may be a hybrid, everything else flows fairly logically from there. Logic in politics, now that’s innovative!
In any event his preferences would be likely to flow to the LNP coalition (even though no such promise is made on their website), so Katter sounds like the least evil with the greatest chance at the moment.
Anybody who thinks simply changing from a Labor to a Liberal government at the next election, is going to “fix” all this climate insanity, is in for a big shock.
Hmmmm…. if “simply changing” governments has no hope of ending the Labor/Green climate insanity then what does? A third party organisation? An armed insurrection? How would you propose that we proceed?
In 2012 it will no longer be sufficient to simply be loudly in opposition without any program of political effectiveness to offer. That plan must begin with electing a coalition government committed to rolling back not only the carbon tax, but disbanding the department of climate change altogether.
We need to practise big tent politics.
It’s not accurate to claim the Libs, Nats or even some Laborites are as horrid as the Greens, that sort of blunt equivalency only alienates possible allies. We need to encourage and welcome pollies as they come up to speed on the science and the scales fall from their eyes, not act as Nemesis doling out vengeance for past human folly.
Sure, there are fools who can never be forgiven, such as Tony Windsor and Bob Oakshott who clearly betrayed their electorate for mammon. And there are those whose lies allowed them to form a government of questionable legitimacy. Others, like Greg Combet have shown themselves to be so callously cynical to have damaged their political careers.Then there are the fanatical Greens whose wretchedness is only a shade more respectable than the worse “isms” of the 20th century. Off to the wilderness with the lot of them!
But for the vast middling section of politicians the climate debate was just a distraction from the sorts of things they’re really interested in. They simply took on the expert CSIRO, IPPC advice at the time, jotted up a few moral CYA talking points about climate change then got on with whatever business their electorate was most interested in. It would be bad form to hold any politician to his or her original opinions about the state of the climate, force them up against the wall and make them stand for what they once erroneously believed on expert advice. This is especially so given the poisonous climate of intimidation, smears and the yellow star of “denialist” the Greenshirts and their ABC minions menacingly pinned to anyone brave enough to take a stand against absurdity. Pollies aren’t necessarily the stuff of heroes and anyway it’s doubtful many heroically skeptical politicians would have survived the last decade had there been many to start with.
It’s easy to talk tough anonymously online, another to put your career and your family’s well-being on the line.
Better to allow those who erred in the past save face as they come into our ever-growing tent.
The ‘fat controllers’ who worship Mammon have got their religion down pat but the majority of voters are a confused mob who have no idea of the cause of their predicament.
Never underestimate the intelligence of the average voter, my friend.
That’s exactly what Gillard and Brown and all the other elitist bastards who look down upon the battlers do. If it were true that “the majority of voters are a confused mob who have no idea…” then the ABC propaganda machine would have propelled the Labor/Green coalition into positive poll numbers.
Allow the image to centre on Papeete on your screen, and then place the cursor directly above the town.
Now zoom backwards to display the whole earth on your screen.
The blue area thus exposed, is what generates the majority of the earth’s climate, in one way or another.
For people living in the US, or in Europe, and used to seeing world maps from their personal perspective, sometimes have a problem with the fact that over half of the ‘earth’ isn’t earth at all, but is water.
And the media prattle on about “Global temperatures”, when 60% of the ‘Earth’ is a very efficient heat-sink. Not a clue.
You mean: ‘There are no real scientists who believe in CAGW because anyone who has scrutinized the evidence using the scientific method is now a denier skeptic.’
You can teach (profess) science in a prodigious institute without necessarily following the scientific method (i.e. without being a real scientist). Holding a position of authority in a scientific institution does not count for anything in the scientific community.
KinkyKeith
January 8, 2012 at 7:31 am · Reply
Anybody else notice the big train crash in the US on TV last night.
Seems the problem train was carrying, or going to load up on BIOFUEL / Ethanol.
=================
Great reporting, it was 3 trains, one stopped, got rear ended, the derailed train cars were in the path of the third train traveling on a parallel track (and I assume in the opposite direction)which piled into the original wreck
But, yes there was a mention of empty ethanol tankers.
I’m sure any rail fans reading will correct my mistakes.
Wow! China has just announced it WILL introduce a CO2 tax like Australia. But, alas, it will start in 2015 at the staggering amount of $1.55 a tonne. Julia is vindicated! Well, sort of…a little bit…not much…hardly.
But, alas, it will start in 2015 at the staggering amount of $1.55 a tonne.
Just a quick thought on this.
Australia is going to introduce its own CO2 Tax, and the price is set at that mark of $23 per tonne.
The following year it rises a buck or so, and the following year another buck or so, then at the start of the next year, it moves to a market based cost, after issue.
Imagine if, in that same year, as mooted above, that Chinese price is set at $1.55, what will happen to the CO2 market here in Australia.
At the start of the year, the Government issues its CO2 Credits at that last price of around $25/26 a tonne, and during that same year, China, the biggest market on the Planet introduces its CO2 cost at that $1.55.
Just what do you think those Credits will be worth when it comes time to hand them back in, or at the set times for trading those Credits.
Power plants will just fold up, or as designed in the Legislation, artfully called ‘Security of Supply’ the Government steps in to prop them up, then that cost will be borne by the taxpayer.
I guess this is Doctor Smith’s ‘perfect’ market mechanism.
Also worth thinking about is if that price does collapse to the $1.55 Chinese setting, imagine the now considerably depleted inflow into Government coffers if they have to issue the Credits for the following year at that base price which they have linked to.
They will be getting barely 5.5% of what they might have expected had that price stayed close to the original from day 1 of the year they last set it at, around $27.
Where will be all the Billions for pork barrelling the next election diversion into CO2 abatement projects and renewable power, considering they think they can hold onto Government for that long.
Also, notice how quiet Combet et al are now that their huge new tax is implemented.
I’ve just put this comment on Warwick Hughes’ blog but others here may be interested
for temperature enthusiasts I came across this recent paper
mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/35565/1/Climate_Change_and_Hockey_Stick.pdf
Guido Travaglini
part of the abstract
The goal of this paper is to test on a millennial scale the magnitude of the recent warmth period,
known as the “hockey-stick”, and the relevance of the causative anthropogenic climate change
hypothesis advanced by several academics and worldwide institutions. A select batch of ten longterm
climate proxies, included in the NOAA 92 PCN dataset all of which running well into the
nineties, is updated to the year 2011 by means of a Time-Varying Parameter Kalman Filter SISO
model for state prediction. This procedure is applied by appropriately selecting as observable one
out of the HADSST2 and of the HADCRUT3 series of instrumental temperature anomalies
available since the year 1850. The updated proxy series are thereafter individually tested for the
values and time location of their four maximum non-neighboring attained temperatures.
part of the conclusion:
Several climatologists and the IPCC have since long maintained that the RWP is an
unprecedented phenomenon in the climatic history of the Earth by featuring the “hockey stick”
hypothesis and the associated anthropogenic origin. This purported evidence is put to test by
utilizing a select batch of ten millennial-scale climate proxies, included in the NOAA 92 PCN
dataset, and updated to the year 2011 by means of a TVP-KF model for state prediction. The
observable utilized therein is the HADCRUT3vNH series of instrumental temperature anomalies
available since the year 1850.
Out of ten series, only three significantly do not refute the hypothesis, while the others point
to different maximum temperature dates, mostly included in the MWP.
Someone once said (can’t remember who) that we would know when the AGW scam was coming to an end when the average person in the street/pub was in the business of making jokes about AGW/CC. Ridicule would be the sign of its passing.
I trust that this is not premature, but I think we may be there. Over the Christmas period, I have been told and have read a countless number of jokes about AGW and the “scientists” who cheerlead the cause.
The comments on the Tim Blair blog have some of this humour.
One of the parents at a women’s cricket match today who only knew me as the umpire simply said “what global warming” in reference to the cold weather now in Adelaide and then went on to say “they call it something else now” and I agreed with him saying “climate change” or “climate disruption”.
How about some analysis on the Australian Government Draft Energy White Paper 2011 – Strengthening the Foundation for Australia’s Energy Future was launched on 13 December 2011 by the Minister for Resources, Energy and Tourism. It delivers on a commitment by the Government to release a Draft Energy White Paper for public consultation by the end of 2011. It is anticipated that a final Energy White Paper will be released in 2012.
The Draft Energy White Paper provides an overview of Australia’s future energy needs to 2030 (and in some cases beyond) and defines a comprehensive strategic policy framework to guide the further development of Australia’s energy sector.
Some fascinating projections for 2050 from Appendix C, page 269, from Table C.1: Comparison of model inputs and outputs, Treasury and BREE, 2011
– Carbon price of $130
– Zero brown coal (is the Vic govt paying attention?) – today 23% of electricity supply
– Black coal 6-10% of electricity generation (plus 14-16% with carbon storage) – today 51%
– Oil and gas 18-26% (plus 10-18% with carbon storage) – today 17%
– Wind 12-15% – today 2% – Solar 3% (is that all?) – today 0.1%
– Geothermal 13-23% (surprise – it beats wind and solar?) – today 0%
Page xix: The Australian Treasury has forecast that in the presence of a carbon price, more than $200 billion will need to be spent in new generation capacity to 2050. This comprises around $50 to $60 billion in gas-fired capacity, $100 billion on renewables and $45 to $65 billion in coal, primarily carbon capture and storage technology.
Page xxi: Taking into account current clean energy generation, this would equate to the average annual output of around an additional 43 new 750 megawatt hour coal‐fired power stations – a significant investment task.
Page 206: The most recent LCOE projections commissioned by the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism for a range of electricity generation technologies in 2030 are shown in Figure 7.1. These estimates broadly suggest that new plants in a number of technologies – including wind, carbon capture and storage on coal‐ and gas‐fired power, geothermal and solar – could successfully compete into a LCOE band range of around $70 to $140 per MWh (real 2009–10 dollars). <>.
Page 162: The Productivity Commission identified more than 230 climate‐related measures in operation at the national and subnational levels. While these measures are clearly not all energy related, and while the extent to which they have a material effect on market prices is not known with certainty, they are generally not transparent and add to market complexity. Given that the carbon price has been legislated, the range of measures should be reviewed against the COAG principles of complementarity to ensure that inefficiencies leading to unnecessary costs are avoided. Governments at all levels should review existing measures, consistent with COAG’s agreed complementarity principles for climate change mitigation measures and agree not to introduce any new non‐complementary measures.
