“Conspiracy Theorist” – the taunt you use when you want to “win” the debate without having to argue your point.
When someone points out that the Regulating Class want to bring on a world government, they’re called a “conspiracy theorist”. When the king-pins of the Regulating Class, or their media apostles, actually admit they rather love the idea of a world government, where are the retractions? They can’t hold an honest conversation, let alone budget, plan and spend your money wisely.
Gary Stix – former Scientific American writer – blogs that he used to edit articles on nuclear fusion and clean coal, but now thinks he ought to have written more on psychology, sociology and economics. (See, when their attempts at logic, reason and evidence don’t win over the crowd, the anointed need to explain how stupid, flawed and selfish people are.)
Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe
Unfortunately, far more is needed. To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers. There would have to be consideration of some way of embracing head-in-the-cloud answers to social problems that are usually dismissed by policymakers as academic naivete. In principle, species-wide alteration in basic human behaviors would be a sine qua non, but that kind of pronouncement also profoundly strains credibility in the chaos of the political sphere. Some of the things that would need to be contemplated: How do we overcome our hard-wired tendency to “discount” the future: valuing what we have today more than what we might receive tomorrow? Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries? How do we create new institutions with enforcement powers way beyond the current mandate of the U.N.?
Stix goes on to wonder: Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?
Dear Gary, could we? Let’s check the current UN record for success? They are the visionaries guarding-little-citizens who put Gaddafi in charge of “human rights”, and North Korea in charge of Nuclear Disarmament. Last week they endorsed a 2010 report where some of the worlds most repressive governments like Algeria, Iran, and Syria praised the Gaddafi regime’s human rights record. Not a single country objected. OK. So you think these are people that ought to have even more power over us? These guys are not even trying, not even pretending anymore that they need to look nice and rational. There is not even a pretense. Gaddafi thinks “human rights” means he has the right to bombs his own people and the big news is that UN is “thinking” twice about hailing him as a humanitarian hero?
But the UN are thinking about reviewing their 2010 report that praised Gaddafi’s human rights record. So that’s alright then.
Protection against malevolent dictators comes from a free press and a free vote, and most of the world doesn’t have that, and even the parts that do are suffering from big-governmentitis. The best protection from dictators comes from competing nation states, competing media outlets, competing companies, competing political parties, and … you get the idea. The best way to guarantee global tyranny is have a global government.
Bob Brown advocated for one world parliament
GREENS leader Bob Brown – whose party assumes sole balance of power in the Senate tomorrow – wants Australia to join an international push for a global parliament. This ”people’s assembly” would be based on one person, one vote, one value and was being vigorously promoted in Europe and the United Nations, he said yesterday. (See the Youtube)
In the Hunt for a new Vocabulary
The English language can’t keep up with the Certified Global Nonsense. We don’t even have the words to describe the convoluted situations the alarmist-big-government brains think up. What is the word to encompass a situation where the people throwing the insults condescendingly disdain those they oppose, even as they agree with them? What is it — apart from a random tribal missive of hypocrisy? Please suggest words from other languages, acronyms or an entirely new word. Time to brainstorm.
H/t to Australian Climate Madness
Other related posts:
UN totalitarians want your money and your life
Billions of dollars sneaks out the door through UN committees
BREAKING NEWS! The abdication of the West — the sting at Cancun
Ecocide? Bring it on (in a Western government court).
Flashback to Bali: UN tactics to silence dissent
Yes we do, fascism. Or, if you prefer, fascist programs. Also, if you pick a fight with a psychologist you’ve already won. Which means, you’ve already lost.
The thing we must be vigillant is the cross-over from conspiracy theorist to mentally unstable to a threat to society. There is a clear interest in removing large sections of our community from the general population. Namely, those of us who hold alternate views. Questioning views. Dangerous views.
Remember, you will be held in a secure location for your own safety. We will pump you full of drugs until you get better which, we know is impossible because you are now a drug addict.
The war on poverty, war on illiteracy, war on drugs and war on terrorism are about creating a cattle mindset through fear. We are stupified through terror. Despair on the screen, hopelessness in the paper.
Question the orthodoxy that the world is full of violence and hate and a monumental truth is revealed. Almost 7 billion people on this planet get along fine with one another. Those who perpetrate war are statistically insignificant. Scientifically speaking. This is a worldview changer for many doom and gloomers I’ve met over the years.
10
Agenda 21 – to which Australia is a signatory:
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
’nuff said…
00
Stix is not alone. it’s the latest CAGW meme for Rio:
15 March: Guardian: How Rio+20 can herald a constitutional moment
The conference should focus on assessing the governance reforms required to put the planet on a more sustainable path
Frank Biermann and Steven Bernstein
Governments have a historic opportunity this June to create the institutions needed to fulfill the promise made at the 1992 Earth Summit. The Rio+20 UN conference on sustainable development should mark nothing less than a constitutional moment, putting the planet on a more sustainable path. But, it is in grave danger of being stillborn, lacking the political will to commit to the transformations required to collectively thrive within planetary boundaries…
How to create a “constitutional moment” will be a focus of the ICSU-sponsored Planet Under Pressure conference in London later this month. There, some 3,000 experts on global change and sustainability will provide a state of the planet assessment, discuss concepts for planetary stewardship and societal and economic transformation, and prescribe a route to global sustainability.
As our input into that process, we, together with 30 other leading scholars from around the world, undertook the first independent assessment of the state of environmental and sustainable development governance, with our summary findings appearing in the journal Science today. Our overarching conclusion: tinkering won’t be enough. The situation requires a fundamental transformation of existing practices…
Second, environmental and social goals must be mainstreamed into the activities of all global economic institutions. This avoids the current situation where their activities undermine gains achieved by environmental treaties because of poor policy coherence. This will require meaningful high-level dialogue among economic development and environmental institutions and the same government ministers – especially of finance or treasuries – to attend such dialogues to ensure consistent national engagement at the highest levels. The UN Sustainable Development Council that we propose could host such dialogues.
Third, the Nairobi-based UN Environment Programme should be elevated to a fully fledged international organisation with a status similar to the World Health Organisation – a step that would give it greater authority, more secure funding and facilitate the creation and enforcement of international regulations and standards. Such a change should not be simply symbolic, but include mobilisation of resources to properly monitor the state of the planet including socioeconomic indicators…
Finally, the environment crisis is part of a wider set of issues; including poverty, financial and political instability, and uneven economic development. This interconnectedness increases our collective vulnerability. It makes effective earth system governance even more imperative.
• Frank Biermann is chair of the Earth System Governance Project and professor of political science at the VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
• Steven Bernstein is professor of political science and director, master of global affairs programme at the Munk School, University of Toronto, Canada.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/15/rio20-constitutional-moment
00
To many, the moral values of most of those who share the ideological beliefs of the CAGW alarmists are repugnant. Examples:
1. wealthy elitists advocating their beliefs and couldn’t give a damn about anyone else
2. supporting the censorship of articles and news outlets that that do not agree with their beliefs,
3. supporting “the end justifies the means” (as exemplified by persons involved in propagating exaggeration, misinformation, lies, alarmism, extremism and scaremongering such as Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Will Steffen. Al Gore, Sir Nicholas Stern, Ross Garnaut and many others).
4. supporting financial and economically destructive policies such as CO2 tax and ETS while unable to demonstrate any measurable benefit from such policies. The fact they ignore and try to divert attention from questions about the benefits of such polices demonstrates their agenda is one of irresponsible and dishonest advocate for a cause, for a belief.
5. supporting and strongly advocating policies that are clearly ideological rather than rational – e.g. wealth redistribution,
6. supporting highly irrational schemes like renewable energy (which are next to useless and highly damaging to the economy) while advocating against the one clean energy solution that could cut emissions while providing long term benefits to the economy and human health and wellbeing (nuclear).
7. supporting policies that will cause great harm to humanity. They probably do this in ignorance, but they show no indication they are open to learn.
00
Hmmmm, this “2. supporting the censorship of articles and news outlets that that do not agree with their beliefs,” is probably wrong.
Science works on advancing theories that can be tested and the process replicated by other scientists. Denialist crap doesn’t work like that, it makes a statement out of faith or to further an agenda and is not stated in a way it can be tested and is published in popular literature not peer reviewed journals. (There is that D word again please do not use the nasty word in a similar way again) CTS
Look at todays Media Watch for example.
Read the CSIRO/BuMet report on Climate Change yet? Or would thjat Challenge your faith too much? It is here:
http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding/State-of-the-Climate-2012.aspx
02
Too bad if the peer review process has been completely contaminated then isn’t it- on the one hand enforcing the established paradigm by ostracizing anyone who has views or data challenging orthodoxy- google Quasicrystals and Dan Shechtman as just one example- only took 25 years for anyone to take him seriously, or even converse with him in the lunchroom. Then on the other hand, rubber stamping any of your mate’s work without even so much as a spellcheck, so long as you have influence and people are afraid to criticize you- Jan-Hendrik Schon with his multiple fraudulent semiconductor work as but one of the more glaring- a peer reviewed paper on average every 8 days- 28 papers later withdrawn as overtly fraudulent and several more called into severe question. Not caught because of peer review mind you, oh no, but because an alert graduate student at NYU noticed two graphs in different papers measuring different things were identical. Funny how his mates never picked that up, or never noticed that any of the work was reproducible or that it actually didn’t really sound plausible even!
So don’t try to suggest that peer review means anything magical, august or even significant of anything at all- it is an artificial means of suppressing dissent and thwarting innovation. In my field, Medicine, that sort of rubbish is rife, leading to delays or failure to understand the causes of such things as stomach ulcers and cancers, seborrhoeic dermatitis, obesity, autism, etc, etc.
So, for the bonus point, how many peer reviewed papers did Einstein submit in his lifetime?? Any idea Maxine, since you’re supposed to be so science literate?
10
So, who is in denial?
00
Definition of peer review?
The process by which the mediocre keep the brilliant and the independent minded from getting too far ahead of them.
00
@ Maxine
That was an impressive delivery; have you told your boss, or did CentreLink simply admit your disability pension without further investigation ?
00
Maxine, I agree.
The fact that CAGW alarmists support the censorship of articles and news outlets that do not agree with their beliefs,” is
probablydefinately wrong.Umm, an example of what? Oh, it must relate to the previous sentence about “Denialist crap”.
Yes, Media Watch frequently denies science, mainly because Holmes doesn’t know any science so you have to laugh at his attempts to denigrate something that he knows nothing about.
Did I read the CSIRO/BuMet report on Climate Change yet? Yes, and to allay your concern, my faith in science wasn’t challenged by reading it because it didn’t contain any science, just the usual propaganda.
00
Interesting Maxine — for someone who pretends to lecture us about science (“us” including many scientists and engineers), you seem to be completely incapable of constructing a logical argument.
p.s., Namecalling is not a logical argument — which was kind of the point of Jo’s post — so maybe you would do better if you started reading before typing away.
Or, maybe not. As Abe Lincoln once pointed out:
00
An interesting statement! Could you please cite one instance where the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming has been tested and replicated? Could you please share with us one instance where the models got it correct? And, what about Jimbo Hansen’s ” business as usual” scenario would result in temperatures rising above the noise?
10
What could be more of an act of faith than CO2 is causing the Earth to warm? Absolutely no empirical evidence for that but yet the IPCC computer climate models ASSUME that it is CO2 that is causing any warming that might be ocurring.
00
Maxine … you mis-used a word.
“Science works on advancing theories that can be tested and the process replicated by other scientists.
DenialistWarmista crap doesn’t work like that, it makes a statement out of faith or to further an agenda and is not stated in a way it can be tested and is published in popular literature not peer reviewed journals.”See, you just used the wrong word, CAGW theology has no testable theory. Glad to be of assistance.
00
I find it incredible that you would suggest there is no media censorship at work, when a government report recently released specifically recommended that blogs such as this one be heavily regulated. Are you that unaware of what is going on, or are you merely muckraking?
No argument from me on that one. Now, tell us, how do we falsify the CAGW hypothesis? Under what conditions would we regard the theory as false? Tell us how to falsify it, so we can see whether the theory stands up to investigation.
I keep asking this question, but nobody ever answers.
You don’t see that most of what passes for ‘climate science’ these days, at least in the popular media, is just alarmism and activism dressed in the increasingly shoddy robes of ‘science’. Hybrid sharks, anyone?
00
Claim to support CAGW
http://iceagenow.info/2011/10/snowfalls/
Claim to support CAGW
http://iceagenow.info/2012/03/b-s-alert-coldest-january-record-alaska-blamed-global-warming/
Claim to support CAGW
http://iceagenow.info/2012/03/global-warming-supposedly-brings-record-snowfall-europe/
The CAGW theory has been falsified, waiting patiently for Maxine to reply…………………………..
00
Try looking at the global temperature graphs, reading the CSIRO–BuMet report. Reading of all the temperature proxies studied in the Arctic & Antarctic.
Reading websites frequently found to be in error while calling CSIRO–BuMet reports to be non-science or bad science is making that mistake I have corrected you lot on: When you say a reputable website publishing the latest science is anti–science you are not using science or reason: you are acting on faith. You have your theory and you don’t want to face facts that invalidate your theory, your belief. If you want to believe in unverified faith, religion then don’t talk about science because you are not “doing science” you are engaged in religion, in groupthink, in avoiding reality.
01
I see you didn’t answer the question about how to falsify the theory. I’m not surprised, no alarmist ever does. It would be like a Muslim answering how to prove Allah doesn’t exist – quite understandably they don’t want to discuss it. Which is fine – a man is entitled to his faith, just as long as he understands it is faith and provably nothing more.
00
Maxine;
So, argument from authority (a fallacy) is the best you can do?
I guess so.
00
Knowing what evidence would convince you CAGW is true is an important part of “climate skepticism”. When I forced myself to go through this excercise last year it showed some evidence to satisfy part of CAGW, but still had some crucial links in the argument unsupported. That’s mainly why I still don’t believe it.
My initial attempt was not very detailed, but it shows the basic structure and may give other “deniers” an idea of what evidence ought to be showing up that simply isn’t. Basically you define CAGW in terms of a Boolean logical proposition, then define standards of evidence that can be used to supply the True/False values to the variables in the proposition. Rewriting it in plain English also helps!
To be fair I should have included a test of the Greenhouse Effect in that argument, but I’d already been persuaded by DTR measurements.
00
Andrew,
Trying to prove the null hypothesis (that you don’t need your theory to explain what is happening) is a standard step in real science and engineering which is completely ignored in Climate Science.
All honest records and proxies show that the current climate changes are completely unremarkable in the Earth’s history. There is nothing in the record to suggest that Human effects are even detectable (except in local areas, such as Urban Heat Island effects).
Not only is there no evidence that CAGW is true, there is sufficient evidence that it is unnecessary — there is nothing that needs to be explained. The only utility of CAGW is to the political class, which is why they are funding it to such a massive degree.
00
Got the “cooling alarmists” a bit stirred up did I?
Here is a bit more:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/19/447610/fixing-errors-uk-met-office-says-2010-2005-hottest-years-on-record-world-warming-faster-than-thought/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed&mobile=nc
So no cooling, still warming. The changes in the Arctic are creating horror winters in UK & Europe and NE US.
But go on with your conspiracy theories, so comforting they must be.
01
Scraping the bottom of the barrel now, aren’t we? Only someone as deluded as you could seriously suggest that “catastrophic global warming” was causing severely cold winters while simultaneously responsible for unusually mild winters also! Or that cherrypicking the spread of the data to suit a story was good science. It’s a tangled web of tortured data we weave.
I notice you have no comment on the validity of peer review as a process, which IMO is precisely aimed to stymie progress and innovation, not to encourage it. I lament the path of human progress if left in the hands of the likes of you. Pardon me if I’m underwhelmed.”It’s a brave new world that has such people in it”,
MirandaMaxine.00
And the bonus point question?
00
Whilst i sit here and patiently wait for Maxine to explain how the CAGW theory can be falsified i will just sit here and surf the net……………..Oh OH look what i found.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2085814/Scientists-falsify-data-research-published-whistleblowers-bullied-keeping-quiet-claim-colleagues.html
00
Maxine had her eyes shut, didn’t see a thing.
00
Maxine
How have they managed this new bit of magic ? If you look they have adjusted the earlier year temperatures DOWN so it makes it look like the later years are rising. Even Jones and co. say with their latest fiddle / adjustment the changes are not statistically significant.
So Romm and co. can rabbit on all they like, it is still fiddling with figures to try to make the result fit the story.
00
Maxine,
The fact is that for the last 10 years global warming has slowed down to a standstill. The fact that the UK met office “had to correct” data to observe any warming aptly illustrates this. Interesitngly enough our very own BOM clearly shows 1998 as the warmest year!
Can you tell me by how many hundreths of a degree the wolrd has warmed in the past 10 years? Why dont you look at the BOM and CSIRO data! Here I’ll help you out!
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/global/timeseries.cgi
1998 0.53 (warmest year on instrumental record)
1999 0.31
2000 0.28
2001 0.41
2002 0.46
2003 0.47
2004 0.45
2005 0.48 (equal second warmest year)
2006 0.43
2007 0.4
2008 0.33
2009 0.44
2010 0.48 (equal second warmest year)
2011 ???? (not listed yet isnt that funny?? I wonder if it was cooler??)
By looking at the RAW DATA rather than relying on second hand SPIN AND PROPOGANDA any idiot can see that the global temperature in the last 10 years has not WARMED NOR COOLED IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY WHATSOEVER! And If it has “warmed” it has been in the order of HUNDRETHS OF A DEGREE, FAR LESS THAN THE ERROR INVOLVED IN ONE SINGLE THERMOMETER MEASUREMENT!!
These last 10 years of NO GLOBAL WARMING have seen the highest CO2 concentation in recorded history! Yet NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT WARMING? How can that be Maxine?
That means, even if you subscribe to the CO2 warming theory, SOME OTHER FACTOR IS NEGATING IT, in either the short term or the long term.
Nevertheless, Our government funded CSIRO, regurgitating the projections of the IPCC has “projected” a FIVE DEGREE TEMP RISE BY THE TURN OF THE CENTURY.
Given that we have had 0.8 degrees of warming (see BOM data), Between 1910 – 2010, this would require the century long warming trend to INCREASE BY A FACTOR OF SIX!!! Which would represent an unprecedented rate of warming in the entire history of the earth INCLUDING ERAS WHEN CO2 WAS MUCH MUCH HIGHER IN CONCENTRATION THAN IT IS TODAY!
All you can hope for Maxine is that either the wolrds temperatures start trending up again AT AN ACCELERATED RATE or your beloved climate scientists can continue to further promote their pet theory by way of PROPAGANDA, before people start to LOOK AT THE DATA rather than looking at the PROPAGANDA.
Best of luck Maxine!
00
So Maxine,
Lets see if you can take your own advice.
“Try looking at the global temperature graphs…”
“Reading websites frequently found to be in error while calling CSIRO–BuMet <<>> to be non-science or bad science is making that mistake I have corrected you lot on: When you say a reputable website publishing the latest science is anti–science you are not using science or reason: you are acting on faith. You have your theory and you don’t want to face facts that invalidate your theory, your belief. If you want to believe in unverified faith, religion then don’t talk about science because you are not “doing science” you are engaged in religion, in groupthink, in avoiding reality.”
I is you Maxine who is the blind devotee to a “religion” and a “faith”.
——————————————————————————–
00
And Maxine,
We are all waiting for you to answer the question as to what evidence by way of real world observations can disprove the CAGW hypothesis.
Do You know what real scientists call theories that cannot be disproved?
Religion.
Do you know what Enforcing your religion unto others is called?
Proselytizing.
00
Maxine,
I know logic isn’t your strong point, but maybe you could try to answer me this:
If the Arctic is undersampled, how do you know how fast it is warming?
The CRU “fixed” this “error” by filling in the blanks with warmer temperatures — now what could possibly be wrong with that?
Too bad they dropped those hundreds of arctic and near-arctic weather stations off the data a decade ago — they could have just looked at the measurements. (Well, they still could, as many of those stations still exist, but that might not leave enough wiggle room for “adjustments” that show the desired result.)
I suppose you find nothing strange about the fact that they would rather use “adjusted” (made up) data rather than real data?
Of course not — this is “real science”: Your high priests have said so, and who are you to question anything?
00
for those able to listen to BBC, which it seems is possible at this link.
this program is along the same lines as Stix, was on BBC World Sce Business programe last nite. listening to BBC’s Peter Day encourage/contribute to this nonsense is painful. can’t even say it’s a step up from ABC’s Californian-produced “New Dimensions” radio prog on RN, which believe me is saying something:
BBC World Service: Global Business with Peter Day
Peter Day hears from Alan Moore author of No Straight Lines: making sense of our non-linear world and asks him ‘what next’ for the industrialised world.
In his book he argues that the industrialised world is facing the combined problems of social, organisational and economic complexity.
In this edition of Global Business he tells Peter Day how No Straight Lines interprets the disruptive trends shaping our world and how companies can address the challenges and move onwards and upwards.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00ph35n/Global_Business_No_Straight_Lines/
like Biermann in the Guardian piece i just posted, Moore has a Dutch connection:
Who is Alan Moore?
He sits on the “board of inspiration” at the Dutch Think Tank Freedom Lab
http://www.no-straight-lines.com/who-is-alan-moore/
00
Then Conspiracy Theory this away.
The recently (February) passed Budget for the UN for the next year comes in at $5.15 Billion.
Of that, 74 cents in every dollar goes to paying themselves. This link is from The Heritage Foundation.
In the U.N. Budget, Personnel Costs Rule
What also needs to be kept in mind here is that the UNFCCC, when it released the original Kyoto Protocol divvied up the World into
the haves and the have notsDeveloped and Developing Countries, and included one short phrase after listing all the 192 (now) into their ‘lists. That short list of 23 Countries, (Australia included) had in brackets after listing them all.Just prior to the now patently failed Copenhagen Conference the UN released a press statement calling for the introduction of carbon taxes.
Gee, where do you suppose that the UN would be getting their money to fulfil their obligation.
I know I’ve linked to this Post before, but maybe it’s even worth having a look at again, and don’t let the intro lead you to believe this was recent, because this was written in the lead up to Copenhagen, in November of 2010.
The UN and Climate Change – Ten Fateful Words
Tony.
00
Apologies. The Post of mine was written prior to Cancun, not Copenhagen.
Tony.
00
Biermann’s “ICSU-sponsored Planet Under Pressure conference in London” – partial list of Plenary Speakers & Panelists:
Planet Under Pressure 2012
26-29 March 2012 London
Plenary Speakers and Panelists
John Beddington
UK Chief Scientific Advisor
Jeremy Bentham
Royal Dutch Shell plc
Frank Biermann
VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Richard Black
BBC
Yvo de Boer
KPMG, The Netherlands
Georgina Mace
Imperial College London, UK
Lord Martin Rees
Past President, The Royal Society, UK
Mark Stafford-Smith
CSIRO, Australia
Will Steffen
Australian National University, Australia
Achim Steiner
United Nations Environment Programme
Sir Bob Watson
Department of Environment and Rural Affairs and University of East Anglia, UK, on behalf of the Blue Planet Laureates
http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/
00
Thanks Pat,
It’s not nice but it’s important to be reminded of just how entrenched the World Warmers have become.
Something is urgently needed to destabilise this situation.
🙂
Will Steffen. Abuses the science in his specialty, Psychology, so what can we expect when he pontificates on Man Made Global Warming?
00
How many contributors are aware of Tome22?
If not, I urge you to have a look and explore. It is an enormously valuable resource. See here:
http://www.auscsc.org.au/
And here:
http://tome22.info/Top/index.html
You can drill into the IPCC AR4 by workgroup, chapter. You can drill ijto any part of the document, see the references and citations and see if they are “no peer reviewed, a modelling study or simulation, a person of concern, self reference concern, journal of concern.
You can see the Inter Academy Council’s report on the IPCC AR4 polices and procedures. You can see the criticisms summarised under: Political Interference; Bias; Uncertainty; Conflict of Interest; Management.
You can see how all the key players are involved with each other.
Tome22 is a treasure trove.
Go to Maurice Strong, or Phil Jones and Michael Mann for example. Just explore.
I hope Jo may publish an article dedicated to Tome22. Then readers can explore and post comments on what they’ve found and how to use it. It will be a great learning experience. And provide an enormous opportunity to educate the world as to what is going on and who is really behind CAGW.
.
00
Peter,
Tome22 is a tremendous resource. Nothing like it is available anywhere else. The range of documents, authors and organisations covered is truly breath-taking.
Everyone should take some time to explore this site.
What a ‘tour-de-force’!
00
15 March: BBC: Richard Black: Gear change on road to Rio?
In a nutshell: does the way humanity governs itself need a series of tweaks or a complete overhaul, in order to meet the broadest ambitions of improving the lot of the planet’s poorest, safeguarding nature and making the global economy more sustainable?
It’s a question that one academic grouping, the Earth System Governance Project, has spent a decade researching.
The group has published many research papers along the way, and some are pretty specialised.
But this week they lay out the top-level conclusion in a short article in the journal Science.
It is that in order to “change course and steer away from critical tipping points… that might lead to rapid and irreversible change”, something radical is needed.
“This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship,” they write.
Theirs is a seven-point plan:…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17381730
Global Governance is Frank Biermann. from their website: “The Global Governance Project (Glogov.org) is a joint research programme of thirteen European research institutions that seeks to advance understanding of the new actors, institutions and mechanisms of global governance.”
Global Governance Project
Frank Biermann is the director of the Global Governance Project. He is professor of political science and of environmental policy sciences at the VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and visiting professor of earth system governance at Lund University, Sweden. He specialises in the study of global environmental politics, with emphasis on climate negotiations, UN reform, global adaptation governance, public-private governance mechanisms, the role of science, North-South relations, and trade and environment conflicts. He pioneered the concept of ‘earth system governance’ in 2005, which has evolved into a major global research programme in this field.
Biermann has authored, co-authored or edited 14 books, and published 60 articles in peer-reviewed journals and 65 chapters in academic books, along with more than 100 papers, reports, and contributions to policy-oriented journals. He is the co-editor (with O. Young) of the Earth System Governance book series with The MIT Press, member of the editorial boards of Ecology and Society, Global Environmental Politics and Environmental Values, and regular reviewer for 20 other academic journals. He is also regularly requested as reviewer for research foundations, agencies and universities in Europe, Israel, and the United States, and has been invited for media interviews in outlets as diverse as Dutch national newspapers and Korean National Television.
Biermann holds several research management positions. Internationally, he chairs the Earth System Governance Project, a ten-year core research project of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (EARTHSYSTEMGOVERNANCE.ORG). Biermann is also the founding director of the Global Governance Project (GLOGOV.ORG), a joint research programme of 12 European institutes.
Biermann has held professional or visiting affiliations with several research institutions, including Freie Universität Berlin, German Advisory Council on Global Change, Harvard University, Jawaharlal Nehru University, University of Maryland at College Park, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Social Science Research Centre Berlin, Stanford University, and The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI).
Biermann has 15 years of teaching experience at MSc level in Germany, India, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United States…
Biermann holds a habilitation (German postdoctoral academic qualification, 2001), a PhD summa cum laude from Freie Universität Berlin (1997), and master’s degrees in political science (Freie Universität Berlin, 1993) and international law (University of Aberdeen, 1994), both with distinction.
During his university studies, he travelled extensively throughout Africa and India. He has won several scholarships, grants and awards, including the 1998 Joachim Tiburtius Prize for the best dissertation of the three Berlin universities; a fellowship by Harvard University; and a scholarship by the Talented Students Programme of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation (1991-1993). He was selected as the representative for Germany to the International Forum of Young Scientists during the 1999 UNESCO World Science Conference. At the age of 33, he was elected a Fellow of the World Academy of Art and Science, a group of up to 500 individuals ‘chosen for eminence in art, the natural and social sciences, and the humanities’…
http://www.glogov.org/?pageid=24
make no mistake. it is not the poor countries pushing this agenda. nothing to with Libya/Syria or anywhere else people may consider “bad” for whatever reason.
it is US/Europe and, by default, us. it’s the road to fascism.
00
Just want the emails
Cheers
00
scamsters, one and all:
19 March: Daily Mail: Tom Leonard: Broken down and rusting, is this the future of Britain’s ‘wind rush’?
Broken promises: The rusting wind turbines of Hawaii
A breathtaking sight awaits those who travel to the southernmost tip of Hawaii’s stunningly beautiful Big Island, though it’s not in any guidebook. On a 100-acre site, where cattle wander past broken ‘Keep Out’ signs, stand the rusting skeletons of scores of wind turbines.
Just a short walk from where endangered monk seals and Hawksbill turtles can be found on an unspoilt sandy beach, a technology that is supposed to be about saving the environment is instead ruining it…
Yet the 27-year-old Kamaoa Wind Farm remains a relic of the boom and inglorious bust of America’s so-called ‘wind rush’, the world’s first major experiment in wind energy.
At a time when the EU and the British Government are fully paid-up evangelists for wind power, the lesson from America — and the ghostly hulks on this far-flung coast — should be a warning of their folly…
But most importantly for the scrum of investors who were thrusting their snouts into the trough, there was the extraordinary generosity of the government.
Between 1981 and 1985, federal and state subsidies in California were so favourable that investors could recover 50 per cent of the cost of a wind turbine.
Even better, the amount they were paid for their electricity was tied to the price of oil, which had shot through the roof…
Not to put too fine a point on it, for some wind energy investors it was simply a tax scam.
But as tends to happen with a business that is driven by financial incentives, it lasted only as long as the subsidies…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2116877/Is-future-Britains-wind-rush.html
00
“Between 1981 and 1985, federal and state subsidies in California were so favourable that investors could recover 50 per cent of the cost of a wind turbine.”
Wikipedia: “[Jerry] Brown served as the 34th Governor of California (1975–83), and is currently serving as the 39th California Governor (2011–present).”
Sigh. Will the last one out of California please turn off the squiggly lightbulb?
Incidentally in 2009 it costed 8 times more to rent a removals truck from California to Texas than the return journey. Maybe Arnie can explain that one.
00
Hi Bruce
Your costing for California may soon be applicable to Australia and could then read:
“Incidentally in 2013 it costed 8 times more to make a widget in Australia than to import one from overseas. Maybe Julia and Bob can explain that one”.
Incidentally your comment is just above mine in the NMH article on Greg Piper.
🙂
00
I’m sad that Mr Piper has broken with the centrist position and gone down the green road with the big Sustainability Department and wasting money on looney stuff like the ‘Peak Oil Policy and Action Plan’. I voted for him, silly me. No longer. He’s fortunate that the next state election is years away because way he’s going he’ll lose the preferences that got him elected last time.
Jeff McCloy is the best thing that could happen to our council, hopefully he will focus Cr Piper onto delivering stuff ratepayers want, not IPCC propaganda.
00
Hi Bruce
I suspect that all councils were stacked with climate aficionados a few years ago when the issue of AGW seemed more real.
It’s good that McLoy has made them face reality but they are still there drawing salaries for the time being.
In Newcastle CC we have a Climate change group but it’s funny how they didn’t manage to sort out the city’s blocked drains a few years back before much of Hamilton and Islington flooded.
In Lake Mac area I would guess that large scale subsidence from mining will lead to more potential soggy land than sea level rises.
🙂
00
Speaking of California, it turns out that a Republican state assemblyperson has asked Chris Monckton to address the legislature tomorrow.