Page 199: The Australian Government acknowledges that cleaner energy will impose marginally higher energy costs on consumers in the short to medium term.
The Australian Treasury has forecast that in the presence of a carbon price, more than $200 billion will need to be spent in new generation capacity to 2050.
Those figures are almost like USA’s cut in defence over a shorter period. Imagine what equipment we could have for our forces with that money. It would show we were prepared and able to shoulder a major part of our own defence should it be needed.
Even one tenth…20 billion…would pay for 100 Joint Strike Fighters that we really need to replace the F-111s we had.
Just on that same subject, here’s a short video, well 5 minutes anyway, about fifth generation fighter aircraft, including the F-35 Lightning we are (hopefully) getting.
Incidentally, the F-111 retired last year was still one of the best, if not the best, combat aircraft ever made.
Even at retirement, (for an aircraft whose design was 50 years old, and 46 years old from the first flight) no other single aircraft on Planet Earth could do everything that ‘Ethel’ could do. The only reason for retirement was it became too expensive, (on a per flight basis) to continue with it.
The RAAF was the only Air Force outside of the US to have them. (The Poms leased some for a few years.)
The F-111 construction factory at GDFW was one mile long.
The Americans, being as they were, replaced aircraft on a regular basis, and even so, they utilised the F-111 longer than for any combat aircraft they have ever had.
Following on from what Australia did, the USAF and GD in fact found ways, mainly from experience here in Oz, to prolong the life of this wonderful aircraft.
In fact the USAF virtually demanded of GD to continue the program, and GDFW knocked a large hole in the wall of that huge construction line, rolled existing F-111’s into the factory and refurbished them, and modded them up.
Now they have the fifth Gen fighters in service, the (now cancelled) F-22 and the F-35 Lightning almost ready.
These two 5th Gen Fighters have no equal, and I’ll repeat that, NO equal.
In a similar vein to the F-111 with respect to Australia, these awaited F-35’s will be an enormous asset.
Some of you may think Big Boys and their Big Toys (Hmm! Kim Beazley comes to mind here) but these aircraft give Australia an advantage no one else will have.
and ‘Ethel’, well that’s a play on word association, from Monty Python in fact. The F-111 was fondly called ‘The Pig’ while it’s real name was Aardvark, and ‘Ethel’ is from the the Python sketch, Ethel the aardvark goes quantity surveying.
Ah Tony, no argument from me about the F-111, the USAF specified them awesomely and GD almost built them too good for export. They were, after all, designed to fly automatically on TFR just above the hills below enemy radar until they reached Russian bases or Moscow, climb to attack altitude, release their nuclear bombs, then immediately turn and fly supersonic the entire way home at tree-top level. I don’t think any other human-piloted aircraft has ever been designed to do that, let alone actually be built.
Of course the USAF knew these pigs were too good, which is why some time after 1997 they destroyed the original metal dies for the critical parts (eg airframe and wing pivots) so that any significant future maintenance or reproduction would be impossible for anybody. There was scarcely a dry eye in the house when they made their final dump’n’burn over Brisbane and for the last flight at Amberley one rainy day.
Now, at the risk of prolonging the “my favourite plane would beat your favourite plane” argument that you so clearly wish to ignite, could I just say that the Su-35 deserves serious consideration as an enemy fighter and that only Russia and the USA really know for sure which would beat which under what precise battle conditions, and even then they may still have tricks up their sleeves that neither has discovered. The RAND corporation had some rather harsh comments about the F-35, though that could be counter-intelligence, you just don’t know who to believe here.
Speaking of the pigs, and your role as a sparky at Amberley in the mid 80s, it is certainly possible that you and I have met at least one person in common. Does the name R.Dannock mean anything to you?
(No, this is not an episode of “This Is Your Life”!)
Close, but not quite. I can’t remember if Rob was on structures or avionics, and was a B stamp technician at one stage, and an interminably polite fellow.
Perhaps you encountered Andrew Young at some point, who I believe was on electronics and used to work on Macchi trainers and DC-10s in the late 60s even before the F-111 rolled out. Had a very bizarre sense of humour.
Hmmm, funny the things one remembers about people. Well not sure what the point of this line of enquiry was, aside from proving the Small World hypothesis.
I have often mentioned that China is bringing on line (actually delivering power) one large coal fired power plant every seven or so days.
However, what is not highlighted is that they are also constructing power plants of every other type as well.
China currently has the largest Nameplate Capacity (NP) for wind power on the Planet, and therein lies a fact that I will never fail to emphasise. It’s not the NP that is important, but the actual power delivered for consumption. The concentration on the ‘up front’ size, that NP is artificially inflated to make it ‘seem’ that there is actually a lot of them, but as I have explained at length, when the correct figures for actual power delivery are shown, then it becomes another matter entirely.
Now, while China are constructing those coal fired plants, they are also ‘ramping up’ power plant construction in other areas.
Nuclear power is one of those, and, not often mentioned is Hydro electric power, so let’s look at some data for that, and raw figures may not mean much in such a huge Country, but the percentages are in fact quite eye opening.
China now also leads the World in power sourced from Hydro.
That power delivery (note, not NP) amounts to just on 560 TeraWattHours (TWH) a figure that may not be understood, so let’s add some perspective. Australia currently consumes 225TWH of power from EVERY source, so just that China Hydro is enough to supply the whole of Australia TWICE OVER.
That amount of power delivered amounts to just on 23% of all power delivered in China, and for perspective, all Hydro in Australia comes in at just 4.9%.
Now I fully understand the differences in size, terrain, and conditions between China and Australia so any comparison is dubious.
However, what it does indicate is that in China, they are not afraid to utilise every possible method there is to bring electrical power to the vast populace who do not the access to that electrical power that we take for granted.
Even with what is already in place, China is going flat out on construction of even further large scale Hydro plants, and of the largest 25 Hydro plants currently in construction on Earth, 20 of them are in China. (2000MW+ NP)
Here in Australia, maybe there might actually be a way to reduce CO2 emissions that does not entail waste of immense amounts of money on wind and solar.
Perhaps we might move towards a new Snowy Hydro Scheme. Not new dams, but upgrading the existing old generation capacity to new generators etc. This could effectively double the existing Hydro power delivery.
Just one project in China alone, the huge Three Gorges Complex supplies 100TWH, which is just under half the total power consumed in Australia.
For those wanting some background on this project, I have a 4 Part series at my home site, showing the history and comparison for power delivered.
Since it would be for discussing stuff unrelated to Jo’s posts, there’s no reason for Jo’s site to host it and there’s plenty of forums that exist already out there. We’d just have to pick one.
Just Grounds is one forum option, though it may be a bit lowbrow for some. Online Opinion forums have a few topics going though the parent site smells very green-left.
I don’t exactly want to hang out with the capitalists either since they represent the kleptocratic blinkered status quo, but there would no doubt be a few Big Industry-backed astroturfing forums around the place if we look for it.
What I’d want is the forum for Australians who are just looking out for themselves rather than trying to rob anyone else or push an ideology.
The thing I worry most about for the skeptical “climate movement”, if you’ll forgive the inept label, is how to manage the transition from vilified minority to politically empowered majority…how to minimise triumphalism and vilification so as to make the tent as big and as welcoming as possible to all those who would now like to come over to our side, yet retain our original purpose. Now is the time to be as forgiving as it is to be stalwart in the defence of our goals, such as the reinstatement of strict transparent scientific methodology into the dark art of climatology.
It’s time for us to realise the debate really is over for the moment. By any rational standard of scientific inquiry committing the global economy to trillions of dollars in CO2 abatement is simply religious zealotry. We have won. Mad greenies sure the end times are nigh will never go away, just as creationists, truthers and insanities of all kind haunt poor souls in every age. We shouldn’t obsess with them, as they are increasing irrelevant, but engage with the larger community.
We have clear political objectives (soon to be a mandate.) Abolish the carbon tax and defund and dismantle the “ministry for climate change” for starters. Secondly, we must derail tying our government’s budget to a mining tax since it’s economically illiterate (ever heard of a business cycle?) and unsustainable.
But there are other longer term, more difficult goals. Our basic scientific research and education institutions (BOM, CSIRO and the universities) need to be reformed, returned to their original mission of searching for objective – rather than politically expedient or culturally fashionable – realities.
Then there is the thorny question of the future of the Australian Broadcast Corporation, the taxpayer-funded branch of the Labor/Green political war machine. The ABC with its $1.18 billion annual budget violates its charter daily by refusing to fairly present both sides of the climate debate, much less any other debate where the Corporation believes it can score political points for its highly partisan worldview, rather than fairly serve the Australian people as a whole. Some how this billion-dollar media culture of deceit has to be managed according to the strict journalistic ethics set out in its charter, or if that’s not possible, privatised, so it can pursue its special agenda without state-coerced funding. It is simply one of the greatest social injustices of our age that state-funded propaganda for one side of every debate is tolerated in the 21st century.
All the above are the negations we have to perform to cleanse ourselves of the Green/Labor yoke. But beyond that we are free to let our creative imaginations run wild. Why is the great top end so undeveloped, it’s river unharnessed, it’s vallies untilled? Why don’t Brisbane and Melbourne have plans to build more dams? Why is the Pacific highway a third world deathtrap? These are just my pet dreams. Add your own. Australia is a continent nation and our future is as vast and even greater than our past. Once we shake Green self-hatred and the Labor black armbands, toss aside our cultural cringe, the sky is the limit for our lucky country.
2012 is the year that we must gracefully evolve into our new role as representatives of a majority view and prepare to shift our mindset from that of an opposition to that of a responsible leadership.
Creationists of the theistic variety aren’t the problem. Their world view is antagonistic to that of the pantheists and animists who believe the Earth is their mother and every species animate and inanimate is their brother, sister or cousin. The latter group provides the philosophical basis of climate change alarmism. Thus a theistic creationist like Spencer and a theistic evolutionist (which of course is a creationist variant) like Christy aren’t the worst sort of allies for skeptics to have.
Apart from that I like Wes’s fire in the belly, do something, approach. Unlike armchair skeptics like Pat and MV he seems to think, if I’m reading him right, that a Coalition government under the leadership of someone like “it’s all crap” Abbott can reverse the potentially economically destructive “clean energy” direction the present government is pursuing.
That’s a better approach in my book than whinging and throwing one’s hands up in the air. That’s OK for the Little Jack Horner’s of this world but not for those of us who like to get things done.
The news of China’s 2015 token carbon tax will put pressure on the Coalition to be more definitive on their intentions should they win future government. In that sense it should put welcome, from our position, pressure on Abbott to be a bit more upfront about his skepticism.
“The United States now has a total of five major aircraft carriers deployed around the world, the same number of warships that were in action shortly before the invasion of Iraq in early 2003.
With tensions running high in relation to Pakistan, Syria and Iran amidst overwhelming speculation of an imminent military campaign in the region, the deployment of three major warships to the Middle East is of extreme significance.
However, the most pressing concern for the U.S. is the fact that Pakistan is maintaining its border blockade to Afghanistan in protest against a NATO air strike last month that killed two dozen Pakistani soldiers. The U.S. has refused to apologize for the incident.
Although the Pentagon claims that the blockade has “no appreciable impact” on military operations in Afghanistan, it is costing the U.S. Air Force about $400 dollars in fuel costs for each gallon of fuel dropped by cargo plane to supply U.S. bases in Afghanistan.”
In relation to empowerment, my suggestion is that at every opportunity we try to take away the Doublespeak option that the warmists have used so successfully to hoodwink the gullible public.
Their “climate change” or “climate disruption” is the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and/or its alarmist big brothers dangerous, catastrophic, runaway (you pick) AGW. Let us always use the correct terminology and nail them on it every time they attempt Doublespeak.
The unmandated unholy allied Green/Labor/Independent government has brought in a tax (they euphemistically try to call a price) on carbon dioxide not on carbon. Use it and nail it every time!
CO2 is essential, is a trace gas and it is not a pollutant. Science is never “settled” nor is it decided by “consensus”. Don’t let anyone get away with such nonsense unchallenged.
You all know many more examples. Let us get the right language and terminology back on course!
Finally, we needed a descriptive punchy name for the economic and environmental madness that is being perpetrated by the eco-nutters, the gravy-train scientists, universities and other organisations, the financial predators and the power-crazed UN bureaucrats in pursuit of authoritarian total control through one-world government (Agenda 21).
I believe this man has come up with it. Check it out.
“WHAT IS MEANT BY THIS NEWLY COINED TERM: “SOVEREIGN ECO-CIDE?”
Posted 6 January 2012
“If ‘sovereign debt’ is now acceptable as economic jargon popularised by the global financial meltdown, let me have a crack at inventing a new term, ‘sovereign eco-cide” as descriptive of how nations can inflict on themselves economic suicide by means of carbon taxes, emissions trading schemes, cap-and-trade madness , etc, caused by the myth that human and animal emissions of carbon dioxide can cause ‘dangerous global warming’. For what led to this invention, see three links below – Terry Dunleavy, New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.”
We have allowed the Greens to own the language. Whoever owns the language owns the cognitive tools (words, syntax) that everyone uses to discuss – and therefore think – about the climate debate. It becomes impossible to rationally think about a topic if the only terms allowed in the debate are inaccurate characterisations chosen for their propaganda effect.
Thus, Labor and the Greens disingenuously demand to talk about “carbon pollution” and describe their political opposition as “those who deny climate change.” Yet the REAL debate is about whether catastrophic global warming will occur due to anthropogenically produced CO2 and whether we can or should do anything about it. The only people who imagine the climate should be denied change are the warmists themselves.
The starting point of every encounter with supporters of the CAGW hypothesis must be a thorough debunking of their intentionally misleading tropes. No rational discussion can proceed on a linguistic foundation of propaganda terminology.
Even when just talking with a friend interested in hearing the skeptical side of the debate the process of deprogramming them from zombie ABC indoctrination must precede any rational discussion of the topic.
Postenvironmentalism & Technological Abundance
‘….Consequently, environmentalists “find themselves, for reasons of risk, opposing new technologies that could help resolve issues of scarcity.” As an example of this political and scientific incoherence, Sarewitz cites the case of genetically enhanced crops which environmentalists oppose because of their alleged risks to human health although such crops would ameliorate environmentalist concerns about soil and water depletion, pesticide residues, and population growth. …’
What beats me and I can understand it, if someone gets a grant, they go out of their way to prove their point to a point they will corrupt data to suit their hypothesis. And if someone challenges them, pointing out their data does NOT substantiate their hypothesis, these people are labeled as deniers, skeptics or in even worse, but their argument not examined. Happens all the time in academia. This makes me believe that $$$s must be the motive. It’s happened to me in a small way, and I complained as I had proof this academic was passing on the wrong message to substantiate his hypothesis. Not climate or AGW just colonial history. His efforts were so pathetic, despite a Ph.D., it’s got to the stage where I am doubting the credibility of the department he works for. And the University. If I a post graduate can see the problems with the AGW or climate change, degree in Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology when we studied climate and the effect it has on human evolutionary trends and progress, what hope for our school children or the general public who have no background in this discipline, to be able to complain or query the motives behind people like Hansen, Gore, Mann, Pachauri, and Jones.
As it’s not related to any of the main Posts topics, I thought I would put this one here, so I hope you guys who follow Joanne’s ‘Recent Comments’ column will pick up on this.
That wonderful Australian bastion of deep and intense Scientific Research have finally categorised a new fly, Scaptia (Plinthina), a large Horse Fly found in Far North Queensland.
Because of the gold patch on its abdomen, they say that this new fly is ‘The all time Diva of flies’, so they named it, and wait for this, after the singer Beyonce.
Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase Scientific Research’.
A little like naming a fossilised triphibian trilobite after the punk band ‘The Ramones’.
The big problem with the “scientific community” is that its academic machiavellism is incompatible with the scientific method. Please check out Pure science Wiki. That is an Internet platform for the real scientific method.
lots and lots of nastiness, and cliches, and nonsense. tried to post on WUWT, but not sure it has gone thru there. links to the original:
5 Jan: PlanetSave: Zachary Shahan: Republican Presidential Candidates Win Climate B.S. of the Year Award
Climate scientists and communicators got together to come up with a list of 2011′s biggest climate B.S.-spewers recently. B.S. standing for Bad Science, of course. Here’s the full list, via Climate Progress:
by Peter Gleick
Fifth Place: Anthony Watts for his BEST, and worst, climate hypocrisy…
Steve McIntyre
And finally, the “dishonorable” mention of the year goes to Steve McIntyre for his despicable smear of climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State University (and to Anthony Watts for amplifying that smear) by drawing a parallel between the Penn State pedophilia investigation and their separate scientific investigation of questions about climate research (in which Professor Mann has been completely and repeatedly exonerated). Joe Romm discusses this disgusting case here.
http://planetsave.com/2012/01/05/republican-presidential-candidates-win-climate-b-s-of-the-year-award/
———————————-
Obviously this was reported – but it’s posted to draw attention to how nasty the alarmist machine can be, and it’s no doubt a badge of pride to all who are named. I will move the comment to unthreaded. — Jo
00
Only in Oz…
http://dailybayonet.com/2012/01/oz-loses-its-fizz/
00
Donna Laframboise has a lucid explanation of how (but not why) the Australian intelligentsia and the current, temporary Australian political ruling class are virtually alone in the world outside Europe in adopting the extremism of the IPCC as government policy.
00
WUWT hit 100 million today!!
00
And here’s a great wrap-up from Christopher Monckton.
00
A friend came across this the other day, some may find it interesting:
NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab: Major Impact On Arctic Sea Ice Melt Is Nature’s Own ‘Arctic Oscillation’
Best wishes from the states.
00
Hi Robert that’s great news and confirms the basic engineering and chemistry of the Human Origin CO2 issue.
Human Origin CO2 does not have the Scale to make any difference to our temperature environment.
Even Natural Origin CO2, which is a 25 times larger effect, is impotent in scale compared to the Primary Greenhouse Gas: WATER.
Any article, such as the one you refer to, helps to set people back and consider the real physics of the situation.
00
Murdoch media beats ABC and Fairfax with this one!!!
check the photo illustrating the first piece. WUWT reaches 100m, so congrats to them and Jo and the Bishop and everyone else who has played a part in the fight to save the scientific method:
7 Jan: Adelaide Advertiser: AAP: Climate warning on rare animals
NATIONS may need to abandon saving certain animals because of climate change and habitat loss, scientists say.
The University of Queensland and scientists from the CSIRO said that for the first time they have measured the relationship between climate change and habitat loss and how it impacts on plants and animals on a global scale.
When you combine the two, they discovered potentially “catastrophic” effects.
“Human population growth has caused significant habitat degradation across the globe, typically in support of agriculture and urban development,” lead researcher Chrystal Mantyka-Pringle from University of Queensland said in a statement.
“This alone has negatively impacted many species, but combined with rises in temperature and reduced rainfall as a result of a changing climate, there could be catastrophic results for some populations.”…
The scientists findings were recently published in the journal Global Change Biology.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/climate-warning-on-rare-animals/story-e6frea6u-1226239069347
7 Jan: Australian: John Ross: Climate change’s best survivors: bugs
The study was designed to provide background information for Mrs Mantyka-Pringle’s PhD thesis on priority actions to conserve Australian biodiversity…
The study found the most important determinant of habitat loss impacts was current maximum temperature, followed by changes in rainfall patterns over the last century.
The impacts were greatest in areas with high maximum temperatures and lowest in areas where average rainfall had increased.
Mrs Mantyka-Pringle said all terrestrial species including plants and birds were responding similarly, with the exception of arthropods – the taxonomic group which includes insects and spiders.
She said this could be due to the diverse characteristics of arthropods, which constitute more species than any other animal group. “If you’re a generalist species you have a better chance of succeeding through climate change,” she said….
She said the study would help identify areas vulnerable to biodiversity loss.
“Australia is a major target. Not only do we have high maximum temperatures, but places like north Queensland, south Western Australia and even Tasmania have all suffered from decreased rainfall.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/climate-changes-best-survivors-bugs/story-e6frgcjx-1226238460071
00
The Eleventh Annual Weblog awards are underway. For me, it goes without saying that Jo deserves a nomination.