The sponsor, a lady by name of Shannon Grove suggested that the Democrats might like to debate with Chris Monckton in a panel discussion after the address.
Seems not. They fled.
Ms Grove then invited the Democrats main global warming expert to debate. Here is result:
Wow. Not worthy.
00
I was in Hawaii last year, & can reliably say that the reporter has exaggerated the number of wind turbines on the site. Rusting & decrepit, yes, but by my count there were about 2 dozen, not scores as reported. It was sad to realise that the people who eagerly promoted this technology prior to its installation had failed to just as eagerly promote its complete removal in the event it went bust. I can only assume they have never visited this remote & starkly beautiful spot, & do not care that it continues to be despoiled long after the turbines creaked to a halt.
00
While this all sounds very scary the one thing that gives me hope is how we all hate each other.
Does anyone here think for one moment that the US would allow China to be in a position to dictate to the US how it acts.Would India allow Pakistan to interfere in its internal affairs I think not.
Where would the UN get the money to raise an army big enough to enforce its will on the major powers.
So while these alarmist weenies maybe wetting them self at the prospect of forcing their doctrine on the
world the only people they will influence are idiots like Australia who are willing to give their sovereignty to an unelected unrepresentative swill.
00
have had far too much to say today, sorry folks, but i leave you with the questions:
why does our own government and opposition NOT speak up about Agenda 21, Climategate, Climategate 2.0, Fakegate?
how is it i don’t know anyone who wants a carbon dioxide tax or an ETS, much less global govt – and you possibly don’t either at this stage – across the political spectrum – yet our govt and opposition seem to be MARCHING TO THE BEAT OF A DIFFERENT DRUMMER?
00
I think that this UN document is the blue-print for a world government.
http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/EPLP-031-rev3.pdf
Really scary stuff …
00
http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/climatechange/pages/gsp
00
.
Amen to that TS.
I have little doubt that soon after the next federal election, the Department of Climate Change will quietly morph into the Department of Sustainability, which will then set about implementing this insidious agenda.
How wondrously coincidental that the LNP, which looks set to win that election, already has plans in place for a 15,000-strong “Green Army”.
Conspiracy?
Never.
00
I really hope that Tony Abbott and the LNP are better than pulling that kind of a stunt,we can all see how well that worked with Labor. That’s depending on the outcome of Clive Palmer in the High Court,Re carbon tax challenge.
00
Hi MV, I respect your opinions and perhaps you have inside information but why would an opposition who for electoral survival clearly need to stand for Small government put up with such a waste of taxpayer resources as a 15,000 strong Department of Climate Change? 15,000 workers at a very conservative average annual cost of $100,000 p.a. comes to 1.5 Billion every year. A very good place to start cutting the size of government and returning the budget back to surplus don’t you think?.
Even the current Labor government set ‘me too’ economically conservative policies prior to being elected in 2007 – we all know what actually happened.
I stand by my belief Abbott is playing the small target approach to politics and his success to date is despite the attempts of the MSM to discredit him not because the MSM is less influential on apathetic voters now than in the past. The Bolts, Akermans and Miranda Devines of the MSM are far outweighed in reach and influence by the Oakes, Cooreys, Negus’s, Hartcher’s, Steketee’s the ABC, Fairfax, Seven Network and even Murdoch’s The Australian editorials to name a few off the top of my head who are pro AGW.
Until the AGW goose is properly cooked Abbott dare not reveal his sceptic colours (remember upon which he was elevated to leadership over Turnbull). While the AGW goose still has life and provided with authority by most western universities he’s better keeping his head down until he’s in the Lodge. As I say, 1 step at a time.
I’m open to being proven wrong but I’ve not read nor heard anything to make me think otherwise of an Abbott lead LNP. Abbott’s LNP may not be perfect but they’re the best hope you have right now and for the foreseeable future of turning back the tide of the regulating classes and Eco Fascists.
00
Absolutely,
Labor have attempted to drive a wedge into the opposition on this very point, even publicly trying to suggest Malcolm Turnbull be installed as their opponent, going so far as to outwardly praise him as “the rightful leader of the Liberals”. That’s like Hitler suggesting that Neville Chamberlain was the rightful Prime Minister of England, not Winston Churchill! It’s actually quite amazing, and Malcolm doesn’t have the intelligence to be even slightly embarrassed that his political opponents would prefer him to be leader of the opposition than Abbott- he thinks that is a ringing endorsement! What a dumb-arse.
00
Hi Winston
Re Mal : “What a dumb-arse”.
That comment needs to stand against what his real target is.
Is it to be PM or is it to get a Carbon Tax up and running; maybe it’s both but I suspect if he had to pick he would go for the one with the best outcome for Goldman’s.
He doesn’t care what we think of him, his money shields him from that.
🙂
00
.
Cookstar
Here is a link to a story (and more importantly the comments) from The Australian. The story is about Climate Czar Will Steffen once again trying to sell the “climate change” scare. Of 108 comments, only one is even partially supportive of Steffen, the rest vary between belief that the man is an idiot and/or a paid stooge who should be hospitalised and/or shot. THAT is the general mood in Australia today.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/were-likely-to-be-a-land-of-increasingly-severe-droughts-and-floods/comments-e6frgd0x-1226303249377
Here is a link to the CURRENT Liberal Party “Environment Policy”.
http://www.liberal.org.au/~/media/Files/Policies%20and%20Media/Environment/Environment%20Policy.ashx
Fully costed details of the “Green Army” start on page 6. Note that it is an army of work-for-the-dole conscripts so it is not expected to cost anything like your estimates. Full costing is right there in the policy.
The truth is, the vast majority of conservative voters in Australia have now woken up to the CAGW scam and there are NO votes in it for conservative politicians. In fact it would be fair to say that the Liberal’s “Climate Policy” is a dead Albatross hanging from their necks, and COSTING them votes.
And yet still they cling to it, and one must wonder why.
Keep in mind that the vast majority of sitting Liberal members are from the “wets”, and would far rather see Malcolm Turnbull as opposition leader. Tony Abbott, regardless of what he personally might believe in, is simply seen by them as a means to an end – winning the next election. I would remind you that YOU don’t get to decide on the PM, the elected members of the winning party get to decide that.
EVERY elected federal government since WWI has been dominated by a particular party, and EVERY political party-dominated government since WWI has ended up shafting the Australian people in favour of “other interests”.
It amazes me that there are still people like you left – in fact a significant number of people – enough to decide the outcome of an election – who actually believe “this time it will be different”.
One wonders just what it will take to convince you that you have been conned. Over and over and over and over . .. .
00
Thanks MV. As I said, the tactics of current Liberal party policy bear close resemblance to Labor party policy prior to November 2007 in that it is so close to their political opponents as to be no different. The reality of government and the advantage of incumbancy is however far different to being in opposition.
In relation to the linked stories, I am a regular reader of The Australian. While the overwhelming majority of responders to posts like Steffan’s are anti AGW that has not changed the official line of the paper and it’s editorials.
On Liberal Party policy and the Green Army, thanks for the link. I agree this is a concern and I suggest we all (including our host) express our dissatisfaction with LNP MPs. However I feel a similar conservative grass roots revolt to that which tossed out Turnbull would result if this policy were adopted holus bolus? The LNP ‘clings to it’ due to the apparent influence of the MSM on the apathetic or unthinking voter which you seem to underestimate.
The problem is if you wait until the perfect opposition policy or perfect opposition leader I fear the horse will have well and truly bolted.
00
00
Exactly. I can’t stand being called a conspiracy theorist or anti-science denialist when I look at the cow manure my accusers are trying to spread in explaination.
00
Ugh……..
00
Why is it Kevin, that you always try to hijack threads?
Anyway, anyone who’s interested in this subject should look at this book, by Ion Mihai Pacepa, former Chief of Romania’s Foreign Intelligence Service, and the highest ranking intelligence official ever to have defected from the former Eastern Bloc, now an American citizen and still under protection.
According to Pacepa, there was a conspiracy, and like many such things it was a total SNAFU. Be warned, many of the reviews (for whatever reason) completely ignore Pacepa’s arguments and points and rail against things he never says.
The book was an eye-opener for me. It explained, for example, why the FBI agents who interviewed me on potentially illegal activities in a company I had worked for were absolutely convinced that two of my former work colleagues were in fact Chinese industrial espionage agents — something I considered rather incredible at the time.
There are also things in this book you won’t get anywhere else, such as Oswald was responsible for the USSR’s shooting down of Gary Power’s U2 spy plane in 1960. After his defection, Oswald told his Soviet handler’s that the U2s actually cruised at 96,000 feet, several miles above the range of Soviet surface-to-air missles (SAMs) instead of the maximum of 70,000 feet that the CIA had been careful to leak. The Soviets hadn’t been able to determine this, not having any altitude-measuring radar at that time, whereas Oswald had operated a prototype radar of this type while a Marine stationed at Atsugi Air Base outside of Tokyo, where U2s were based.
Oswald’s information prompted the USSR to start modifying some of their SAM batteries to carry smaller warheads that allowed them to get to that altitude. It was Power’s bad luck to fly over one of the modified batteries.
Although no one will ever know everything about Kennedy’s assassination, Pacepa’s book is the only one I’ve read that can explain most everything without straining your credulity — including why both the Soviet and American intelligence agencies had a mutual interest in not digging too deeply: Both had been severely spooked by the nuclear war that was almost started over Cuba, and saw no good reason to stir up anger by revealing that a rogue Soviet agent (who the Soviets tried to stop, after Kruschev was deposed) had killed a US President.
00
The somewhat breathless commenter “pat”, above, is trying to strss something important. Later this week in London there will be a conference held to try and influence the Rio conference and advance an agenda for global governance. Your own CSIRO is one of the sponsors. The links to the conference website is here:
http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/index.asp
Take a look at the sponsors, the participants, the speakers and the agenda.
00
The real “sustainability” agenda –
Proposed UN Environmental Constitution For The World Would Establish An Incredibly Repressive System Of Global Governance
It seems Lord Monckton has made them a bit chary of using the Global Government term, so its now governance. Same difference. Only total control will do.
00
Following passing of the Clean Energy Future legislation, the Government has been putting these programmes in place.
The status is as follows:
$10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation. A decision has been announced a week
ago to locate this proposed new body in Sydney. At this stage, the CEFC Board has not
been appointed, and it is likely that first investments will be during 2013.
$3.2 billion Australian Renewable Energy Agency for research, development and
commercialisation of renewable energy. This is comprises existing funding programmes,
brought together for better management.
$200 million Clean Technology Innovation Program is forecast to be launched in mid
2012.
The $800 million Clean Technology Innovation Program is a competitive grant program
for companies with a large carbon footprint.
HOW MANY DEPARTMENTS ARE THERE GOING TO BE???? All under the UN eventually and King BOB?
00
It is truly frightening.
I’m strongly considering packing my bags and leaving. Australia used to be one of the best countries on earth. It won’t be for long.
00
“…the taunt you use…”, should read: “…one of the taunts you use…”
I’m an anti-Evolutionist, so I know about things like that 🙂
I have something of a question: it may be OT, but is does kind of fit.
It is a given that many hippies have zero qualms about using chemicals to make their own children more socially ‘compliant’.
My question is this: could one not, without stretching, conclude that the hippies are, as a matter of fact, child-molesters?
Ask yourself this: given a choice of only two options, which would you choose: 1) be raped as a child; 2) grow up chemically dosed to be ‘compliant’.
I would pick 1. Any other takers?
00
Im sorry, but I have to post it again.
What you are saying here is exactly what Alex Jones discusses every day on his radio show.
Go here and do a search for ‘infowars’:
http://www.shoutcast.com
When the Kony 2012 video was released Alex Jones was warning people that it was a political tool to get people on side for an invasion of Africa. Again, people dismissed him as a conspiracy theorist.
Listening to him today he starts reading from news reports of several UN backed nations gearing up and moving in for an invasion of Africa.
Our own Sydney Morning Herald ran an article a few days ago about Australian SAS troops running dozens of clandestine operations in places such as Zimbabwe, Nigeria and Kenya, believed to involve terrorism intelligence gathering amid concerns about the “threat posed by the Islamist al-Shebab militia.”
The Ugandan people are trying to tell us that Kony hasnt been seen for over five years and its actually the governments over there slaughtering their own people.
Remember the whole “Gaddafi is a bad man and needs to be wiped out” stories? Now all of Lybia is over run by Al-Qaeda and the place is a disaster. Reports of 30,000 black people have been executed in the streets.
Lybia had its own banking system, completely separate from the world banks.
The first thing the UN/US/EU did when they invaded Lybia (before Gaddafi was killed) was to dismantle the Libyan banking system and move all assets and funds into a new banking system set up by the world banks.
On a side note, a few interesting things Ive noticed the past few weeks. . .
Naked body scanners will be deployed in Australian airports in 2013.
The police are increasing the presence of armed security at train stations.
Ive heard on the radio recruitment ads to join the new PSA. Australias very own version of the much loved American TSA.
I hope youre all ready to have hands groping your genitals if you want to travel.
00
.
No need to apologise Warcroft. I for one usually enjoy your posts.
It is a pity our host Jo fell for the “Gaddafi is a dictator” line.
Gaddafi “ran” Libya to an even lesser extent than Queen Lizzie II “runs” the Commonwealth.
And with better results.
00
00
Those who know where to get actual news know where to look. I pointed out this issue last year. I have to toot my own horn sometimes. 🙂
A good quote I came across the other day went something like this. “News is what the government doesn’t want you to hear, the rest is advertising”.
00
Hi Warcroft
Your comment “I hope you’re all ready to have hands groping your genitals if you want to travel” is so on the mark, about moving in and out of the US where customs and border security is an extraordinarily abusive experience and something to be avoided.
America has “lost it” and could learn something from equivalent operations in Frankfurt which were polite, dignified, and effective without being abusive.
00
How about we start a polictical party whose policy is to ride society of the need for politicians!
The Australian pulbic are practical and inventive.
I would work for free if that were to be the outcome.
I saw quite clearly that politicians were paid to smile and say we’ve got it under control.
Can anyone outline what politicians have done to evolve there life?
Look around your room/workplace and you see the results of science, technicians, artists, tradespeople, and manufacturing to be exactly were you are now.
Some may say we need them pollies for international relations, or to organise society into a cohesive unit.
In my ignorance I await.
00
Will
The problem with politicians is that they all want power. Thomas More, in his book “Utopia”, described a world without war or greed. A key element of this society was that those who hankered for positions of power were automatically excluded from them for life.
Think of a parliament without Kevin Rudd or Malcolm Turnbull or Julia Gillard. It would be – Utopian…
Cheers,
Speedy
00
Sorry if I missed educators, primary producers.
00
Prov.18:13 He who answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him.
Those who answer a matter before hearing it, calling it a conspiracy theory, are ignominious ignoramuses demonstrating superciliousness.
00
The Greens and to a slightly lesser extent Labor really scare the crap out of me with their policies about ideas like Global Governance.
00
`Bob Brown advocated for one world parliament`
Dear Bob,
Point No. 1; I`ve got an Uncle Bob myself, and I`m really pissed off, that you give him a bad name.
Point No.2; You have no policies that seem to promote, increase, invigorate, inspire the people of Australia, other then wind back our standard of living.
Point No.3; Therefore (referring to No.2) how can you advocate a World Order whilst you cannot even get your own backyard in Order?????
I rest my case Bob, until you can come back with some Peer-reviewed criticisms,
preferably not from Mann, Gleick or Hansen.
Cheers
The Lord Black Adder….
aka…common sense….
00
Looks like some more bird shredder blow back in the UK.
00
The silence as to the State of Queenslands’ finances could not possibly be a conspiracy – could it?
00
Jesus! And I thought little ole me and tony from rocky…
…were the only sane ones in QLD !!
PS.. Happy to be corrected by fellow QLD`ers pissed off!!