00
Anyone have any thoughts on the US Marine base the “horse” in Canberra said we are not getting and now we are, sounds a bit like election promises
00
President Obama and the Secretary of State have both repeated that Darwin is essential to USA’s strategy in the Asia-Pacific region.
USA is cutting $500 billion in defence over a decade, but not in this region. Although there is no Cold War situation vis a vis China – USA, China is building its forces rapidly.
The major sea routes of the world will be in this region. India is another growing power. USA can’t sit back in isolationism as in 1941.
Remember, it took a lot of lives, blood and effort by USA to crush the Japanese in the Pacific. The “Battle of the Coral Sea” was fought just off Townsville!
After all that, USA is not going to meekly hand over power to China in the Pacific as one Chinese admiral chided that USA should stay on one side and leave the other to China.
We have a bit of a dilemma because we do not want to be a puppet of China or be in its military orbit should it expand like the Japanese with its ‘co-prosperity sphere’.
Yet, much of our economy depends on trade with China. Given the choice I would rather be under the protection of USA as in the 40s onward.
00
There was a short period of just two years where for the first time since WW2 it actually made sense to ask the question of who Australia should be allied towards, because the american economy was going down the gurgler and their ability to wage war on multiple fronts was not sustainable. The rise of china looked like an economic pie that would be nice to get a slice from, and since we are essentially in Asia (no matter how much white bread australia wants to deny it) a greater chinese-australian mutual investment and security relationship began to move from impossibility into the realm of being remotely possible at some future point.
Well that might lead to continued peace, which isn’t as profitable as the alternative, so by the New World Order hypothesis one would predict the banksters will delay and sabotage any attempt at closer sino-austral relations. Hmmm… cue Barack “GS” Obama… and bingo.
Within 10 years we may see a new Pearl Harbour event occur at the USA’s new (under construction) Naval base in South Korea, which China doesn’t like at all. It seems as though it is being built entirely for the purpose of serving as a stage for a Chinese attack on the USA military, and I use the word “stage” there quite specifically. It “worked” before, so it can work again, that’s the logic of it.
Given a free choice, I’d rather Australia build up its own defence industry as the enormous monetary savings of using the Pentagon as your primary defence force seems to have had occasional moral and corporeal costs. Well it’s nice to dream. Here in the real world it does not make much practical sense to not be allied with a force you could never hope to beat, especially when caught between China and USA geographically. We are the new Midway Island. Pine Gap, Geraldton, and Exmouth already have critical USA footprints. So as infuriating as this new USA base may be, one has to ask how much more cost and risk is involved in saying No to USA imperial expansion towards the Indian ocean. Again politics is the art of the possible, and our own politically substantial defence force is currently impossible.
To recycle an old hawk phrase, the USA is now basically saying “How did our gold and iron get under Australia’s sand?”
00
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE WORLD WOULD BE A BETTER PLACE WITHOUT amerika and its war machine and the only danger we are in from China is through our own piss weak government.We wouldn’t have troops dying in Afghanistan and there would not have been a “bomb” in Bali.
00
You’re right!
…it would be MUCH better for China. Far, FAR worse, for YOU.
00
But the world was a much better place in late 1945 because of ‘amerika’. And still is. The PM of Australia in 1939 was none other than Robert G Menzies. He allowed trade with Japan especially of pig iron. He was called ‘pig iron Bob’. People reminded him of the iron being returned via bombs.
Trade is no guaruntee against conflict. In 1914 both Britain and Germany were major trading partners. Their leaders were related by blood. But when WW1 got under way leaders on both sides asked themselves, “How the heck did we get ourselves into this mess?”
One reason was too much reliance on treaties that were so meshed that a single shot in Serbia started dominoes falling. It is better to have a simple strategy than one that is convoluted like spaghetti.
00
long past time to get rid of this guy, Coalition:
6 Jan: BigPondNews: Govt can’t sell carbon tax – Turnbull
Opposition frontbencher Malcolm Turnbull says the federal government has done a terrible job in selling the carbon tax.
‘This mob could not sell fresh fish to starving seals. They are the worst advocates I’ve ever seen,’ Mr Turnbull told ABC Television.
Mr Turnbull said Climate Change Minister Greg Combet has done a much better job than Prime Minister Julia Gillard at selling the tax.
‘Greg Combet in a dour sort of way does a pretty good job of explaining the mechanics of it, but the prime minister is the chief salesman of any government and she’s been unable to explain her policies.
‘Wayne Swan on the other hand always radiates anxiety and uncertainty and a lack of confidence.
‘Now no matter how good the message he has to deliver he always appears to be somewhere between uncertain and slightly terrified.’…
http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Finance/2012/01/06/Govt_cant_sell_carbon_tax_-_Turnbull_704513.html
00
People see through Turnbull.
They voted against his Republican Referendum proposal and the same people will question his truthfulness about the Big C Tax.
The blatant use of ABC to help get this tax up and help That Big Bank which shall Not Be Named across the line and into the black, is sickening.
On the other hand, a young person who has never worked and wondered why they pay so much tax, might think the world is being saved by the most noble group of people imaginable.
00
No one could sell this type of junk.
The GreenLaboUr imaginary scare for the children:
July 04, 2011-
The observed facts:
December 23, 2011
00
Yesterday’s Syd Morn Herald carried wonderful stories that would tug the heart strings of a compassionate person.
Paul Gilding’s struggle for green awareness and the best one is the article about our new responsibilities under the climate change regime.
All of the Maldives and all of Tuvalu want to migrate to Australia as “Climate Refugees” obviously with all of the privileges and rights associated with that status.
Real, heart wrenching stuff.
If only the SMH would take a trip around the burbs in Australia and see the difficulties most Australians exist under.
Our taxation, hard earned, is set to pay for more.
00
KinkyKeith, I hadn’t heard of the Maldives, and the climate refugee stuff, but did about Tuvula, who have approached New Zealand too, they made a pathetic plea at the 2009 Copenhagen plea. The problem is some islands and especially atolls tend to erode or sink. Add removing sand from their foreshores, as in Tuvula for building purposes (by the yanks I believe)adds to their woes.
Atolls come and go, but often rebuild themselves. They are very vulnerable to storm damage and Tsunamis. Problem is people have built in places that were subject to these problems, natural problems, like earthquakes, (Christchurch) and in parts of Japan. Floods like in Brisbane, and on the foothills of still active volcanoes. Like Etna, Vesuvius and Stromboli and places that really haven’t been occupied for a long time or on rather geographical time lines with a resident not mobile populations. Japan was not occupied until after the last ice age, when their islands were fraught with seismic and volcanic eruptions,(worse than today) but still joined to mainland Asia. However, these islands wanting UNCCF dollars, are asking for help to remain in situ. And perhaps, like on Easter Island, their days are numbered because the natural environment can no longer sustain them especially with increasing population growth.
00
Hi Bush Bunny
The Maldivian president made astriking impact on the intrepid SMH reporter who braved her life to get the story before theisland went under.
Back to reality.
A figure of 1.7 square kilometres was given as the area of the main island and the population as 110,000 souls.
For a small coral island the crushing weight of even a little bit of infrastructure to go with the population puts a load on the sand / coral support base.
I calculated, roughly, it amounts to about 110 kg per square metre of surface space.
This load would be OK on Manhattan island which is all granite, but on a coral island you have to be joking.
As you say, they are overpopulated and my figures do not include allowances for modern airport and high rise buildings.
Poor management of a fragile resource places them in line for the prize of “Eco Vandals” of the decade.
They have been greedy and don’t need our hard won taxes to bail them out.
00
better late than never? hardly:
7 Jan: Herald Sun: Neil Wilson/AAP: EU carbon tax turbulence hits Qantas
The Federal Government has joined criticism of the EU by foreign airlines and governments disadvantaged by the tax.
Qantas passengers will now face a carbon tax in three jurisdictions — Australia, New Zealand, and Europe. Qantas said it would meet its obligations but its position illustrated the “problems with a fragmented approach to pricing aviation emissions”.
A spokesman for federal Transport Minister Anthony Albanese said a global tax levied through the International Civil Aviation Organisation was preferable.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/eu-carbon-tax-turbulence-hits-qantas/story-fn7j19iv-1226238582629
thou shalt love unilateral taxation by our CAGW masters:
6 Jan: Toronto Star: Tyler Hamilton: Air Canada’s snub of EU carbon tax governed by ego, not eco concerns
Yet Air Canada and its fellow airlines in Canada, the United States, China, India, Russia and Japan insist on demonizing the fee and amplifying talk of trade wars and unproven claims of job destruction. It doesn’t matter that the European Union Court of Justice ruled recently that the new tax does not contravene international law.
“This ruling by no means settles this matter,” George Petsikas, president of Canada’s airline council, said defiantly after the European court ruling…
What’s admirable about the EU approach is that it’s about more action and less talk. Understandably, it’s tired of waiting for the rest of the world to get its act together…
So what, exactly, is the fuss all about? It’s about the rest of the world not liking Europe taking the lead and telling it what to do, and even though it’s clear that we need to do it…
http://www.thestar.com/business/cleanbreak/article/1111647–hamilton-air-canada-s-snub-of-eu-carbon-tax-governed-by-ego-not-eco-concerns
00
I think the trains into the Eurozone from Non Euro Countries adjacent are going to do a roaring business.
00
After the oil collapse, trains are going to be big BIG business. I still regret not having bought shares in QR National when their prospectus came out 15 months ago. After the float their share price went up by 40% in 12 months. In the USA, Warren Buffet has been buying up every railway company he can get. One of the world’s richest and smartest investors buying railways, naahhh, that can’t be a sign of things to come. :-S
00
Some one please clear up some confusion on my part, regarding Qantas and the European airline tax. I was under the impression that the tax would only be impossed on airlines from nations the E.U. considered not doing enough to fight the dreaded evil climate change.
Doesn’t Juliars world leading tax exclude Australian airlines from the European tax.
00
Good point Bob
Most international arrangements require that a tax only be paid in one country.
00
If Qantas pays this Euro Tax they will price themselves out of the market.
00
http://vigilantcitizen.com/sinistersites/sinister-sites-st-john-the-divine-cathedral/
Al Gores Church of Climatology –
“…..The Temple’s purpose is to facilitate the one world religion, through the promoting both the acceptance and the embrace of all religions, beliefs and rituals. The Temple of Understanding’s Meditation Room was to be known as the “Hall of Illumination”‘ where the Illuminati, Masters of Wisdom, Our Leaders of the Temple of Understanding will train the public in the new humanistic cult…to create a new type of mystic”
The Temple has received full UN accreditation and has been a key actor in the “spiritual” department of the UN. Twelve individuals listed as Directors or Advisors of the Temple of Understanding are also members of the UN’s Global Forum councils. Those Forums have received numerous speakers who’ve openly supported a neo-pagan world religion based on Earth worship. James Lovelock, one of the speakers mentioned that “Gaia” (an ancient term describing the Earth as a Goddess) was the giver of life and had the capacity to heal herself. He describes humans as being cancers to Gaia, an “illness too overwhelming for her to heal herself”. In other words, humans are parasites to the goddess Gaia.
Al Gore has been a guest several times at the Cathedral of St.John the Divine where he infamously said “God is not separate from the Earth“. Well, in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, God IS in fact separate from the Earth (in the Heavens). If you decipher Gore’s phrase:
God = Earth = Earth is God
Gore has been repeatedly applauded by Pagan groups for his books and lectures. The Church of All Worlds congratulated the Clinton/Gore victory in 1996 by writing:
“We are Neo-Pagans — implying an eclectic reconstruction of ancient Nature religions, and combining archetypes of many cultures with other mystic and spiritual disciplines — and our beliefs and values are no different from those you describe as your own. Your book, Earth in Balance, is heralded by our People as a manifesto for all we hold dear…Know that there are half million NeoPagans out here who support you, and who voted for you, and who will rally to the aid of your policies for the salvation of the Earth and the reunification of the Great Family”.
Another member of the board of directors of the Temple of Understanding is Thomas Berry. He believes that the world is being called to a new, “post-denominational”, even a post-Christian belief system that sees the earth as a living being — with mankind as her consciousness.
Ok, so what the heck does this mean?
If you read my article about the Georgia Guidestones or the Denver International Airport, you’re already aware of unusual monuments and art placed by powerful yet secretive groups calling for a new type of global spirituality. Key words or expressions are often used to make this religious shift socially acceptable: “Peace” , “balance with nature” or ”harmony with the infinite”. How can you be against peace? You can’t. Those buzz words hide however the means that will be used to obtain those objectives: “Peace” will only happen when all there will be a single world government. “Balance with nature” will only happen when the world population will drastically decrease and “harmony with the infinite” will only happen when the world will give up traditional religions to embrace neo-pagan humanism.
The St. John the Divine Cathedral acts as a nervous center for the spiritual side of the global shift. Through numerous forums and UN summits, the Temple of Understanding reunites leaders from all major religions to devise a universal message. This message will later be communicated to the masses through local religious networks. In a slow yet steady manner, all religious faiths are leaning towards the same sets of values and will eventually converge into humanism….
00
Gore is certainly desperate. He sold his soul for money long ago. So this isn’t entirely surprising.
The UN is the scary thing. When will we realize that the UN is an enemy, not a friend?
00
Climate Alarmism is Alive and Well Here in NSW.
A recent newspaper article suggests that waterfront surf clubs on the NSW coast need funds to rebuild surf clubs away from the rising tide.
This was prompted by the exposure of rocks after sand was washed away from local beaches.
Rocks, familiar to most beachgoers were exposed.
This is NOT extreme nor unusual.
Just Alarmist newspaper claptrap.
00
Anybody else notice the big train crash in the US on TV last night.
Seems the problem train was carrying, or going to load up on BIOFUEL / Ethanol.
00
I missed the whole article on Sky News last night –just saw Brown rabbiting on about Tony Abbott missing the boat and Gillard getting it right on the carbon tax.
Is China going to introduce a low level carbon tax ?? or is it just talk??
00
Ross,
The Australian had an article yesterday which appeared to say China would definitely be having a Co2 tax. However, if you read the article carefully it is anything but certain. What is certain is a penalty on genuine pollutants. Below is an extract of the nitty-gritty,
“Su Ming, deputy director of Financial Science Research Institute, told the state-run Economic Information Daily that under the proposal, the tax rate would increase gradually.
Mr Su said the institute originally proposed the tax to take effect this year, but considering that economic growth may slow down due to the European crisis and government moves to deflate the country’s property bubble, “2012 may not be good time”.
“For the carbon tax, the energy industry might be given certain tax reductions at certain stages when their businesses are much affected,” Mr Su said. “Companies which are actively adopting emissions reduction technology and recycling technology might be given preferential tax, too.”
He said pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, COD (chemical oxygen demand) and nitrogen oxide would be the first to incur tax and, as conditions matured, other emissions would be included. The proposed tax would focus on big consumers of coal, crude oil and natural gas.”
00
Thanks , Hanrahan
00
The Chinese are ‘considering’ a possible tax commencing with NOX and SOX but not for three years. Not part of the present five year plan (2010-15).
I suspect the whole scam will be exposed by then.
The manipulation of the so called ‘news release’ is typical of the Australian media in an attempt to justify Gillard’s tax. Gillard must think we are idiots.
00
Some good English satire
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/1/4/a-letter-from-the-future.html
00
Percentages are great.
Of the Total Possible Greenhouse Effect of Water, Natural CO2 and Human Origin CO2:
Human CO2 is 4% of 5% or 0.002% of the total.
This is excluding all other known effects such as those related to orbital mechanics and so on.
We are truly insignificant.
To give an example:
If only the GHG effect was responsible for the 0.6 deg C rise from 1850 to now then WE HUMANS and our vile CO2 would account for 0.0012 deg C.
YOU CANT EVEN MEASURE THIS!
We need to push the basic science!
00
Thanks for that KinkyKeith,
In truth, I’ve never tried to argue with warmists on terms other than just CO2 as a GHG.
May I ask for a source for the 4% and 5% figures? Hopefully from a source that warmists might accept, ie, Wikipedia, or some other warmist site.
As I understand it, we humans contribute less than 3% of the CO2 each year. Is this your 4% value?
00
Hi MaxL
Sorry that was just off the top of my head.
And yes the 3% is my 4%, just being lazy.
“As I understand it, …….less than 3% of the CO2 each year. Is this your 4% value?” Yes.
There are a number of sources for the water being 95% of the GHG Effect and I think that even the IPCC acknowledges this but gets around it and confuses the ill informed by saying that “Water” is part of Nature’s cycle and therefore somehow not involved.
The basic physics and thermodynamics of the situation are so indisputable that they even were forced to invent the concept of CO2 absorbing ground IR and radiating it back to Earth.
This also is total rubbish as they ignore the basic physics that says the path length of ground IR is about 10 metres in the atmosphere. This obviously means that convection is the prime heat transfer mechanism at work from just above GL to about 5 km altitude.
00
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
00
Oops words from the past have the ability to haunt those in the present.
Forgot to honor the person who quotes those words
None other than “Joseph Goebbels”
00
I’ll probably get offside but the veracity of that statement attributed to Goebbel’s is disputed.
http://www.ihr.org/other/weber2011fakequotations.html
Goebbels: `Truth is the Enemy of the State’
Hitler’s propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels, supposedly said:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Rush Limbaugh, the popular American radio commentator, is just one of the many influential Americans who has cited this quotation. During a May 2007 radio broadcast he claimed that these remarks are “from Hitler’s war room, the Nazi spinmeister-in-chief, Joseph Goebbels,” who was “speaking for his cronies in the Nazi party.” Limbaugh went on to claim that American “Democrat Party” leaders were using “a version” of Goebbels’ technique to try to “repress dissent.” And in January 2011 US Congressman Steve Cohen, a Democratic party politician of Tennessee, accused Republicans of propagating “a big lie, just like Goebbels” about a proposed national health care plan.
In fact, Goebbels’ views were quite different than what this fraudulent quote suggests. He consistently held that propaganda should be accurate and truthful.
In an address given in September 1934 in Nuremberg, he said: “Good propaganda does not need to lie, indeed it may not lie. It has no reason to fear the truth. It is a mistake to believe that people cannot take the truth. They can. It is only a matter of presenting the truth to people in a way that they will be able to understand. A propaganda that lies proves that it has a bad cause. It cannot be successful in the long run.”
In an article written in 1941, he cited examples of false British wartime claims, and went on to charge that British propagandists had adopted the “big lie” technique that Hitler had identified and condemned in his book Mein Kampf. Goebbels wrote: “The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.”
00
Are you sure you want to take Goebbles’s word for anything?
00
“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” – Sir Winston Churchill British Politician [1874 – 1965]
http://sites.google.com/site/palestinegenocideessays/churchill-s-bengali-holocaust
00
Sounds mighty like AGW doesn’t it?
Whether he said it or not matters not … never let the truth get in the way of a good story, especially when it comes to pushing crap government policy.
00
Canadian Senate Climate Science and Economics Hearing – 15/12/11
Worth viewing. Interesting that this hearing was three days after Canada announced that they will be pulling out of Kyoto.
When the Libs get in they say they will reverse the tax but also they should pull out of Kyoto.
00
Woops, wrong link. Here.
00
One of the finest crafted speeches I have ever seen/heard. Ross McKitrick lecturing the Canadian Senate Select Committee, starts a few minutes in after the Senator does the introductions and drones on a bit.
A must see performance.
00
This would be the same Liberals who, at the federal level, still have a “climate change policy”, complete with an “emissions reduction scheme”, and an “emissions trading scheme”.
This would be the same Liberals at the state level, in Victoria, who are installing sensors to high voltage power lines so they can cut the power off to whole, threatened communities rather than actually fire-proof the power lines with proper maintenance.
This would be the same Liberals, again at state level – this time in NSW where they have won a landslide victory – who are banning the sale of regular unleaded fuel from July First, to “promote the use of Biofuels”, to “save the environment”.
I’ve said it before, but I’m going to say it again.
Anybody who thinks simply changing from a Labor to a Liberal government at the next election, is going to “fix” all this climate insanity, is in for a big shock.
All the major political parties are beholden to those “in the club”, as George Carlin put it (coarse language).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5dBZDSSky0
Our politicians are just following orders.