00
All we can hope is that Campbell Newman (or whomever gets the leadership if he doesn’t win Ashgrove, which is unlikely) undertakes a serious razoring of the state budget, and hikes the royalties to both gain state income and give two fingers to wayne swan.
I’m not in favour of hiking royalties, but the only solution is a simultaneous increase in income with a massive cut in expenditure.
Campbell Newman is running the smallest of small target campaigns. The details of his policies are very thin.
We can only hope this means that the true intention is so scary to the general public (ie, vast cuts) that he is afraid to mention them before the election.
He needs to claim a mandate for returning the state to fiscal stability when in office, and use up that mandate (and probably 20 new seats, sorry, new members) in the first term to right the badly listing ship. It needs to be priority number 1, explaining to people that they have found the cupboard is bare, and so tough times are ahead for those who rely on government money, and probably a good time to start looking for a private sector job.
A severe cut in stamp duty would be a good start, to get money flowing back into the property market. As would the approval of any mines currently pending, in an effort to get them started by the end of the next term.
That, and take an axe to QLD health.
I’m not optimistic – Newman looks like a very wet Liberal to me. His fiscal performance as Lord Mayor doesn’t inspire me with confidence. But he remains the current best hope for the state.
00
It seems that the blogosphere lends itself to conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories tend to be attractive, but when you talk to someone who knows, it turns out that there is no conspiracy.
Take the idea that some form of world government is needed to combat global warming. Global warming or not, some form of world government is needed. Clearly the UN can’t do the job, and the big countries like China, Russia and the US will continue to use their powers of veto to stop the UN intervening in conflicts like Syria. In Australia, when local government runs off the rails, the Federal or state governments come in and take over. If I was in North Korea or Syria, I would welcome a world government intervening.
The world trade organisation is already a form of world government.
Now those of you who don’t like governments, be they world or not, would not enjoy living in a world without governments. Only fruitloops think that no government is a good option. The question simply comes down to what form government should take.
Naturally, I quite like the various types of democracy that flourish, with lots of checks and balances, and means to ensure stability while still giving minority views a chance to get heard. Regular change of government seems to be to be absolutely essential. You need to be kind to ex-leaders, so that they have don’t cling to government through fear of execution.
Climate change is just one reason we need world government. Its not some clever conspiracy to create an Orwellian world.
00
So what is inherently or even remotely democratic about the UN? They are a loose collection of lackeys, despot hangers-on, failed politicians and financial pirates. They are unelected, unrepresentative, unwanted rabble of career snouts-in-the-trough oligarchs. They are narcissists to a man, answerable to no one, like a little club of power mad imbeciles dreaming of world domination. Hitlers without panzers. People such as Dominic Strauss Kahn who believe their egos cannot be contained within mere nation states but should be readily available for the world to adore, running roughshod over the poor proles who they might deign to use for sex if they’re lucky. We need world government, to paraphrase the feminists, like a fish needs a bicycle. The governance of the world can only serve to stifle competition, reward mediocrity, and homogenize humanity to it’s complete detriment, only to increase the opportunity for despotism and/or totalitarianism on a global scale.
The microcosm of the USSR didn’t convince you, now the bigger microcosm of the failed EU experiment imploding before your eyes doesn’t convince you- I thought you were a scientist- if your experiments keep failing perhaps you should revisit your hypothesis, don’t you think? If World government were to fail, what happens to humanity then?- don’t you believe in a fail safe mechanism? Sovereignty is imperfect but far preferable. Failed states come and go, dictators come and go also, but nations improving their standards of living through self-interest and promoting technological advances will necessarily improve much of that- as evidenced by how far we have come from serfdom only 250 years ago. Some people would like to reverse that trend, but I intend to defend it, and hopefully allow it to continue to liberate as many people around the globe as possible without the interference of often malignant governments. A restoration of principles is what is needed, John, not yet another layer of soul-less immoral government- such outmoded ideas as -a free press, freedom of speech and ideas, open scientific and political debates, free and democratic elections, sound fiscal policy, sensible investment in innovation, promotion of productivity, small governments targeting infrastructure and promoting the health and welfare of it’s citizens, due diligence with investment, strong monetary regulations. Any of this ring any bells?
00
I think I said that the UN weren’t much chop. I don’t recall defending them.
00
No good wishing for some nebulous trans-national world governmence other than the UN because-
1. The UN is the only player in the game. There is no alternative.
2. Any alternative world government would nonetheless be populated exactly by the same parasites that populate the UN now.
3. Any world government would be limited in it’s effectiveness by the same limitations that compromise the current UN model, pandering to vested interests & despots, and government by committee.
So, if the idea is fundamentally a bad one (which it is), then any way you slice it it is going to be for the detriment of mankind- we are not a lab experiment and there is no way back if it all comes crashing down, as it inevitably will. Lets make the existing sovereign nation model work better, by all means. Compromising sovereignty is however fundamentally dangerous and ill-conceived.
00
What is it about the word “governance” that everyone, including yours truly and Brownshirt Bob, seems to trip over? Could it mean they are thinking of one thing while saying another? I wonder.
00
Big Brothers sycophant wankers might give him a job.
00
Your best ever post, Kevin. Well selected and very pointed quotations that show the not-so-benign guiding hands in this are, plus highlighting the reasons for the compliant MSM- WP, NYT, Time, AAP, Reuters.
Not that these quotations are new, but that they are put together well to illustrate your point. One can argue about the motivations of these people attempting to form a one world government, but I happen to agree with your apparent belief that it is not remotely benign, nor is it for an end to war or conflict, nor is it for the betterment or safety of the average man or woman- that is the pretext,though,I’m sure.
IMO, it is solely for the betterment of a few who would like to return to a feudal system on a global scale- beats me why John and the like would think that was a good idea. Perhaps he thinks he won’t be taken in the first cull, or is not good material for the plough or the pit. However, I know where I’m headed if they succeed.
00
I have a close friend who lives in Stockton in California, and we have been sharing emails on a daily basis, (sometimes many, daily) for 7 years now. He would send me links to sites and vice versa, more from him than me, because the U.S. was way bigger than we are.
After a Month or two, emails started coming in with links to New World Order and Bildeberg. I was skeptical about this because it seemed that no one could fall for this sort of thing. I didn’t think of my new friend as a crackpot, or even of this as some sort of conspiracy theory, so I just had an occasional look and anyway, we had many other areas of conversation to follow, and this was just one that he would occasionally mention.
Then, when I started out with the blog I contribute to, I wanted to investigate why there was this rush to implement Kyoto, stemming from when Rudd added that all important second ratification signature in Bali in late 2007.
It’s been four years now and I am still skeptical of NWO and Bildeberg, (UNFCCC notwithstanding) but for the life of me I couldn’t figure why there was this mad headlong rush to Renewable Power when it was patently obvious it couldn’t work to replace what we already had.
At the start, I just thought that those in positions of decision making were just not aware, and that pretty soon, that renewable bubble would just burst.
Not only has it not burst, but the rush is gaining speed, and that’s something that concerns me.
I actually thought I was missing something in all of this, so it made me look harder, and the more I looked, it only served to set in concrete my original suspicions.
Surely those in power just KNOW that renewables won’t do what they keep telling us.
There are just so many confirmations of what I have been doing now for those four years, and the biggest of all of them is the most glaring of all of them, the fact that NOT ONE of those large scale coal fired plants has closed.
That’s the thing I now refer to the most.
If the problem was so bad, they would do everything to protect what amounts to the future of the World, as we are told.
I feel sure that there actually is something afoot.
I’m coming at it from a different perspective, and because electrical power is now a staple of life, people naturally just assume it will always be there.
Because of that, what I have to say is (regularly) laughed at, and luckily, that doesn’t bother me in the slightest.
The single most redundant thing I have to say on the matter would be ‘I told you so’, because the second it gets to the stage where I could (if I ever wished to) say that, it’s too late. It’s too late.
I’ll just keep plugging away, and people will keep laughing at me, but along the way, others will add what I might have to offer to what they have, and the overall image becomes a little less than looking through a glass darkly.
Conspiracy Theory!
I don’t think so.
Tony.
00
I have faith in Bible prophecy which says that “..the great city,having a kingdom over the kings of the Earth…” – modern Babylon, will meet a sudden end.
They will get to a certain point but they cannot succeed.
00
Are you really that naive John? Or, just an uber dependency personality type? Governments are the conspiracy. It’s right in front of your face.
00
Naturally, I quite like the various types of democracy that flourish, with lots of checks and balances, and means to ensure stability while still giving minority views a chance to get heard.
Dear oh dear johnny boy…
That sounds like socialist/green utopia..
Meanwhile in the real world I am;
– struggling to bring up 3 beautiful children whom I love very much.
– struggling to pay my raising power bills.
– struggling to pay my raising council rates.
– struggling to pay rising insurance costs.
– struggling to cover the cost of Silly Green Subsidies.
– struggling to deal with morons like you that want to increase my cost of living (for no reward!!)
Where am I, as an ordinary citizen, expected to find all of this extra green money while feeding my family!! JB , You are a Bloody disgrace.
and then you say …
Climate change is just one reason we need world government. Its not some clever conspiracy to create an Orwellian world.
I Give up…
Ohh…. Johhny Boy…. the pipes.. the pipes ..are..a …playing…
00
I don’t get it Blackadder. You are a lucky bastard, because you’ve got 3 kids, and you own a house, and you live in a rich country.
And yet you are whinging. Why? You are whinging because you aim high, but don’t like paying the price. Its all your choice. Grow up and accept the consequences of the choices you make.
00
That’s about right — the only argument you can make for CAGW being the “consequences” of energy use is to simply assume it.
00
Dear Jb,
I am able to make and accept the choices of my life….
What I dont like is the choices of Green utopia being legally enforced on me!!
Dont you get that??
A Carbon Tax will not change the worlds temp!!!! You are an im#$%&’
00
Congratulations John! You have mastered Orwellian doublethink perfectly.
On the one hand, you say:
I think we could all agree with that. But then you say:
But, there is no secret that that is exactly what is being planned:
“To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers.”
00
Well duh. Of course they’d have to, otherwise you just got the UN.
00
I think I largely agree with John.
There is no ‘conspiracy’. I suspect people who fervently believe in CAGW, frustrated with slow progress in addressing this and are therefore considering creating new institutions to kick the can down the road a bit faster. This is not conspiracy, this is activism.
Activism I today disagree with but I must admit I once ascribed to when I was in my early to mid 20s. Activism for neo-Malthusians who are deeply frustrated and contemptuous of what they see as the excessive ugly bourgeois hedonism of our consumption focused society.
I am reminded of another organisation that thought it could build a better society and was frustrated by the constraints and limitations of the existing society and how these constraints imposed upon it’s noble vision.
“Somebody some day will say ‘this is illegal.’ By then be sure the orgs [Scientology organizations] say what is legal or not.”
– L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 4 January 1966, “LRH Relationship to Orgs”
00
Whatever you choose to call it, the “new institutions” they are
conspiringworking to create are explicitly designed to solve the “problem” of democracy — people making decisions for themselves. Their frustration is with ordinary people’s reluctance to give up their freedoms, their wealth, control over their lives, and their standard of living based on the predictions of a group of elites claiming that only by their taking dictatorial powers can the world be saved.(That is why I accused John of doublethink — he is both for and against democracy in the same post, and doesn’t recognize the contradiction.)
These self-styled elites aren’t slowed up by the fact that their predictions so far have had about the same success rate as a magic 8-ball. This alone should tell you that the real agenda isn’t saving the Earth, but acquiring political power. If that doesn’t qualify as a conspiracy (def #5) , then you must be using a different definition of the word.
00
Democracy’s a precious thing, John. It gives you the chance to stand with the unethical elite against the people right to the bitter end, when, like Tim Flannery, Will Steffen and the rest of your demogoguic heroes, you will switch to a new fashion that helps maintain your salary. I will take a personal interest in how the events of the next five years change you. Or Not.
00
Gee, did I speak out against democracy? Funny, I thought I said I liked our style of government…
00
why ask me?
00
🙂
00
John Brookes
March 19, 2012 at 10:08 pm · Reply
Climate change is just one reason we need world government. Its not some clever conspiracy to create an Orwellian world.
Is that the only reason to have a One World Government? Really, are there other reasons?
00
This is truly a post full of contradictions and leaps-backward of thought. It shows your socialist readings are bang up to date, unfortunately they are all out of date. Socialism doesn’t work, didn’t you get the memo?
Naive fools like yourself tend to look on the UN as a quasi world government that just needs a bit more teeth. After all, friendly and mostly harmless types like Ban-Ki Moon and Kofi Annan run the UN, and they aren’t that bad, are they John?
Same goes for the WTO – nice enough idea, but a toothless tiger that has no real power, and won’t ever get one. At most they are just a nice name for a regular talkfest. And that’s the way they should be.
What you fail to realise is that the reason useless technocrats like these guys gravitate towards the UN is precicsely because it has no power. The moment the UN had real taxing and policing power, lovable dunderheads like Kevin Rudd would be elbowed out of the way in the scramble for the top job by more power-seeking men, say, Vladimir Putin, for example. Putin has made a mockery of the fledgling Russian democracy already – and he’s probably not even started yet. As soon as you voluntarily create an organisation that wields power, it’s going to attract the megalomaniacs like moths to a flame.
It’s true that the removal of violence as a way of dealing with conflict is the first step in creating a civilisation – first at local, state and then Federal level. However, armed conflict is still ‘lawful’ when between sovereign nations. And that seems an anathema to peace loving people. But the thing is – it’s a big bad world out there, and some guys have no problem with violence. Nobody has your own and your families best interest at heart than you. So to sign up a sovereign nation like Australia to a world government that would undoubtedly soon be dominated by the person with the most guns and people – well, plainly that’s just crazy talk.
How long before the Chinese bloc moves a motion to send 300,000 million down under for a bit more living space? Don’t think it could happen? Why not? We all got a carbon tax and an immigration policy we didn’t want, what’s the difference?
You really need to get out and see the world with your real eyes for once. See it as it really is. The rest of the people here aren’t fruitloops who believe in no government, they think government is like spices – a little bit makes a massive improvement, overdoing it means you can’t eat your lunch.
Really, naive blatherings about ‘how the world ought to be’ are the clearest sign of a naive person who has absorbed too much socialism without any critical thinking. When it comes from a middle aged man who should know better, it really is quite sad.
00
All the nations on earth are socialist. Its just a matter of degree. And interestingly enough, the countries that do best are not from the capitalist end of the spectrum. I mean, sure the good ol’ US of A is richer than anyone else – but if you look at life expectancy, education etc, they are left behind.
00
The idea that education in the US is poor compared to the rest of the world is a common Leftist meme. Two things show that this is false:
1) Massive numbers of foreign students come to the USA for a university education. The last class I taught (graduate EE) was over half foreign students.
2) Actual test results show that the US does a better job of primary and secondary education than the vast majority of the rest of the world. The only way to show a “poor” education level in the US is to average everyone together. Unlike many (most?) countries, the US has a vast number of immigrants, many from the third world, and tries to educate everyone.
Facts have never been the Left’s strong point — most people would not voluntarily give up freedom for poverty, which is the end result of too much Socialism. The fact that all countries restrict freedom (are socialist) to some degree does not argue that no freedom is best.
And, contrary to your Leftist brainwashing, the wealthiest countries with the best living standards are the countries on the free (capitalist) end of the spectrum, not the ones on the unfree (socialist) side.
00
John,
Do you think climate change is a good reason to have a global government (unelected by the people of Australia) or
Do you think a global government (unelected by the people of Australia) is a good reason to have climate change.
I think this is by far your most disgraceful comment to date. You are the scourge of humanity John. You are a F$&@ING TRAITOR.
00
Apologize for the abuse,
But if the average Australian had any inkling that people such as yourself who advocate for climate change also advocate for denying them residency of a democratic country in which their vote counts they would be mortified. The founding fathers and mothers of this once great nation would have raised arms against you.