00
Well said!
00
MV
Don’t you reckon the gubmen which ever flavour will be forced to wake up when the “Western Sydney Street Parties” become regular occurrences, i.e. at a time when the “Home & Away” brick veneerial Aussie dream has collapsed & the banks are the nation’s un-forgiving landlords?
My bet is the plastic/silicone lifestylers on the Gold Coast & all the way through Coomera & Kingston/Logan will be a good barometer.
However by then it will be altogether too late.
“the right thing to do” YEAH RIGHT!
00
So you believe that the next government won’t reverse the Carbon Tax and dismantle its associated qangos? If the Libs don’t they will lose their base that moved back when Turnbull was dumped. Got Katter’s party to park the protest votes so the game has changed.
Ah, the Libs have also a policy…the mighty catchcry of the alarmists to justify their beliefs! The Direct Action policy always came with the rider of being able to be abolished if circumstances dictate such, if indeed it is ever implemented in the first instance.
The emissions trading scheme was dependant on the rest of the world coming on board. How’s that shaping up? If it indeed come to pass then how would we be placed to take advantage?
00
That’s a good point. At this stage I’d rather vote for Bob “Wildcat” Katter than Tony “Unification of Church and State” Abbot.
Bob Katter wants to turn the Gulf country of Qld into “the fruit basket of Asia” and says there’s numerous water resources being underutilised.
Sounds great, assuming there is actually a hydrographic chance in hell of that being feasible.
His party’s policies surrounding food are thinly veiled nationalism, concurrent with an unabashed government support for more misguided ethanol production from sugar cane, not to mention their irresponsible aim to use government policy to boost population growth, whilst at the same time they oppose the carbon tax and bemoan the Nanny State! Very difficult to characterise them even as libertarians socially and socialists economically, though they are democrats politically of course. They are perhaps a grab-bag of policies that they view as practical in the present rather than single ideology puritans. To their astonishing credit, nearly every stance they have on every issue is explicitly aligned with one of their “Core Values and Principles”, so whilst their CV&Ps may be a hybrid, everything else flows fairly logically from there. Logic in politics, now that’s innovative!
In any event his preferences would be likely to flow to the LNP coalition (even though no such promise is made on their website), so Katter sounds like the least evil with the greatest chance at the moment.
00
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14055921/Definition-of-Cryptocracy-Your-New-World-Government
00
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=11&gs_id=h&xhr=t&q=cryptocracy&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=cryptocracy&aq=0&aqi=g2g-v2&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=868032395a21deba&biw=1024&bih=588
Lets see if anyone can find a rational discussion on cryptocracy….
00
Hmmmm…. if “simply changing” governments has no hope of ending the Labor/Green climate insanity then what does? A third party organisation? An armed insurrection? How would you propose that we proceed?
In 2012 it will no longer be sufficient to simply be loudly in opposition without any program of political effectiveness to offer. That plan must begin with electing a coalition government committed to rolling back not only the carbon tax, but disbanding the department of climate change altogether.
We need to practise big tent politics.
It’s not accurate to claim the Libs, Nats or even some Laborites are as horrid as the Greens, that sort of blunt equivalency only alienates possible allies. We need to encourage and welcome pollies as they come up to speed on the science and the scales fall from their eyes, not act as Nemesis doling out vengeance for past human folly.
Sure, there are fools who can never be forgiven, such as Tony Windsor and Bob Oakshott who clearly betrayed their electorate for mammon. And there are those whose lies allowed them to form a government of questionable legitimacy. Others, like Greg Combet have shown themselves to be so callously cynical to have damaged their political careers.Then there are the fanatical Greens whose wretchedness is only a shade more respectable than the worse “isms” of the 20th century. Off to the wilderness with the lot of them!
But for the vast middling section of politicians the climate debate was just a distraction from the sorts of things they’re really interested in. They simply took on the expert CSIRO, IPPC advice at the time, jotted up a few moral CYA talking points about climate change then got on with whatever business their electorate was most interested in. It would be bad form to hold any politician to his or her original opinions about the state of the climate, force them up against the wall and make them stand for what they once erroneously believed on expert advice. This is especially so given the poisonous climate of intimidation, smears and the yellow star of “denialist” the Greenshirts and their ABC minions menacingly pinned to anyone brave enough to take a stand against absurdity. Pollies aren’t necessarily the stuff of heroes and anyway it’s doubtful many heroically skeptical politicians would have survived the last decade had there been many to start with.
It’s easy to talk tough anonymously online, another to put your career and your family’s well-being on the line.
Better to allow those who erred in the past save face as they come into our ever-growing tent.
Skiing anyone?
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/snow-possible-on-victorian-alpine-peaks/19936
00
The ‘fat controllers’ who worship Mammon have got their religion down pat but the majority of voters are a confused mob who have no idea of the cause of their predicament.
00
Never underestimate the intelligence of the average voter, my friend.
That’s exactly what Gillard and Brown and all the other elitist bastards who look down upon the battlers do. If it were true that “the majority of voters are a confused mob who have no idea…” then the ABC propaganda machine would have propelled the Labor/Green coalition into positive poll numbers.
Fact is, we, the people, aren’t that stupid.
00
On Science:
1) Having a degree in the sciences does not make one a scientist.
2) Following the scientific method is what makes a scientist, and you don’t need a degree to do that.
3) Belief is not part of the scientific method.
There are no real scientists who believe in CAGW because anyone who has scrutinized the evidence using the scientific method is now a denier.
00
Here is an interesting experiment:
Go into Google Earth, and search for Papeete.
Allow the image to centre on Papeete on your screen, and then place the cursor directly above the town.
Now zoom backwards to display the whole earth on your screen.
The blue area thus exposed, is what generates the majority of the earth’s climate, in one way or another.
For people living in the US, or in Europe, and used to seeing world maps from their personal perspective, sometimes have a problem with the fact that over half of the ‘earth’ isn’t earth at all, but is water.
And the media prattle on about “Global temperatures”, when 60% of the ‘Earth’ is a very efficient heat-sink. Not a clue.
00
You mean: ‘There are no real scientists who believe in CAGW because anyone who has scrutinized the evidence using the scientific method is now a
denierskeptic.’00
I should also have included:
You can teach (profess) science in a prodigious institute without necessarily following the scientific method (i.e. without being a real scientist). Holding a position of authority in a scientific institution does not count for anything in the scientific community.
00
KinkyKeith
January 8, 2012 at 7:31 am · Reply
Anybody else notice the big train crash in the US on TV last night.
Seems the problem train was carrying, or going to load up on BIOFUEL / Ethanol.
=================
Great reporting, it was 3 trains, one stopped, got rear ended, the derailed train cars were in the path of the third train traveling on a parallel track (and I assume in the opposite direction)which piled into the original wreck
But, yes there was a mention of empty ethanol tankers.
I’m sure any rail fans reading will correct my mistakes.
00
Wow! China has just announced it WILL introduce a CO2 tax like Australia. But, alas, it will start in 2015 at the staggering amount of $1.55 a tonne. Julia is vindicated! Well, sort of…a little bit…not much…hardly.
00
Just a quick thought on this.
Australia is going to introduce its own CO2 Tax, and the price is set at that mark of $23 per tonne.
The following year it rises a buck or so, and the following year another buck or so, then at the start of the next year, it moves to a market based cost, after issue.
Imagine if, in that same year, as mooted above, that Chinese price is set at $1.55, what will happen to the CO2 market here in Australia.
At the start of the year, the Government issues its CO2 Credits at that last price of around $25/26 a tonne, and during that same year, China, the biggest market on the Planet introduces its CO2 cost at that $1.55.
Just what do you think those Credits will be worth when it comes time to hand them back in, or at the set times for trading those Credits.
Power plants will just fold up, or as designed in the Legislation, artfully called ‘Security of Supply’ the Government steps in to prop them up, then that cost will be borne by the taxpayer.
I guess this is Doctor Smith’s ‘perfect’ market mechanism.
Tony.
00
Also worth thinking about is if that price does collapse to the $1.55 Chinese setting, imagine the now considerably depleted inflow into Government coffers if they have to issue the Credits for the following year at that base price which they have linked to.
They will be getting barely 5.5% of what they might have expected had that price stayed close to the original from day 1 of the year they last set it at, around $27.
Where will be all the Billions for
pork barrelling the next electiondiversion into CO2 abatement projects and renewable power, considering they think they can hold onto Government for that long.Also, notice how quiet Combet et al are now that their huge new tax is implemented.
Tony.
00
I’ve just put this comment on Warwick Hughes’ blog but others here may be interested
for temperature enthusiasts I came across this recent paper
mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/35565/1/Climate_Change_and_Hockey_Stick.pdf
Guido Travaglini
part of the abstract
The goal of this paper is to test on a millennial scale the magnitude of the recent warmth period,
known as the “hockey-stick”, and the relevance of the causative anthropogenic climate change
hypothesis advanced by several academics and worldwide institutions. A select batch of ten longterm
climate proxies, included in the NOAA 92 PCN dataset all of which running well into the
nineties, is updated to the year 2011 by means of a Time-Varying Parameter Kalman Filter SISO
model for state prediction. This procedure is applied by appropriately selecting as observable one
out of the HADSST2 and of the HADCRUT3 series of instrumental temperature anomalies
available since the year 1850. The updated proxy series are thereafter individually tested for the
values and time location of their four maximum non-neighboring attained temperatures.
part of the conclusion:
Several climatologists and the IPCC have since long maintained that the RWP is an
unprecedented phenomenon in the climatic history of the Earth by featuring the “hockey stick”
hypothesis and the associated anthropogenic origin. This purported evidence is put to test by
utilizing a select batch of ten millennial-scale climate proxies, included in the NOAA 92 PCN
dataset, and updated to the year 2011 by means of a TVP-KF model for state prediction. The
observable utilized therein is the HADCRUT3vNH series of instrumental temperature anomalies
available since the year 1850.
Out of ten series, only three significantly do not refute the hypothesis, while the others point
to different maximum temperature dates, mostly included in the MWP.
00
Someone once said (can’t remember who) that we would know when the AGW scam was coming to an end when the average person in the street/pub was in the business of making jokes about AGW/CC. Ridicule would be the sign of its passing.