00
Sonny, the founding fathers and mothers of this once great nation were convicts exported from England – by a government that was, no doubt, trying to be “tough on crime”.
00
the schizoid Australian gives Steffen an open forum:
19 March: Australian: Will Steffen: We’re likely to be a land of increasingly severe droughts and floods
However, it has always been wise to a take a long-term perspective and to acknowledge that a few wet years don’t mean we’ll never see a severe drought again. Furthermore, with climate change now in the mix, it is even more important to take a broader, long-term perspective.
Climate change is influencing more than just droughts, as the recent CSIRO-Bureau of Meteorology State of the Climate 2012 report clearly outlines.
Temperatures over land and in the oceans continue to increase rapidly, sea levels are rising and extremely hot days have become more common. But it is the recent period of very wet, cool weather bringing floods to many parts of Australia that has grabbed the most attention in the past few months…
The magnitude of these risks ultimately depends on the effectiveness of global emission reduction efforts, including by Australia. The transition to a clean energy economy, which is gathering speed in many parts of the world, gives us great hope that we can minimise these potential risks.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/were-likely-to-be-a-land-of-increasingly-severe-droughts-and-floods/story-e6frgd0x-1226303249377
we know it’s a rort, Matthew. that’s why we won’t stop til the CAGW madness is done:
19 March: ABC: Matthew Wright: Two-faced climate policy
It’s ironic that Australia is moving toward a ‘cap’ on carbon emissions because while we’ve got this paper target for a five per cent reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 2020 we’ve also got the foot on the accelerator and running in overdrive expanding the coal and gas mining at an unprecedented rate.
Australia is on target to increase CO2 emissions originating from our shores by over 400 per cent. It’s a simple trick of accounting: claim a five per cent reduction by ignoring our fossil fuels that are burnt off shore.
This approach of saying one thing while doing another isn’t new to politics, but normally doesn’t keep currency with the population for so long. Trumpeting supposed carbon action while quadrupling our carbon emissions is a complete farce and has been going on for half a decade.
Amongst a population of 20 million, Australia has a very high level of climate denialism when compared to the political will and actions of 300 million people in Europe…
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2012/03/19/3455327.htm
19 March: Andrew Bolt: Media Watch shocked by a scientist who asks questions
Media Watch disgraced itself tonight with its attempted attack on Dr Jennifer Marohasy. (Transcript to appear here.)…
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/media_watch_shocked_by_a_scientist_who_asks_questions/
00
Michael Grubb Climategate emails also discussed. it is incredible that cool, young CAGW-loving greenies don’t see the agenda, and the puppetmasters, behind Richard Black, Grubb, and all the rest of the scamsters:
19 March: Bishop Hill: Black and greenie
Richard Black has been chatting to some environmentalists (I kid you not) and they’ve told him that the government isn’t as green as they said they were going to be. There is concern that there is going to be a dash for gas.
“There are growing pressures to create a UK energy system very heavily dominated by gas,” Michael Grubb, chair of energy and environment policy at Cambridge University, told BBC News.
“There’s a risk that the government is trying to give the gas industry assurances that could be misleading because they are not compatible with all we know about climate change.”…
COMMENT by DennisA: Whilst seemingly unimportant he has and has had a long reach….
Professor Michael Grubb http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/rstaff/grubb/SelectAct.htm
Lead Author for IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Mitigation Working Group, Chapter on cross-sectoral mitigation.
Member of writing team for Policymakers Summary and Technical Summary of the Third Assessment Report, Mitigation (WG-III) (2000-2001)
Convening lead author for chapter of IPCC Special Report on Technology Transfer (1997-99)
Lead author for IPCC Technical Paper on Atmospheric Stabilization (1996-7)
Lead Author for IPCC Second Assessment Report, Working Group III (1994-95: 3 chapters, leading input on Equity chapter)
Michael Grubb was formerly Chief Economist at the UK Carbon Trust and is Chairman of the international research network Climate Strategies. http://www.climatestrategies.org/. He was appointed to UK Climate Change Committee in 2008.
Climate Strategies is a not for profit, limited by guarantee, membership company registered in the UK, Companies House, Number 05796323. Whilst he was Chief Economist, the Carbon Trust provided a core funding grant in March 2008 to enable the establishment of a secretariat function for Climate Strategies, hosted at Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, UK.
“Climate Strategies is grateful for funding from the Cambridge Centre for Energy Studies and core supporters include the governments of UK (DEFRA, BERR, DFID), Sweden (Swedish Energy Agency) France (ADEME with inputs from French Ministry of Finance), The Carbon Trust, and Grant Thornton.”
He is also senior research associate at Cambridge University and holds a visiting professorship at Imperial College. Previously he was Head of the Energy and Environmental Programme at Royal Institute of International Affairs, before joining Imperial College as Professor of Climate Change and Energy Policy…
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/3/19/black-and-greenie.html
Black is not a free agent. simple.
00
re Matthew Wright, who authored the ABC piece above, he and his buddies would seem to be not-for-profit, not-for-taxes(?) kind of guys:
ABC Carbon: Profile: Matthew Wright
As chief executive of the Beyond Zero Emissions group, Matthew Wright claims the multi-billion dollar Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan was more realistic than Australia’s continued dependence on foreign oil supplies and fluctuating fuel prices. ”If you’re going to secure Australia’s energy future, then you’re going to do that with risk-free renewable energy that has no fuel costs.”…
He has been working with government and industry to educate and enable the execution of renewable energy, water saving and energy efficiency. He is the lead campaigner with the climate advocacy and awareness group, Beyond Zero Emissions & hosts the Beyond Zero radio show biweekly where he interviews leading world experts on climate science and solutions…
Prior to that he was in Technical Sales in Mission Critical server architecture at Reuters, servicing amongst others the Finance Sector…
(from SMH/Ben Cubby 13 AUG 2010)The Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan – a collaboration between Melbourne University’s Energy Research Institute, the environment group Beyond Zero Emissions and engineers Sinclair Knight Merz, puts the cost at $37 billion in private funding and public investment every year for the next decade.
The price tag may make it sound like a pipedream but the scheme earned the endorsement of the federal Liberal MP Malcolm Turnbull who added his support at a forum at Sydney Town Hall last night…
Beyond Zero Emissions is an Australian-based, not-for-profit climate change campaign centre founded by Matthew Wright and Adrian Whitehead…
http://abccarbon.com/profile-matthew-wright/
BeyondZeroEmissions: Beyond Zero Emissions is an independent, not-for-profit organisation. We receive no government or industry funding.
Your donation will go to designing & implementing Australia’s new renewable energy future…
The group was established by Matthew Wright and Adrian Whitehead with the guidance of Phillip Sutton…
In 2007 Beyond Zero Emissions started broadcasting a weekly radio show called Beyond Zero on 3CR Community Radio in Melbourne…
Guests have included:
•James Hansen, Director of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, NASA
•Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director the Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research
•Ken Caldeira, Dept. of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington
•Wieslaw Maslowski, Dept. of Oceanography, Naval Post Graduate School
•David Karoly, Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne
•Amory Lovins, Co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute
•S. David Freeman, former head of the Tennessee Valley Authority
•and more…
http://beyondzeroemissions.org/about/history
GreenInnovations: Summary: Philip Sutton is the Manager of RSTI (Research and Strategy for Transition Initiation), a non-profit organisation that engages in strategy development and engagement to catalyse the urgent initiation of a full scale transition to a sustainable economy – focusing especially on the very rapid emergence of the necessary social and political commitment to make this transition possible . He is also the Convenor of the Climate Emergency Network, co-founder of Safe Climate Australia and past-President of the Sustainable Living Foundation and the Australia New Zealand Society for Ecological Economics…
From 2009 to 2011 Philip was a member of the Greenpeace General Assembly…
Philip was selected in 1991 by the Age Newspaper/Melbourne University Politics Department ‘Agenda Project’ as being one of the twenty most influential people in Victoria in the environmental policy arena…
http://www.green-innovations.asn.au/ps-bio.htm
00
.
People who believe in “conspiracy theories” are obviously right wing nutters.
For instance, if one takes a screen shot of the infamous pyramid on the back of an American one dollar bill, prints it out, then googles “Capital Hill Canberra”, and compares the two, one will find an exact match, even down to the curve of Parkes Way matching the banner below the dollar’s pyramid.
An obvious coincidence.
And if one examines the layout of the interior of our Parliament House in the “eye” of the pyramid, one unexpectedly finds a number of “coincidences” with Heinrich Himmler’s planning of Wewelsberg Castle, intended to be the spiritual home of the SS during WWII.
For instance, the entrance to Wewelsberg was named the “Foyer” and it was intended to eventually be lined with columns of Italian marble in green and white, depicting a forest. And lo and behold, the entrance to our Parliament House is called the “Foyer” and is lined with green and white marble depicting a forest. Interestingly, the green and white marble for Parliament house came from the same quarry as that destined for Wewelsberg. Pure coincidence, of course.
The “Foyer” at Wewelsberg opened into the “Great Hall” which had two dominating points. It was lined with tapestries, and it featured a “Great Table”. Back in Canberra our Foyer opens into a room coincidentally called the “Great Hall” and even more coincidentally is lined with tapestries, and features a “Great Table”.
At the centre of Weweslberg there was a black stone alter lit by a single, focused beam of sunlight. In the centre of our Parliament House there is a black alter stone lit by a single, focused beam of sunlight.
The alignment of Wewelsberg was the unusual NNE – mimicking the “Spear of Destiny” legends, supposedly pointing the way to where the “Lightbringer” (Lucifer) would appear from. At Wewelsberg, exactly halfway between the “source of the light”, and the “alter” is the “House of the Dead”, where the Nazis killed all the workers at Wewlesberg and walled up their bodies.
Canberra, unusually, is on a NNE alignment, between what is now known as Capital Hill, and Mt Ainslee. Mt Ainslee is little more than a pimple. Mt Ainslee’s only claim to fame, in fact, is that it has a pole on it. And according to the plaque on the base of the pole, on top of the pole is the “brightest light in the Southern Hemisphere”.
No explanation is offered as to why the “brightest light in the Southern Hemisphere” happens to be sitting on top of a pole on an otherwise insignificant hill to the north of Canberra.
Needless to say, just for those of you who MUST believe in “conspiracy theories”, the Australian War Memorial – you know – our very own venerated “House of the Dead” – is located exactly halfway between the alter at the centre of Parliament House, and the “source of the light”.
Talk about coincidences.
00
Wow MV, after reading all that I forgot what I was gonna say..!! 🙂
00
That is all rather uncanny, MV.
> “No explanation is offered as to why the “brightest light in the Southern Hemisphere” happens to be sitting on top of a pole…”
There’s a rotating aircraft beacon on the summit. Oh, well that sounds far too rational.
But wait… the forecourt of the War Memorial looks like… a Freemason compass symbol! Conspiracy status restored!
00
Of course it’s the “logical” place for a “rotating aircraft beacon” (if that’s what they’re calling it these days).
It would be far more sinister if the “rotating aircraft beacon” was atop the tower on Black Mountain, less than 5 kilometres to the west, which is only 150 metres higher than Mt Ainslie.
Or even more sinister if it was on top of Mt Majura, less than 5 kilometres to the north east of Mt Ainslie, and only 50 metres higher. After all, the main strip at the Canberra airport points almost directly towards Mt Majura, so a “rotating aircraft beacon” would undoubtedly be a navigation hazard there.
.
A little bit of history.
When I visited Mt Ainslie last in 1988, there was nothing there but a lookout with a pole. The pole was set in a cairn of rocks, and on the cairn was a brass plaque that proclaimed that the light on top of the pole was “the brightest light in the southern hemisphere”. Further, the plaque advised, the light was so bright it was the first visual reference point used by aircraft taking off from Sydney at night.
No explanation was offered at the time for why the “brightest light in the southern hemisphere” was sitting on a pole comparatively in the middle of nowhere, just as I doubt there is an official explanation today as to why a “rotating aircraft beacon” sits atop the LOWEST topographical feature available within a 5 kilometre radius.
The thing with conspiracies is that they don’t hide things from our eyes, they hide them from our minds.
Remind me sometime to tell you about all the “unused sewers” – big enough to drive a vehicle in – that keep conveniently popping up just when needed all over the place in and around Canberra. Especially the one out in the bush that forms a big ring all the way around the city.
00
The flight paths to the airport and the airport itself are much closer to Ainslie than Black mountain. There’s one on Majura too. oooh spooky.
00
.
Fair enough Gee.
Now google up Deakin Defence Offices, go down to street view, have a look at the building, and then I’ll tell you the “official” story of how it was originally built as the new LOCAL telephone exchange for the suburb of Deakin.
Then I’ll explain how it “coincidentally” became the place where all the computers are where the gubmint does all the matching of records, that they assured us they were never going to do back in the eighties when they wanted us all to have ID cards.
Then we can discuss the series of “coincidences” that led to it becoming the Australian HQ for Project Echelon. And how it also “coincidentally” became the new HQ for the CIA here in OZ – all while it was just a “local” telephone exchange, mind you.
Then we might move on to how, despite years of planning and the expenditure of billions of dollars, our new Parliament House didn’t have room for its communications centre.
But, just by the sheerest of coincidences, there was an unused “sewer” – built many decades previously, that just “happened” to run straight from the site of the new Parliament house to the site of the “local” Deakin telephone exchange. So, catastrophe was averted and they were able to locate the communications centre for Parliament House in the “local” Deakin telephone exchange, which just happened to also be the National Computer Centre, The National HQ for Echelon, and the National HQ for the CIA.
When you throw in on top of that the fact that the new Parliament House was never supposed to be where it ended up, and at the time the “sewer” was laid Deakin was all bushland, you can see just how fortuitous it was that an unused “sewer” pipe ran from just the right place at a bare hill, to the site of what eventually became a “local” telephone exchange” in the middle of the bush.
Conspiracy?
Bollocks.
00
Memoryvault,
What is the significance of Russell Hills’ Defence buildings “Bugs Bunny” – the column with a globe on top on which is perched an eagle with outstretched wings?
I have a vague recollection from those old writings about Black mountain and CSIRO?
00
.
It’s the Australian American War Memorial and it’s supposed to be where the roundabout is for Constitution Ave, Causeway Ave, and Northcott Drive, about 200 metres north east. Some naughty Australian Engineers accidentally on purpose “miscalculated”, the siting.
It’ll have to be moved to its correct spot someday, but just how the need for that will be explained should make for interesting reading.
00
cue space sirens….
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/9995902
minds immeasurably superior to ours regarded this earth with envious eyes; and slowly, and surely, they drew their plans against us.
Here’s hoping the NWO gets brought down by one of their own genetically engineered super bugs. 🙂
And a big Aussie “G’day” to all our monitors in the NSA and their customers down under. I know of one person from my high school year who ended up working in the Russell offices for “the A-G’s department”, so most likely for ASIO. It’s a shame because he always seemed more like a boffin than a jailer.
Yes, MV, do tell about the giant sewers. Even with most of the bushland dead from drought I’m still not going to find them on Google Earth. 🙂
00
Andrew,
Looking out the window I’d say it is not dead. Maybe it should be dead and something is keeping it alive!
00
Trouble is Andrew, being “sewers” they are mostly under the ground, and where they cross water-courses, they are usually located under bridges.
They do surface from time to time though.
It’s been nearly twenty five years since I was last down there, but if memory serves, this is one of those places.
http://g.co/maps/undce
If you zoom out you can easily see the overwhelming need for a 2.5 metre diameter “sewer” in the area.
00
recent experience suggests that the storm water capacity was sorely tested.
00
Andrew,
Did you mean ANS?
Seems to me that they are there to protect the crooks and psycopaths who are in reality secretly running the country on behalf of the bankers.
Expose how the public are being deceived and you are deemed a threat to the regulating classes security.