I trust that this is not premature, but I think we may be there. Over the Christmas period, I have been told and have read a countless number of jokes about AGW and the “scientists” who cheerlead the cause.
The comments on the Tim Blair blog have some of this humour.
00
One of the parents at a women’s cricket match today who only knew me as the umpire simply said “what global warming” in reference to the cold weather now in Adelaide and then went on to say “they call it something else now” and I agreed with him saying “climate change” or “climate disruption”.
The message is getting through to the public.
00
in perspective
Helps if you close tags for images eh
00
How about some analysis on the Australian Government Draft Energy White Paper 2011 – Strengthening the Foundation for Australia’s Energy Future was launched on 13 December 2011 by the Minister for Resources, Energy and Tourism. It delivers on a commitment by the Government to release a Draft Energy White Paper for public consultation by the end of 2011. It is anticipated that a final Energy White Paper will be released in 2012.
The Draft Energy White Paper provides an overview of Australia’s future energy needs to 2030 (and in some cases beyond) and defines a comprehensive strategic policy framework to guide the further development of Australia’s energy sector.
Some fascinating projections for 2050 from Appendix C, page 269, from Table C.1: Comparison of model inputs and outputs, Treasury and BREE, 2011
– Carbon price of $130
– Zero brown coal (is the Vic govt paying attention?) – today 23% of electricity supply
– Black coal 6-10% of electricity generation (plus 14-16% with carbon storage) – today 51%
– Oil and gas 18-26% (plus 10-18% with carbon storage) – today 17%
– Wind 12-15% – today 2% – Solar 3% (is that all?) – today 0.1%
– Geothermal 13-23% (surprise – it beats wind and solar?) – today 0%
Page xix: The Australian Treasury has forecast that in the presence of a carbon price, more than $200 billion will need to be spent in new generation capacity to 2050. This comprises around $50 to $60 billion in gas-fired capacity, $100 billion on renewables and $45 to $65 billion in coal, primarily carbon capture and storage technology.
Page xxi: Taking into account current clean energy generation, this would equate to the average annual output of around an additional 43 new 750 megawatt hour coal‐fired power stations – a significant investment task.
Page 206: The most recent LCOE projections commissioned by the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism for a range of electricity generation technologies in 2030 are shown in Figure 7.1. These estimates broadly suggest that new plants in a number of technologies – including wind, carbon capture and storage on coal‐ and gas‐fired power, geothermal and solar – could successfully compete into a LCOE band range of around $70 to $140 per MWh (real 2009–10 dollars). <>.
Page 162: The Productivity Commission identified more than 230 climate‐related measures in operation at the national and subnational levels. While these measures are clearly not all energy related, and while the extent to which they have a material effect on market prices is not known with certainty, they are generally not transparent and add to market complexity. Given that the carbon price has been legislated, the range of measures should be reviewed against the COAG principles of complementarity to ensure that inefficiencies leading to unnecessary costs are avoided. Governments at all levels should review existing measures, consistent with COAG’s agreed complementarity principles for climate change mitigation measures and agree not to introduce any new non‐complementary measures.
Page 199: The Australian Government acknowledges that cleaner energy will impose marginally higher energy costs on consumers in the short to medium term.
00
Those figures are almost like USA’s cut in defence over a shorter period. Imagine what equipment we could have for our forces with that money. It would show we were prepared and able to shoulder a major part of our own defence should it be needed.
Even one tenth…20 billion…would pay for 100 Joint Strike Fighters that we really need to replace the F-111s we had.
00
Just on that same subject, here’s a short video, well 5 minutes anyway, about fifth generation fighter aircraft, including the F-35 Lightning we are (hopefully) getting.
Incidentally, the F-111 retired last year was still one of the best, if not the best, combat aircraft ever made.
Even at retirement, (for an aircraft whose design was 50 years old, and 46 years old from the first flight) no other single aircraft on Planet Earth could do everything that ‘Ethel’ could do. The only reason for retirement was it became too expensive, (on a per flight basis) to continue with it.
The RAAF was the only Air Force outside of the US to have them. (The Poms leased some for a few years.)
The F-111 construction factory at GDFW was one mile long.
The Americans, being as they were, replaced aircraft on a regular basis, and even so, they utilised the F-111 longer than for any combat aircraft they have ever had.
Following on from what Australia did, the USAF and GD in fact found ways, mainly from experience here in Oz, to prolong the life of this wonderful aircraft.
In fact the USAF virtually demanded of GD to continue the program, and GDFW knocked a large hole in the wall of that huge construction line, rolled existing F-111’s into the factory and refurbished them, and modded them up.
Now they have the fifth Gen fighters in service, the (now cancelled) F-22 and the F-35 Lightning almost ready.
These two 5th Gen Fighters have no equal, and I’ll repeat that, NO equal.
In a similar vein to the F-111 with respect to Australia, these awaited F-35’s will be an enormous asset.
Some of you may think Big Boys and their Big Toys (Hmm! Kim Beazley comes to mind here) but these aircraft give Australia an advantage no one else will have.
Link to Video on F-22 and F-35
Tony.
GDFW- General Dynamics Fort Worth
and ‘Ethel’, well that’s a play on word association, from Monty Python in fact. The F-111 was fondly called ‘The Pig’ while it’s real name was Aardvark, and ‘Ethel’ is from the the Python sketch, Ethel the aardvark goes quantity surveying.
00
Ah Tony, no argument from me about the F-111, the USAF specified them awesomely and GD almost built them too good for export. They were, after all, designed to fly automatically on TFR just above the hills below enemy radar until they reached Russian bases or Moscow, climb to attack altitude, release their nuclear bombs, then immediately turn and fly supersonic the entire way home at tree-top level. I don’t think any other human-piloted aircraft has ever been designed to do that, let alone actually be built.
Of course the USAF knew these pigs were too good, which is why some time after 1997 they destroyed the original metal dies for the critical parts (eg airframe and wing pivots) so that any significant future maintenance or reproduction would be impossible for anybody. There was scarcely a dry eye in the house when they made their final dump’n’burn over Brisbane and for the last flight at Amberley one rainy day.
Now, at the risk of prolonging the “my favourite plane would beat your favourite plane” argument that you so clearly wish to ignite, could I just say that the Su-35 deserves serious consideration as an enemy fighter and that only Russia and the USA really know for sure which would beat which under what precise battle conditions, and even then they may still have tricks up their sleeves that neither has discovered. The RAND corporation had some rather harsh comments about the F-35, though that could be counter-intelligence, you just don’t know who to believe here.
Speaking of the pigs, and your role as a sparky at Amberley in the mid 80s, it is certainly possible that you and I have met at least one person in common. Does the name R.Dannock mean anything to you?
(No, this is not an episode of “This Is Your Life”!)
00
Could it be that his first name was Ross?
Vaguely remember that from somewhere.
Tony.
00
Close, but not quite. I can’t remember if Rob was on structures or avionics, and was a B stamp technician at one stage, and an interminably polite fellow.
Perhaps you encountered Andrew Young at some point, who I believe was on electronics and used to work on Macchi trainers and DC-10s in the late 60s even before the F-111 rolled out. Had a very bizarre sense of humour.
Hmmm, funny the things one remembers about people. Well not sure what the point of this line of enquiry was, aside from proving the Small World hypothesis.
00
I have often mentioned that China is bringing on line (actually delivering power) one large coal fired power plant every seven or so days.
However, what is not highlighted is that they are also constructing power plants of every other type as well.
China currently has the largest Nameplate Capacity (NP) for wind power on the Planet, and therein lies a fact that I will never fail to emphasise. It’s not the NP that is important, but the actual power delivered for consumption. The concentration on the ‘up front’ size, that NP is artificially inflated to make it ‘seem’ that there is actually a lot of them, but as I have explained at length, when the correct figures for actual power delivery are shown, then it becomes another matter entirely.
Now, while China are constructing those coal fired plants, they are also ‘ramping up’ power plant construction in other areas.
Nuclear power is one of those, and, not often mentioned is Hydro electric power, so let’s look at some data for that, and raw figures may not mean much in such a huge Country, but the percentages are in fact quite eye opening.
China now also leads the World in power sourced from Hydro.
That power delivery (note, not NP) amounts to just on 560 TeraWattHours (TWH) a figure that may not be understood, so let’s add some perspective. Australia currently consumes 225TWH of power from EVERY source, so just that China Hydro is enough to supply the whole of Australia TWICE OVER.
That amount of power delivered amounts to just on 23% of all power delivered in China, and for perspective, all Hydro in Australia comes in at just 4.9%.
Now I fully understand the differences in size, terrain, and conditions between China and Australia so any comparison is dubious.
However, what it does indicate is that in China, they are not afraid to utilise every possible method there is to bring electrical power to the vast populace who do not the access to that electrical power that we take for granted.
Even with what is already in place, China is going flat out on construction of even further large scale Hydro plants, and of the largest 25 Hydro plants currently in construction on Earth, 20 of them are in China. (2000MW+ NP)
Here in Australia, maybe there might actually be a way to reduce CO2 emissions that does not entail waste of immense amounts of money on wind and solar.
Perhaps we might move towards a new Snowy Hydro Scheme. Not new dams, but upgrading the existing old generation capacity to new generators etc. This could effectively double the existing Hydro power delivery.
Just one project in China alone, the huge Three Gorges Complex supplies 100TWH, which is just under half the total power consumed in Australia.
For those wanting some background on this project, I have a 4 Part series at my home site, showing the history and comparison for power delivered.
The Three Gorges Hydro Project
Tony.
00
Interesting problems with icebreakers and oiltankers I wonder if they were expecting that degree of difficulty with the ice ?
00
You know what this place needs? A forum.
00
Since it would be for discussing stuff unrelated to Jo’s posts, there’s no reason for Jo’s site to host it and there’s plenty of forums that exist already out there. We’d just have to pick one.
Just Grounds is one forum option, though it may be a bit lowbrow for some.
Online Opinion forums have a few topics going though the parent site smells very green-left.
I don’t exactly want to hang out with the capitalists either since they represent the kleptocratic blinkered status quo, but there would no doubt be a few Big Industry-backed astroturfing forums around the place if we look for it.
What I’d want is the forum for Australians who are just looking out for themselves rather than trying to rob anyone else or push an ideology.