00
Hi MV.
I understand from your writing on this at the time, that the ring was flat, inferring that it exposed itself as the topography allowed, and that at intervals one could find what I think you conjectured to be poles that allowed air exchange.
If this is close to what you stated were exactly can I find such things.
I have explored Google Earth and driven a little around Canbeera with no luck.
I also note (asumming you reply) such a reply from you could be inviting the watchers to close down this entire blog.
Stay in good health fella.
Cheers.
00
Just saw your previous reply.
Thanks.
00
Will,
If you zoom in on the “sewer” in the link in the last post you will see one of these breather pipes about 60 metres to the south and slightly to the left (the groundworks indicate the pipe bends that way).
Please note that Canberra is a REAL city with REAL sewage and REAL sewer pipes. This link shows two sections of “real” sewer.
http://g.co/maps/ngz7e
They are of much lighter construction and hence need interim supports; the concrete surrounds where they enter to ground are different; the breather pipes are different (see north western end of top example in above link), and they have fairly regular concrete inspection portals, usually near a breather pipe (see as above).
00
Well I did enjoy this tall tale, until I checked.
The distance from the flagpole to the Mt Ainslie beacon is 5.2km. The conspiracy theory predicts the war memorial should be at ratio 1:2 from the flagpole which is at 2.6km. The true distance to the memorial is 3.7km, a ratio of 7:10, representing an error of 30% in the theory.
Furthermore no slaves were buried in the castle during its construction because it was built in the 17th century before the Nazis existed. The modifications made by the Nazis were done by prisoners, but they died mainly in Niederhagen Concentration Camp, which was located to the East of the castle and unrelated to the castle triangle’s principle axis – which is NNW and not Canberra’s SW axis. The alleged source of light for the castle is a vague general direction, not a particular place, unless you count the meeting room with the great table – which is NOT located just off the entrance of the castle but is actually in the round room of the North tower at the tip of the triangle.
The only part of the castle that could be considered a “house of the dead” is the crypt, which is directly under the room with the Great Table and is therefore not halfway between anything and anything else, so the ratio of half was imagined. There is also no black stone alter. The crypt and the room above it are both lit by 6 open side windows, which is the opposite of focussed light.
The two buildings had triangular features, that’s all. The rest of MV’s spooky story of buried workers and geometric similarity is fiction.
The two Canberra examples of supposedly “different” pipe construction are pipes that are the same width and look the same, with the design rule seemingly being that they are supported by pylons wherever their above-ground span is more than 50m. More hilariously, these insidious sewers tend to follow a road, and following the road and these sewers eventually leads to… a waste water treatment plant west of Belconnen.
Sometimes an aircraft beacon is just an aircraft beacon. Sometimes a sewer is just a sewer.
00
The term ‘conspiracy theory’ has always been a red herring. A conspiracy is a secret plan to do something wrong or illegal. Conspiracies happen. There are theories about them. When a prosecutor alleges two men planned a robbery, that’s a conspiracy theory. It may even be a true conspiracy theory. There are also conspiracy theories which are false. It’s the truth or falsehood of a theory which matters, not whether or not it is a theory about a conspiracy.
When Phil Jones wrote “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?”, that is evidence of a conspiracy. We theorise that he was trying to avoid embarrassing facts about global warming research coming to light. That’s a conspiracy theory. It might even be true.
00
We are already living in a constant state of fear. From businesses to the military, our lives are imbued with a sense of apprehended termination. It is not facts that do this. The fear is instigated as a compelling reason to agree to measures we might otherwise resist.
Not a conspiracy! An effective tool of argument and persuasion, only, and one that creates its own need. The American EPA has used the pollution-kills fear even though the initial reasons for it have become much reduced and, in places and ways, eliminated. The world is still under threat, though, according to the EPA. This fear motivates its people, validates its activities and encourages extension: they have seen the enemy it is is (….).
CO2 and CAGW is just another of the peril movements.
Not all cultures have this sense of impending doom. Because doom is a POTENTIAL, not a reality. In the West we have, through the Precautionary Principle, merged the two. The potential IS the reality. The IPCC mantra embodies this; Gore, Gillard, Hansen are just the mouthpieces on the stage.
Stix talks about the endpoint of a social situation in which we are already far to the right of center. Government regulation is how you get there: embed it in the rules of our everyday life. It is eminently possible, as Gillard in Australia is attempting to do.
But al false threats eventually are seen as such. The troops come home one day. Orwell, in 1984, had a perpetual war with changing alliances, but he did not have the internet and an educated populace in his postulated society. East Germany and Romania show that eventually even force can’t maintain a fear of the Others (or the Other Thing) in a community. And the cost of trying to maintain that fear becomes increasinly high, until it becomes unsustainable. But you can do it, and for a long time.
The question is, how can we ratchet back the alarm? The sky is not falling, but what does it take to stop behaving as if it is? Technically, how do you undo regulations that are based on the sky falling? The West has not the central control the Soviet bloc did, nor the ability to physically enforce much. Almost all behaviour in the West is self-imposed by agreement to regulations as written and supported by courts.
The witchcraft frenzy in Europe was similar in how it was managed. As far as I can determine, the laws, persecutions and such ended not formally but informally. The rules were ignored. Only much later were they deleted from the legal statutes. Perhaps that would be how carbon capture dictates would be undone. On a precedent basis some tax or control will be found no longer necessary, appropriate or effective, and in the interest of good business, not applied. One precedent, and all others start to topple. The rules stay, the applications leave.
But, until that happens, how far can the implementation of constant fear go? Look around you at the surveillance we have now – including the threats to the internet – and you should be clear that the fear can be pushed a long way for a long time.
00
Off Topic and I think very optimistic but the great gloaters of every thing green are saying South Australia are supplying 26% of their power from Wind.
Maybe Tony has some Info on plated power Vs power delivered by wind in SA.
00
I believe the still import that DERDY BROWN COAL POWER from Vic. when the ACs are humming in summer.
00
Do not ever get into an argument with people who support this.
I pointed out the horrendous cost at the construction phase for the small power delivered.
They changed the subject.
I pointed out the Government subsidies at the construction phase.
They changed the subject.
I pointed out the government subsidies at the power delivery phase where the Government chucks in a set amount per KWH so that providers can actually afford to buy the power at wholesale for less than they onsell it at retail.
They changed the subject.
I pointed out the variability of power generation, that while 65% of total power is required on a 24/7/365 basis, wind struggles to supply (its average) power for barely 6 to 7 hours.
They changed the subject.
I pointed out that maximum generation may be at times when that (small) amount of power is not actually needed, but that providers are still locked into buying the power by legislation.
They changed the subject.
I pointed out the South Australia is already in deficit, having failed over the years to construct new power plants enough to cater for SA needs, hence they have to import power from Victoria which is coal fired power.
They changed the subject.
I pointed out that while overall demand in the wind coverage area is greater than 25,000MW, these wind plants provide an average maximum of barely 650MW (2.6%).
They changed the subject.
I pointed out that the total wind plant Nameplate Capacity was 2003MW, the equivalent power of ONE large scale coal fired power plant, and all this from 965 Towers at a cost of almost $6 Billion+.
They changed the subject.
I pointed out that South Australia, with its large amounts of Wind power pay the most for their power (at the wholesale price) than any other Mainland State, in fact, near to , and in one case, more than, double the other States.
They changed the subject.
I pointed out that these Plants have a life span of barely 25 years at the absolute best.
They changed the subject.
Mention the total cost and keep asking them that same question. (with no hint of a response)
They changed the subject.
There is no arguing with these people. It’s a terrible thing to say I know, but I live for the day that first large scale coal fired power plant closes, so people can actually see how useless these wind towers really are. People get a false impression, because power is always there when you flick the switch at that hole in the wall, so they just assume that it will always be there, because no one has told them how variable this form of power generation (wind) really is.
The end result of all this was the response that I am obviously in the pay of big oil and big tobacco, and a deltaechonovemberindiaechoromeo.
Tony.
00
Well said Tony
🙂
00
All points true and good – but did they actually generate 26% of their power from Wind? It scarcely seems believable, I’m assuming it’s 26% of produced power but 5% of consumed power, or something like that. Or did they just do the old ‘nameplate’ switch and multiply the nameplate capacity by number of towers and compare against produced electricity.
I would like to get to the bottom of it, because it’s obviously a very outlying result, given other places with more wind towers can scarcely match anything like those figures. I am highly skeptical of the claim until someone shows me the numbers for how they were calculated.
I think everyone knows the cost of that produced windpower was shockingly high, but I am not believing the claim until someone shows me the workings.
00
I had a bit of a look in to this brc and to be honest it actually seems like it is 26% of produced power, and a lower % of consumed power but nowhere near as low as 5%… I came across quite independent graphs showing that SA hardly imports any power in the grand scheme of things, and they are importing significantly less now then they used to before they started producing wind.
As Tony points out though it comes at a cost ($6 billion) which is much more than a conventional power plant would have cost.
My assumption is that to scale up even more wind power, well the returns will be diminishing.
Personally I’ve been of the opinion since I first looked in to wind power as a 14 year old way back in about 1988 that it looks good for 10 – 20% of a grid where the wind conditions are favourable, so it is entirely possible that South Australia has reasonably taken advantage of local conditions, but you can’t just roll that out everywhere – in other places you’ll need more towers at higher cost most likley to provide less energy less reliably.
00
Right – adding in from what Tony below said – it’s probably 26% of produced power, but we don’t have the figures for consumed power.
We also don’t have the figures to see how much of that power was exported because it was above what was needed by the grid at the time.
You can certainly spin a good tale with power statistics – it is very hard to make an apples-with-apples comparison of anything in reality.
Basically, my analogy is this:
– My BBQ provided 100% of my outdoor cooking production during the summer
Sounds like I used it a lot, huh?
– In reality, my BBQ provided 5% of my overall cooking production (curse this rainy weather!)
At any rate, the correct metrics for power are : cost and ability to supply on demand, and proximity to main markets.
Wind power is fine if (a) the locals are happy with the towers (b) it’s not subsidised and (c) they are put up for efficiency reasons rather than trying to appease the weather gods. Same goes for solar. If they can compete on a level playing field, then fine.
00
brc
you say here:
That’s it in a nutshell, and note my bold for … on demand, for when that power is actually needed.
I always refer people to this Master showing ACTUAL Summer and Winter demand (consumption).
Load Curve Master (and I’ve lost count of the number of people who have called this chart a fabrication)
Add some Australian numbers to actual consumption here. (the vertical scale)
The black line across the chart is actual 24/7/365 absolute requirement, supplied by constantly operating coal fired plants, and that comes in at around 21,000MW for the area covered by those Wind Plants, which have a Nameplate Capacity of 2003MW for those 965 towers.
The Summer (orange) lump (6.30AM till 9.30PM) is Peaking Power when other plants come on line to top up power for actual demand. That can rise as high as 30,000MW.
The two Winter (blue) lumps (6.30AM – 9AM and 4.30PM – 10.30PM) are when people rise and prepare from School and work, and when they get home, do dinner, chores, turn on the heat etc. Again that can rise to around 28,000MW.
Note how both lumps are at dedicated times, no matter what.
Now see at the Wind performance chart I linked to, how the actual wind output, while supplying some levels of power during every day hardly ever coincides with actual demand periods of time.
Wind will use their average extrapolated back across every day and even then at their actual Capacity Factor, the total from those 965 towers still only averages 600MW of a 2003MW total when actual demand is up around that mid to high 20,000MW.
They buy and sell that wind power at differing rates, so actually if the plant is supplying its best power outside those actual times, it’s not really needed, and hence is at almost zero monetary value, hence, by legislation that they HAVE to purchase it, then the Govt subsidy is highest.
Conversely if they are only producing little power at the highest demand, in other words when they need the power, hence it’s more expensive, then, again, Wind makes little money because they are producing so little.
Also, if those Wind Plants are producing minute amounts of power when lots are required, then other plants have to work longer and harder to supply what is not being provided by Wind.
Now, see how complex it all really is.
Wind can quote a wonderful AVERAGE and even then they have to inflate it, but it is patently not supplying power for dedicated periods of time when it is ACTUALLY needed.
Immensely costly, variable amounts of power at odd times, and not only not competitive, but will never replace coal fired power, and will still require round the clock backup that can come on line at short notice to fill demand.
Even so, if all those 965 Towers actually could run at their full generation for the full 24 hours, you are looking at 2003MW, when average demand is still up around 25,000MW.
When I mention all this, it’s usually followed by silence.
I have absolutely no reason to spin what I say or use adjusted data, because even when I use their own data, it still comes off as utterly ridiculous.
Tony.
00
brc here’s a site with some nice graphs. ok the site is a bit pro-wind but the graphs are sourced from what seems like a reliable energy organisation.
wind site: http://ramblingsdc.net/Australia/WindSA.html
scroll down to graph “Percentage of SA Energy Contribution by Fuel Type”
and you can see the imports from grid are less than 5%… and wind about 21% (10/11)
The graphs appear to be faithfully reproduced from http://www.aemo.com.au/planning/SASDO2011/sasdo.html
ok that “imports” bar on the graph is, I think, net… so imports minus exports, so gross imports would be higher.
Other than the fact the $$$ costs of providing the wind >> costs of more conventional generation, I honestly don’t think there is fudging going on. I think it is a case of it just being a reasonably suitable place to use wind power – one that relatively speaking does not cost “too much” more than the conventional alternative.
00
I just want to make it clear, though, that I don’t see myself as disagreeing woth Tony’s assessment of wind in general.
00
Thanks for that MattB, and be aware that I’m not having a personal dig at you here.
Notwithstanding what I said above in 36.2.2.1.2, I would point you to what you mention above, where you say:
That being the case, and I’ll even admit that may be the case, because some Plants are actually making a 35% CF, I want you to think about this.
The Current Average for that covered area is around 600MW of an Average 24000MW, or around 2.5%, and that’s for South Eastern Australia, all of it.
Let’s pretend that the 26% for SA is correct, and hope to get the rest of that SE area up to that same level.
That means ramping up existing wind plants by a factor of ten.
If the current total is from 965 Towers, then you are looking at a further 10,000 towers, and probably more.
If the current ones are in good wind areas, are there enough of those good wind areas to sustain an extra 10,000 towers, or around 200 more wind plants in total, at around $800 Million each, or ballpark $160 Billion. Even if the price comes down, often quoted by those who support Wind, and not borne out at all in actuality over the last four years I have been watching this, as some proposals still not even off the ground have doubled in cost.
Whose money, where from, and when by, and now, where?
The standard questions.
Again, see how incomprehensible it all becomes.
Tony.
00
tony again I do agree, but if you look at South Australia the growth in Wind has been quite impressive. One could easily have pointed out 10 years ago that it was only 1% wind, and to get to 26% would need 1000 opdd turbines and where would they go, who would pay… when in fact here we are and someone did pay, and they all actually exist, and mostly no one noticed.
I agree (I think this is agreeing with you) that the whole SE Australia grid needs to be viewed as a whole, and SA only stats are pretty much meaningless. I highly doubt that the whole grid could go to 26% as easily and it would be disproportionately more wind towers than in SA as they go to less suitable locations.
I think just looking at pure numbers and saying it is incomprehensible… well you could look at any energy task faced over the next 25 years and jsut looking at the big numbers with lots of zeros you could conclude it is all incomprenesible. Or the task of feeding the population etc. Or task of converting to nuclear power.
THe task of going from where the planet was in 1960 to where it is today probably seemed incomprehensible back then too, but here we are just the same:)
00
MattB,
yes, I totally agree with you.
Going by what has happened over the last 4/5 years, you’re right, this is something that actually might be achieved.
Providing that the money is no problem at all.
Providing they find the best windy places, no problem at all.
Providing all the admin ducks line up first time round, averaging 5 to 10 years for just the one plant, so 200 Plants, no problem at all.