00
After a contemplative holiday at the beach…
The thing I worry most about for the skeptical “climate movement”, if you’ll forgive the inept label, is how to manage the transition from vilified minority to politically empowered majority…how to minimise triumphalism and vilification so as to make the tent as big and as welcoming as possible to all those who would now like to come over to our side, yet retain our original purpose. Now is the time to be as forgiving as it is to be stalwart in the defence of our goals, such as the reinstatement of strict transparent scientific methodology into the dark art of climatology.
It’s time for us to realise the debate really is over for the moment. By any rational standard of scientific inquiry committing the global economy to trillions of dollars in CO2 abatement is simply religious zealotry. We have won. Mad greenies sure the end times are nigh will never go away, just as creationists, truthers and insanities of all kind haunt poor souls in every age. We shouldn’t obsess with them, as they are increasing irrelevant, but engage with the larger community.
We have clear political objectives (soon to be a mandate.) Abolish the carbon tax and defund and dismantle the “ministry for climate change” for starters. Secondly, we must derail tying our government’s budget to a mining tax since it’s economically illiterate (ever heard of a business cycle?) and unsustainable.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203471004577140161681950368.html
But there are other longer term, more difficult goals. Our basic scientific research and education institutions (BOM, CSIRO and the universities) need to be reformed, returned to their original mission of searching for objective – rather than politically expedient or culturally fashionable – realities.
Then there is the thorny question of the future of the Australian Broadcast Corporation, the taxpayer-funded branch of the Labor/Green political war machine. The ABC with its $1.18 billion annual budget violates its charter daily by refusing to fairly present both sides of the climate debate, much less any other debate where the Corporation believes it can score political points for its highly partisan worldview, rather than fairly serve the Australian people as a whole. Some how this billion-dollar media culture of deceit has to be managed according to the strict journalistic ethics set out in its charter, or if that’s not possible, privatised, so it can pursue its special agenda without state-coerced funding. It is simply one of the greatest social injustices of our age that state-funded propaganda for one side of every debate is tolerated in the 21st century.
All the above are the negations we have to perform to cleanse ourselves of the Green/Labor yoke. But beyond that we are free to let our creative imaginations run wild. Why is the great top end so undeveloped, it’s river unharnessed, it’s vallies untilled? Why don’t Brisbane and Melbourne have plans to build more dams? Why is the Pacific highway a third world deathtrap? These are just my pet dreams. Add your own. Australia is a continent nation and our future is as vast and even greater than our past. Once we shake Green self-hatred and the Labor black armbands, toss aside our cultural cringe, the sky is the limit for our lucky country.
2012 is the year that we must gracefully evolve into our new role as representatives of a majority view and prepare to shift our mindset from that of an opposition to that of a responsible leadership.
00
Hi Wes
Good point but
“creationists, truthers and insanities of all kind haunt poor souls in every age. We shouldn’t obsess with them”
The problem is THEY STILL HAVE THE VOTE.
00
Creationists of the theistic variety aren’t the problem. Their world view is antagonistic to that of the pantheists and animists who believe the Earth is their mother and every species animate and inanimate is their brother, sister or cousin. The latter group provides the philosophical basis of climate change alarmism. Thus a theistic creationist like Spencer and a theistic evolutionist (which of course is a creationist variant) like Christy aren’t the worst sort of allies for skeptics to have.
Apart from that I like Wes’s fire in the belly, do something, approach. Unlike armchair skeptics like Pat and MV he seems to think, if I’m reading him right, that a Coalition government under the leadership of someone like “it’s all crap” Abbott can reverse the potentially economically destructive “clean energy” direction the present government is pursuing.
That’s a better approach in my book than whinging and throwing one’s hands up in the air. That’s OK for the Little Jack Horner’s of this world but not for those of us who like to get things done.
The news of China’s 2015 token carbon tax will put pressure on the Coalition to be more definitive on their intentions should they win future government. In that sense it should put welcome, from our position, pressure on Abbott to be a bit more upfront about his skepticism.
00
With wisdom expressed like that, it is difficult to label the Green/Labor as progressive.
00
At many abattoirs they have a trained goat.
The purpose of the trained goat is to lead the other animals, the sheep and the cows, to the slaughter.
Congrats, Wes George, you make a very good goat.
00
Pat – http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/unthreaded-3/#comment-915974
Makes one wonder what happened in the past to the ecological system of tribes, fauna & flora that were in the vicinity of the Murray River.
Murray River 1914 In a true Australian drought
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PfkNGFHJ8o
Happy New Year to All
00
“The United States now has a total of five major aircraft carriers deployed around the world, the same number of warships that were in action shortly before the invasion of Iraq in early 2003.
With tensions running high in relation to Pakistan, Syria and Iran amidst overwhelming speculation of an imminent military campaign in the region, the deployment of three major warships to the Middle East is of extreme significance.
However, the most pressing concern for the U.S. is the fact that Pakistan is maintaining its border blockade to Afghanistan in protest against a NATO air strike last month that killed two dozen Pakistani soldiers. The U.S. has refused to apologize for the incident.
Although the Pentagon claims that the blockade has “no appreciable impact” on military operations in Afghanistan, it is costing the U.S. Air Force about $400 dollars in fuel costs for each gallon of fuel dropped by cargo plane to supply U.S. bases in Afghanistan.”
00
http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2011/12/us-deploys-yet-another-warship-to-the-middle-east/
00
Wes George @ 27
In relation to empowerment, my suggestion is that at every opportunity we try to take away the Doublespeak option that the warmists have used so successfully to hoodwink the gullible public.
Their “climate change” or “climate disruption” is the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and/or its alarmist big brothers dangerous, catastrophic, runaway (you pick) AGW. Let us always use the correct terminology and nail them on it every time they attempt Doublespeak.
The unmandated unholy allied Green/Labor/Independent government has brought in a tax (they euphemistically try to call a price) on carbon dioxide not on carbon. Use it and nail it every time!
CO2 is essential, is a trace gas and it is not a pollutant. Science is never “settled” nor is it decided by “consensus”. Don’t let anyone get away with such nonsense unchallenged.
You all know many more examples. Let us get the right language and terminology back on course!
Finally, we needed a descriptive punchy name for the economic and environmental madness that is being perpetrated by the eco-nutters, the gravy-train scientists, universities and other organisations, the financial predators and the power-crazed UN bureaucrats in pursuit of authoritarian total control through one-world government (Agenda 21).
I believe this man has come up with it. Check it out.
“WHAT IS MEANT BY THIS NEWLY COINED TERM: “SOVEREIGN ECO-CIDE?”
Posted 6 January 2012
“If ‘sovereign debt’ is now acceptable as economic jargon popularised by the global financial meltdown, let me have a crack at inventing a new term, ‘sovereign eco-cide” as descriptive of how nations can inflict on themselves economic suicide by means of carbon taxes, emissions trading schemes, cap-and-trade madness , etc, caused by the myth that human and animal emissions of carbon dioxide can cause ‘dangerous global warming’. For what led to this invention, see three links below – Terry Dunleavy, New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.”
For the links:
http://nzclimatescience.net/
00
Great point, Keith.
We have allowed the Greens to own the language. Whoever owns the language owns the cognitive tools (words, syntax) that everyone uses to discuss – and therefore think – about the climate debate. It becomes impossible to rationally think about a topic if the only terms allowed in the debate are inaccurate characterisations chosen for their propaganda effect.
Thus, Labor and the Greens disingenuously demand to talk about “carbon pollution” and describe their political opposition as “those who deny climate change.” Yet the REAL debate is about whether catastrophic global warming will occur due to anthropogenically produced CO2 and whether we can or should do anything about it. The only people who imagine the climate should be denied change are the warmists themselves.
The starting point of every encounter with supporters of the CAGW hypothesis must be a thorough debunking of their intentionally misleading tropes. No rational discussion can proceed on a linguistic foundation of propaganda terminology.
Even when just talking with a friend interested in hearing the skeptical side of the debate the process of deprogramming them from zombie ABC indoctrination must precede any rational discussion of the topic.
00
Cross posted from WUWT
Posted by Jim murphy
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/07/open-weekend-thread/#comment-857015
Postenvironmentalism & Technological Abundance
‘….Consequently, environmentalists “find themselves, for reasons of risk, opposing new technologies that could help resolve issues of scarcity.” As an example of this political and scientific incoherence, Sarewitz cites the case of genetically enhanced crops which environmentalists oppose because of their alleged risks to human health although such crops would ameliorate environmentalist concerns about soil and water depletion, pesticide residues, and population growth. …’
http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/04/postenvironmentalism-and-technological-a
00
What beats me and I can understand it, if someone gets a grant, they go out of their way to prove their point to a point they will corrupt data to suit their hypothesis. And if someone challenges them, pointing out their data does NOT substantiate their hypothesis, these people are labeled as deniers, skeptics or in even worse, but their argument not examined. Happens all the time in academia. This makes me believe that $$$s must be the motive. It’s happened to me in a small way, and I complained as I had proof this academic was passing on the wrong message to substantiate his hypothesis. Not climate or AGW just colonial history. His efforts were so pathetic, despite a Ph.D., it’s got to the stage where I am doubting the credibility of the department he works for. And the University. If I a post graduate can see the problems with the AGW or climate change, degree in Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology when we studied climate and the effect it has on human evolutionary trends and progress, what hope for our school children or the general public who have no background in this discipline, to be able to complain or query the motives behind people like Hansen, Gore, Mann, Pachauri, and Jones.
00
As it’s not related to any of the main Posts topics, I thought I would put this one here, so I hope you guys who follow Joanne’s ‘Recent Comments’ column will pick up on this.
That wonderful Australian bastion of deep and intense Scientific Research have finally categorised a new fly, Scaptia (Plinthina), a large Horse Fly found in Far North Queensland.
Because of the gold patch on its abdomen, they say that this new fly is ‘The all time Diva of flies’, so they named it, and wait for this, after the singer Beyonce.
Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase Scientific Research’.
A little like naming a fossilised triphibian trilobite after the punk band ‘The Ramones’.
CSIRO unveils bootylicious Beyonce fly
Tony.
00
The big problem with the “scientific community” is that its academic machiavellism is incompatible with the scientific method. Please check out Pure science Wiki. That is an Internet platform for the real scientific method.
00