Providing all the power infrastructure to get that power from the Plants to the existing grids, no problem at all.
Providing all the structural components, Nacelles, etc are readily forthcoming, no problem at all about getting this in place.
Providing the trained workforce is in place no problem at all.
All that is required is for around 4 towers to be constructed every day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, for the next 8 years, non stop, starting tomorrow.
Again, see how just saying this is something that can be achieved is distilled down to the incomprehensible.
Tony.
00
brc
the statement is very very carefully worded.
26% of South Australia’s generated power.
As I mentioned, South Australia imports (a lot) of its power from Victoria.
1. Add up all the power generated within South Australia alone.
2. Add up all the power generated by the Wind Plants in South Australia alone.
Compare 2 with 1.
In actuality, the figure is closer to just over 20%, and is not 26%.
The first problem with this is that the power imported from Victoria is not added to the overall Sth Oz total power available for consumption.
The second problem is that those Sth Oz wind plants are connected to the overall grids, and not just for Sth Oz alone, and those grids also supply power into Victoria.
The imported power is 24/7/365 power to fulfill the 65% absolute base requirement, and is on tap, and consumed 24 hours a day.
The wind power is available on on the sporadic basis it is being generated, and if you look at the Wind performance chart at the following link, you’ll see that maximum generation varies in power available at differing times throughout the day, so, even though that wind power might be being generated, it is in fact not required or even consumed for those times out of peaking power periods when it is available at its maximum, and the opposite can also apply. When large amounts of power are required, and wind it at its least production, then wind is still only supplying minimal amounts of power at an exorbitant price.
Here, they have cleverly used wording to give the impression that it is supplying large amounts of power.
As usual, it seems spinners who retire from the Australian Test team will always have another job to go to.
Tony.
Link to Wind Plant Performance
00
Am I wrong to say that if a power generating facility fails to provide Base and Load power they can be fined $3m per day.
If that be the case, aand I was the man with the ‘ball’ I would simply ignore any incoming addtion of wind power.
Also should not the power company be asked to insatll the wind turbines? Why is it that the two, are to my thinking, ‘adversarial.’ The policies are well up shit creek IMO.
By the way does anyone know what is done with the toxic coal ash?
00
Thanks for that, Tony/
00
Tony,
The paper today states that SA is the third highest charging state/country/province in THE WORLD for electickery and will challenge for the number one position after July 1.
For the record:
1) Denmark 31.4c per K/hour
2) Germany 28.7
3) South Australia 28.6
4) NSW ~26
5) Victoria ~24
6) WA ~24
7) Cypress ~24
8.0) Belgium ~23
9) Japan ~22
10) Norway ~22
11) Tassie ~21
12) QLD ~20
13) NT ~18
14) United Kingdom ~17
15) ACT ~16
16) NZ ~16
Source Energy Users Association of Australia
Cheers
00
Re: “Conspiracy theorist” – just another form of namecalling from the class who want to be Global Rulers
Speaking of name calling:
“Regulating Class” forming a “one world government” – the taunt you use when you want to “win” the debate without having to argue your point.
It’s a poor argument when the exact same logic undermines your own, in spades.
00
CAGWers failed to convince many people to on-board their cause. Failed the prospectus/investor sell as Steve McIntyre occasionally puts it.
Sometimes some of its advocates earnestly suggest that a good solution to do deal with this non-action is the creation of new powerful and pervasive institutions to strong-arm their cause.
JoNova asserts that this is a power grab.
Maybe you can argue that Joanne’s rhetoric is hyperbolic, but you provide nothing so far to give me cause to consider her argument to be poor.
00
OT,
I shamelessly stole this from another website, this statement was made in response to a dodgy new paper by a warmist.
00
I have found a lot of people on the other side of the fence tend to think in terms of stereotypes and this is often where they become unstuck. Here is a case in point with a very good friend of mine.
He was interviewed for a job with an “E-waste” company many years ago. He turned up looking a little scruffy and with long hair. They hired him – probably thinking he was hippy(ish) just like many of their existing employees were.
Now the only things that are heavy heavy heavy that bob is into is his guns and heavy metal music. As he told me he tried really hard to be a hippy but he just couldn’t do it.
Since they found out that he wasn’t a hippy, they have been trying to get rid of him ever since (about 7 yars I think). They keep failing at this.
In return, he has heaps of fun with them with conversations like the following:
Bob: “You guys need to do more to protect the environment”
Hippy:”We do what we can…..”
Bob:”Well you need to do a better job. I went hunting last weekend and it almost took a whole day before I could find something to shoot at. You guys need to do more so I don’t have to walk as far in order to kill stuff!”
You can see why he’s a friend of mine, right?
00
Isn’t it a bit odd that the ones shouting conspiracy theorists stands up, getting portrayed, in the ancient media that they’re hounded by a horde of paid-by-big-oil-and-coal hooligans are the very ones that inherently keep being funded by pretty much big everything, including oil and coal of all sizes big?
I understand these loud mouth’s wasn’t well funded 25 years ago compared to the non-competition, but obviously funding has change hands from no hands to new hands. After all, where tax funded subsidies goes, so assures big money or they’d be rather stupid.
But do the alarmist howlers really understand they’ve gone from no-underdogs to the rabid dogs biting?
00
sophist [ˈsɒfɪst]
n
1. (Philosophy) (often capital) one of the pre-Socratic philosophers who were itinerant professional teachers of oratory and argument and who were prepared to enter into debate on any matter however specious
2. a person who uses clever or quibbling arguments that are fundamentally unsound
Definition 2 seems to fit nicely.
00
In my play “The Tragedy of Julia Caesar”, the Shakespearean character of Artemidorus the Sophist was “played” by Stephan Lewandowsky-
or
– bullseye!
00
From a report by his viscountship. Read the rest at:
00
And a couple of Patrick Cox’s words on the self righteous do-gooders driving the campaign:-
“Intellectuals who consider inequalities in wealth evidence of injustice often seek political remedies. These take the form of legislation and, more often, regulation. In the process, of course, they are able to portray themselves as heroic opponents of injustice.
If they have sufficient support, they are also able to acquire significant power, wealth and status. We know from experience, however, that these intellectuals rarely consider their own wealth evidence of injustice.”
&
“Naturally, governments run by these intellectuals have tried to raise taxes to support their habits. Many succeeded, but then discovered the reality of the Laffer curve. Taxes necessarily transfer resources from the private tax-generating sector to the public tax-consuming sector.
At some point, taxes depress economic growth, which reduces government revenues. This point is usually much lower than the critics of capitalism assume. Moreover, their targeting of the wealthiest individuals is most damaging to the economy. The wealthiest are also those with the most money to invest in the innovations that create all net new jobs”
http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/the-folly-of-intellectuals/2012/03/05/.
00
Pattoh
Your comment is worth repeating: “Intellectuals who consider inequalities in wealth evidence of injustice often seek political remedies. These take the form of legislation and, more often, regulation. In the process, of course, they are able to portray themselves as heroic opponents of injustice.
I wish they had been around 55 years ago when I first started saving for a house. Their redistribution of our nations bounty would have saved me a lot of work.
Wouldn’t it – is that they way its supposed to work?
00
From my e-mails today.
The $50 Story
Recently, while I was working in the front yard, my neighbors stopped to chat as they returned home from walking their dog. During our friendly conversation, I asked their little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be Prime Minister someday. Both of her parents, strong ALP supporters, were standing there, so I asked her, “If you were Prime Minister what would be the first thing you would do?”
She replied… “I’d give food and houses to all the homeless people.” Her parents beamed with pride!
“Wow…what a worthy goal!” I said. “But you don’t have to wait until you’re Prime Minister to do that!”
“What do you mean?” she replied.
So I told her, “You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and trim my hedge, and I’ll pay you $50. Then you can go over to the park where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.”
She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, “Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?”
I said, “Welcome to the Liberal Party.”
Her parents aren’t speaking to me.
00
19 March: Australian: Hedley Thomas: Did crime investigators tap our phones, ask Wivenhoe engineers
LAWYERS for the flood engineers of Brisbane’s mismanaged Wivenhoe Dam have raised the prospect of telephone tapping and surveillance in a further investigation by Queensland’s Crime and Misconduct Commission…
Martin Burns SC, the lawyer for engineer Terry Malone, accused the inquiry of having scorned, and “pushed to one side and tagged as equivocal” evidence in support of the engineers’ position.
Mr Burns said the inquiry had alleged an “odd conspiracy” and “the stuff of grassy knolls” against the flood engineers. “None of the material relied on (by the inquiry) comes close,” he said…
Long-serving Ipswich councillor Paul Tully, who lost his home at Goodna in the flood, called for the CMC to expand its investigation beyond the three engineers.
“It would be unthinkable these three engineers on their own colluded to mislead the commission without a nod and a wink from senior SEQWater bosses.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/elections/did-crime-investigators-tap-our-phones-ask-wivenhoe-engineers/story-fnbsqt8f-1226303279882
20 March: Brisbane Times: Petrina Barry, AAP: Flood law suit attracts hundreds more
Momentum is building for a class action against the Queensland government after the state’s flood inquiry found the government-owned Wivenhoe Dam operator Seqwater breached the dam manual during floods in January 2011.
Maurice Blackburn outlined litigation plans to 400 residents in Goodna last night…
They are expected to join more than 2000 Brisbane and Brisbane Valley residents who have already committed to taking on the state government…
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/flood-law-suit-attracts-hundreds-more-20120320-1vgkk.html
00
19 March: Reuters: Izard Nobel LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit Against First Solar, Inc
The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience
representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud,
announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of First Solar, Inc…
The Complaint alleges that First Solar and certain of its officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws. Specifically, defendants
failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) earnings were being
negatively affected by certain manufacturing flaws; (ii) the Company
improperly recognized revenue in its systems business; and (iii) that
First Solar lacked adequate internal and financial controls to accurately
report the Company’s financial results…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/19/idUS207737+19-Mar-2012+MW20120319
18 March: Washington Examiner: Timothy P. Carney: Firm sells solar panels – to itself, taxpayers pay
First Solar is the company. The subsidy came from the Export-Import Bank, which President Obama and Harry Reid are currently fighting to extend and expand…
Five weeks before the 2010 election, Strickland announced more than a million dollars in job training grants to First Solar. The Ohio Department of Development also lent First Solar $5 million, and the state’s Air Quality Development Authority gave the company an additional $10 million loan.
After First Solar pocketed this $17.3 million in government grants and $15 million in government loans, Ex-Im entered the scene.
In September 2011, Ex-Im approved $455.7 million in loan guarantees to subsidize the sale of solar panels to two solar farms in Canada. That means if the solar farm ever defaults, the taxpayers pick up the tab, ensuring First Solar gets paid.
But the buyer, in this case, was First Solar.
A small corporation called St. Clair Solar owned the solar farm and was the Canadian company buying First Solar’s panels. But St. Clair Solar was a wholly owned subsidiary of First Solar. So, basically, First Solar was shipping its own solar panels from Ohio to a solar farm it owned in Canada, and the U.S. taxpayers were subsidizing this “export.”
First Solar spokesman Alan Bernheimer defended this maneuver, saying this really was an export, pointing out that First Solar paid sales taxes on the transaction.
But this subsidy undermines the arguments for Ex-Im’s existence. Ex-Im, whose authorization expires May 31, is supposed to be a job creator, helping U.S. manufacturers beat foreign manufacturers by having U.S. taxpayers backstop the financing…
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/firm-sells-solar-panels-itself-taxpayers-pay/434251
00
Which part of the doctoring of surface temperature data records should not be considered a conspiracy? Should we be using a different word like corruption? Or is such misbehaviour excused because it’s the “right” cause? I don’t think it will be long before such behaviour becomes a law enforcement issue.
00
Perhaps your question would make a good rely to Maxine 4.1.9
00
Nicely put Tom
We are being ripped off;
having our taxes stolen;
there must be a remedy at law?
00
Speak to John,
He will tell you that manipulating temperature data is a good reason to have a world government to fight climate change, although he won’t use these words ofcourse!
00
I don’t think the temperature record has been doctored.
00
Well John, the best pork you can get is from is from the shoulder of flying pigs … it is all that extra work that the muscle does – adds to the flavour.
00
TS
John was actually saying two things:
00
Many climate scientists have their doctorates.
Therefore it’s been doctored.
00
00
There is no money or job security for anyone who provides the government and thus the banks with the information that average global temperatures are not increasing when there are huge profits to be made selling that part of the air called CO2.
00
Damn! That explains why my hundreds of hours of research have enriched me diddly squat!
Maybe I should get me a job in one of the fancy new multi-billion dollar government departments.
00
My my! ALL the temperature graphs are wrong—doctored? I rather think, Tom, that you are just trying to avoid facts that go against your theory/religion. Can’t go through life not looking facts in the face. Seriously, what the hell??
00
Maxine:
So we get for only $23 per tonne CO2:
No more colder colds,
No more hotter hots,
No more wetter floods
No more drier droughts
No more higher seas
No more intenser cyclones
No more less cyclones
All for the price of a sausage sandwich?
What ever you’re on – I want a kilo of it!
00
Maxine, have a look at the HADCRUT/GISS data adjustments reproduced by WUWT (the link in my original post) and come back to us with a plausible explanation of why Jones and Hansen have revised down early 20th century raw temperature data, which has the effect of making “warming” since 1950 look worse. You’re obviously right across technical issues that have gone right over my head.
00
Arctic.
Have there been really cold summers lately? Freezing winters? Last two years we had La Nina but temperature still up there. Sea levels rising or is that more “propaganda”?
I guess you can go through life with your eyes shut.
00
Queensland is the state most effected by the ENSO cycle. Last year, the Queensland Competition Authority justified an increase in electricity prices partly BECAUSE OF LOWER REVENUES CAUSED BY LOWER DEMAND DUE TO A COOLER AND WETTER SUMMER.
When a person states “last two years we had a La Nina but temperature still up there” you know this person knows bugger all about the ENSO cycle and its effects.
00
We had the warmest La Nina recorded.
00
Really? Well you coudda blown me down with a feather.
Considering ALL THE ADJUSTMENTS MADE, it wouldn’t surprise me if a snow blizzard was the warmest on record lol
00
It’s propaganda, it’s scaremongerring by people with agendas, it’s data fudging by the very same people. Even still, lets see what is SOOOO SCAAARYYYY about this relentless sea level rise.
From alarmist central, the formerly great CSIRO comes this…
In ONE HUNDRED AND FRIGGING TWENTY NINE YEARS sea levels rose a staggering 1.63 MILLIFRIGGINGMETRES per year.
Grab a ruler sweetheart and get an idea of what a millimetre looks like.
Allowing the eco nut alarmists their absolute maximum of maybe 3 MILLIFRIGGINGMETRES per year, relentlessly for the forseeable future you, me and a couple of extra generations will be LOOOOONG DEAD before any sea level rise causes eye brows to rise.
Pull your head out of the sand sweetheart, then use it.
00
Some facts Maxine:
1. Since 2004 there has been a significant deceleration of annual sea level rise. (coincident with recent stabilization of global temperature anomaly.
2. The Earth’s average sea level has been rising steadily since the late 19th century, virtually in a straight line for 150 years! This predates any possible human influence on the sea level.
3. It is widely agreed that a very large percentage of recent sea level rise is due to the “steric” (i.e. thermal) expansion of the oceans.
This in turn is due to the 150 years of global warming that followed the period of global cooling experienced after the huge Tambora volcanic explosion in 1815.
If there were an “anthropogenic” (human-made) fingerprint in the sea level rise data, one would surely expect to see an acceleration, not a deceleration, measured against the long-term 150-year trend, driven by the increasing CO2 content of our atmosphere.
The absence of such an acceleration is a clear indicator that there are larger forces afoot than just human influences when it comes to predicting how our oceans will behave over the next 100 years.
References:
Tide gauge and satellite altimetry sea level data courtesy: The Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research, sealevel.colorado.edu
00
Watch Maxine fail to respond to these points. Of course he is using the the famous hit and run tactic. First comes the blind and hysterical declaration of faith, then when the debate gets interesting AWAY SHE GOES!!
What a pity.
00
Sonny – jsut one of your arguments:
“3. It is widely agreed that a very large percentage of recent sea level rise is due to the “steric” (i.e. thermal) expansion of the oceans.
This in turn is due to the 150 years of global warming that followed the period of global cooling experienced after the huge Tambora volcanic explosion in 1815.
If there were an “anthropogenic” (human-made) fingerprint in the sea level rise data, one would surely expect to see an acceleration, not a deceleration, measured against the long-term 150-year trend, driven by the increasing CO2 content of our atmosphere.”
If there were as you suggest sea level rise due to warming following Tambora cooling, then why would more recent “human” warming cause an acceleration after that? You’d expect accelleration if the human warming was from a base of no warming, but if there is diminishing warming post-Tambora then overlapping even accelerating human warming would leave a fairly straight line.
I’m just saying your argument is not logical… the conclusions you draw from your statements do not make sense.
00
It makes perfect sense!
The point is that the ocean started rising BEFORE humans could have caused it to do so. The fact that in recent times (say the past 50 years) the gradient of the line has not increased (but rather decreased), means that nobody can PROVE that this sea level rise (in the past 50 years or so) has anything to do with people.
You may argue incorrectly that the natural sea level rise has stopped and been taken over by a man made sea level rise of equal power (hence the straight line warming over 150 years), however the deceleration in the past 7 years suggests otherwise.
The take home message is:
1. The current sea level rise is not unprecedented, alarming or scary because it is equal to or less than it has been over a period of 150 years of constant rise.
2. Because of 1, the data does not support the idea that man is driving curren sea level rise.
Get it? Got it? Good!
This has all been covered on this blog before, but I’m alway happy to correct alarmist myths as an when they prop up.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/07/global-sea-levels-started-rising-before-1800-jevrejeva/
00
Nah, there was a drop in sealevel due to the fact so much water was on the land.
The world is still warming—emissions haven’t dropped, CO2 hasn’t been removed from the air—the next non-La Nina summer will show that, an El Nino summer will rub that in your sweating faces.
There you go, two predictions you can keep and come back to me if we have a cool non-La Nina summer.
00
Let’s see: there WAS supposed to be fearsome drought caused by warming. Now that “water is on the land” (disproving the warmist theory) we are told that another fearsome effect of warming (sea level rise) won’t happen because of warming………
I’m getting dizzy
00
Drop in sea level rise because so much water was on the land..
Any other contestants for bullshit theory of the week?
00
They are adjusted in very odd ways (like this one – if you take the trend back a few years you can see that Mackay clearly emerged from under its glacier only about 800 years ago).
But even distorted they can be explained pretty well by the solar dynamo effect on terrestrial climate, and a 64 year ocean cycle. Neither have been included in the IPCC models. The residual fits neatly with the CERES and ERBE determinations of 2XCO2 around 0.7 C.
In other words according to GISS Mackay may have emerged from their glacier recently but if Mackay fries next week it will be in GISS’s and Maxine’s own imagination.
00
Maxine, we are having this discussion on a previous thread in which I demonstrated based on the BOM data that…
1. There has been no global warming for over a decade, despite CO2 increases.
2. 1998 is the warmest year on the instrumental record (which disproved your statement)
3. That the global temperature has gone up by 0.8 degree in 100 years.
4. That despite 1,2 and 3 the CSIRO still claim the world is warming alarmingly.
5. The CSIRO predict a 5 degree increase in temp in the next 90 years which would require the century long warming trend to increase by a FACTOR OF MORE THAN SIX.
Maxine, I would challenge you to detect a change in ambient temperature from 20.0 degrees to 20.8 degrees. It is barely perceptible. Yet you have the audacity to come here and regurgitate government propaganda about catastrophic warming and sea level rises…
Epic Fail!
00
And most likely CSIRO are right.
00
No, judging from the past 10 years of flatline temperature most likely they are wrong.
CO2 does not seem to be a significant driver of global temperatures.
Saying anything else is dishonest John.
00
John – You’ve clearly not worked as long with CSIRO people that I have. They mean well, but aren’t always on the right planet.
I’d like to see CSIRO develop a more commercial culture, but I’m sad to say the academic disease seems to be wafting out of the uni’s in their direction.
00
Yep Maxine you have stirred us up but only because of your inability to understand. Here is something I bring out from time to time to illustrate something simple that there are people around the world trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. It is only one location so you could call it cherry picked but it is a very good illustration that something is wrong with this whole affair. Oh and by the way there are other towns around Australia with equally clean records which indicate a similar thing that the Earth has not warmed but you go and believe what you want to believe.
00
.
Maxine might like this:
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/GISS_changes.gif
00
The only point not covered by comments so far is this: Sometimes in argument with warmists they will say something like “Your term CAGW is a strawman argument which is a mischaracterisation of my views!”
In other words, some warmists object to the Catastrophe term in CAGW as though it exaggerates or claims warmists believe things they never said.
So of course when I saw Jo’s quote of the article, I had to click through and check that it really was from the real Sci-Am web site. Yes, it was. That headline “Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe” is a reminder that catastrophe was always and still is the claim being made by the warministas. It’s a claim so untenable that now even some warmists are in denial of the foundation of their religion.
Might we even see a compromise between the two sides during the next few years? Early deniers claimed the world had not been warming and there was no greenhouse effect. Now mainstream climate skepticism cedes both those points. Perhaps the warmists can face the facts and admit that climate sensitivity is less than 1.2°C, and there won’t be any man-made climate catastrophe.
00
Is Clive Palmer trying to ruin the LNPs chances?
00
Or: just another way to describe Clive Palmer.
Maybe, but from the polling even he is going to be hard pressed to do that. 🙂
Interesting that he’s withdrawn from any challenge to it though. Maybe going to concentrate on soccer as a hobby instead?
00
Is Catamon and Gee Aye trying to change the subject?
What’d you guys think of 0.8 degrees of warming in a century. Does it make you scared?
00
I’m no more changing the subject than many others here. The original post mentions conspiracy so we suddenly get a huge number of posts espousing every type of conspiracy imaginable. Thankfully some are amusing and some are tongue in cheek. I mentioned Clive Palmer because of his recent rant about a CIA conspiracy which is more on topic than many posts here.
00
Catamongst;
You used Channel 9 (MSM) as a source??
Not feeling well today?
00
Yeah, i nearly puked when i watched his presser where he said all that for the record.
00
And talking about a billionare jumping the shark on the subject of conspiracy in a thread where the OP has “Conspiracy Theorist” in the title is somehow OT??
Earth calling Sonny….Earth calling……
00
Good point. Sorry.
I get caught up in little details like comparing how much the earth has warmed in 100 years (0.8 deg) vs the CSIRO projected temperatures for the next 90 years (5 degrees) in a topic devoted to conspiracy theories.
00
Hi Sonny… Sorry, I had not read down to this before launching my rant.
And by the way, I’m not scared about the temperature increase, I just don’t need a conspiracy theory to explain why other people and organisations have a different view.
00
Oh Dog, not this as well!!
Is there no limit to their perfidy!!! 🙁
00
.
Interesting article. Unfortunately it will do you no good. My own experiments establish that anybody who did not break out of the electronic brainwashing within five to six years is now permanently enslaved to it, regardless of what type of tin foil hat they might wear. Any attempt to break the conditioning will now lead to a total nervous breakdown, long before a cure can be affected.
So, just for the record, I must ask: do you remember just what you were doing on the afternoon of September 15, 2000, when the original signal was broadcast?
No, then how about the morning of September 16 2001, when the second experiment was initiated?
00
I’ll get back to you as soon as i check her name. 🙂
00
Ahhh, more distraction. Nothing to see here sayeth Catamon.
Read this silly tin foil hat gag instead… The government controlling is through radio waves is a silly conspiracy and therefore so must the government indoctrinating us with science fiction CRAP about climate change.
00
Ok, this is possibly OT in parts i will admit, but has some definite funny bits.
00
Why is there no suitable antonym for “paranoid” or “paranoia”?
Such a term would be perfect for the kind of TV believing morons that like to use the word “conspiracy theorist” against anyone that has a thought or opinion outside of their idiot-box paradigm…or for those that believe government actually cares for their best interests.
Considering that it is so rare for a word to not have a litany of antonyms from which to choose, perhaps this is a linguistic conspiracy in itself?
00
I do also not go along with the “Gaddafi is a bad man and needs to be..” story.
Here’s a collection info about the Gaddafi issue
http://shortText.com/LGUfwF
00
Funny, these are short on blaming George Bush. Hmmmm………
00
For those that do NOT BELIEVE there is plan for a WORLD GOVERNMENT..
http://shorttext.com/oti8nz
00
The self fulfilling prophecy is now complete.
http://iceagenow.info/2012/03/study-blames-obesity-rising-co2-levels/ (AGW causes obesity)
http://iceagenow.info/2012/03/study-obesity-global-warming/ (obesity causes AGW)
00
My God! this IS a “feedback”!!!!!!
00
Can someone explain this or am i just being a conspiracy theorist…………Maxine do you have a comment?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/a_hotter_town_like_alice/
00
Andrew Bolt? He gets his facts from the same crackpot, fraudulent websites as you do!
00
Again I agree Maxine,
People should not get information from fraudulent websites like NASA and GISS.
Which happens to be where Andrew Bolt got his information.
00
He usually gets his info from crackpot site. I suppose Bolt, as he sometimes does, used a legit source that showed a tiny dip in global temps and conjured global cooling from that?
One hilarious time Bolt copied a graph from a crackpot site, of raw and “smoothed” temperatures. The “smoothing” used a weird period of 23 years, I guess that was the only time where the smoothed line showed a dip in the current year.
Bolt is not a scientist and not even a journalist. He is not a primary or secondary source, more a snake oil saleman.
00
Just checking all that sea ice melt up north
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
00
Again I ask: Why is the gray line (norm) 1979-2000? If you plot this year (2012) atop 1979-2011 we’d be in for a FU*King ice age!
Crap maybe we ARE……….
00
Mark the original satelite data of Arctic ice from 1971 to 1979 which appeared in FAR is no longer shown because this data shows the Arctic to cylic in nature. The ice extent in 1971 is no more or less than it is now, hence it is not shown on any graphs. Which of course makes it the greatest and juiciest cherry pick of all times.
00
Great read the link below clearly showing Arctic ice in 1974 very similar to 2007 levels, and funnily enough Antarctic ice increased at that time and reduced in the mid 80’s while Arctic ice increased- Isn’t airbrushing just marvellous!- “Let’s just photoshop the whole darn climate and be done with it, Hansen old boy, what do you reckon?”
00
While i am at it
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Once again feel free to pass comment on the conspiracy unfolding here Maxine.
00
Like what conspiracy there?
Re the sea ice—you do know that is extent not the total volume of the ice?
You do know that temperatures in 2011 were lower than the couple of years before because there was a La Nina operating? All clearly spelled out in that CSIRO-BuMet report you have already rejected as anti-science even tho you haven’t actually read it?
Do you think one statistical blip an Ice Age makes? A statistical blip is a statistical blip.
That chart of Arctic ice extent will already be retreating as spring arrives in the northern hemisphere?
00
Maxine,
Until you answer the questions I and others have raised and engage in the debate based on the information and related arguments we have presented to you (which you have not disputed), I will not be engaging with you.
00
Maxine,
You make various claims about the state of the climate, one of those being sea level rise/ice melt so i show you various fact and figures/graphs which conclusively prove that all the claims about the impending armageddon are just that………claims. There is no basis for which those claims are built therefore you nor anyone else can simply regurgitate these claims in such a mindless way.
I was hoping by supplying this information i would be able to engage in some sort of rational debate in an effort to educate you and not just on arctic sea ice but on the spread of false information as a whole but alas this will not be happening.
Before i take Sonny’s excellent advice let me point out the flaws in your debating techniques.
The data used by the railroad engineer and the movie maker to predict ice free summers is the very data that i have shown you so any claims that “extent” is not the measurement of choice but rather “volume” is nothing more than a red herring and you should be ashamed of yourself for using such tactics.
I beleive you have me confused with another poster as this quote does not equate to me but i will say this, the DMI data goes back over 50 years and i am sorry but as hard as i look i cannot see the finger print of La Nina in any of the data in fact there is no suggestion at all that teh Arctic is warming. Once again i remind you this is the same data Gore etal look at when they tell you the “Arctic is melting”.
I do not understand this statement therefore i will not respond
Is this a question? If so the answer is no, it is not alraedy retreating (please open your eyes and LOOK at the graph), do you see any reduction in ice yet? The summer melt will not start for a few more weeks although this date does vary depending on wind direction etc BUT IT IS NOT GETTING ANY HOTTER regardless of what Hansen/Gore/any money junkie you care to mention tells you so no we will not have an ice free summer in our life times.
Now if you wish we can discuss the facts in more detail or you cantinue to waffle bullshit all by yourself………………….its your choice.
——————————————————————————–
00
No, it is standard to talk of extent v volume. The Arctic sea ice is getting very thin because a lot of the ice is this winters ice that melts in the next spring.
00
Mark D,
Here you go, have a look at the ice extent in the early 1970’s and compare it to now. Then ask yourself why this data is no longer available.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_07.pdf
00
Maxine? We miss you! Come back and tell us how we all all being blindsided by our religious Beliefs – a “faith” which is characterized by NOT BELIVEING in CAGW.
I doubt you level the same criticisms at those who choose not to believe in god for want of evidence that he/she/it exists.
The problem is that all you true believers in CAGW have no qualms taking my money, my country and my sanity to sacrifice on the alter to appease your god which you don’t know by his correct name… The UN World Governance.
00
I said you were blinded by your religion (The world is COOLING!) because you shun facts and look for websites run by crackpots and call websites like the one Barry Brooks runs “anti science not real science” because he publishes facts and papers that don’t agree with your religion.
You can shun facts that invalidate your theory but that doesn’t make your theory right.
The globe is warming, both on land and in the seas. Arctic ice cover and volume are shrinking. Sea levels are rising, the atmosphere holds more moisture because of the warming of the oceans. The oceans are becoming more acid because of increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere. These are facts, recorded over about 150 years for the temperature readings. We need to try and reverse the warming trend while also working to mitigate the warming and its effects—reversing such trend involving a vast system as the atmosphere and the seas won’t be done quickly.
GHG are increasing in concentration in the atmosphere. Land and sea temperatures are rising and the seas are becoming more acidic. Give me a coherent and credible explanation for these facts that does not involve AGW.
00
Maxine
Do you agree that nuclear power is the answer (ie no CO2 emmisions)?
00
Gen 3 or 4 nuclear is undoubtedly part of us reducing our CO2 emissions.
I see a huge plant near Pt Augusta, capable of sending electricity to Adelaide etc plus Vic & NSW. Waste can be stored in one of the worked-out mins in Broken Hill. With cheap nuclear power aluminium could be refined in Pt Pirie, keeping that town alive when the single mine working in BH shuts down. Plus, universities, govt would all have people there running the plant, learning nuclear science/technology, doing experiments, regulating/monitoring the reactor etc.
00
And in the 20 years (best case scenario) till that plant is up and running, umm, what then?
Tony
00
Have no fear people, it really is me.
Firefox Update seems to have lost my icon.
Any clues???
Tony.
00
That’s better.
Normal service has resumed.
Tony.
00
Gen 3 could be done in 15. Until then phase out brown coal, keep encouraging solar/wind/tidal, introduce an ETS so carbon polluters have to pay to pollute, households and businesses pay more for power which will see innovation to keep increases in charges for power to a minimum.
I pointed out how I reduce my emissions, will just add to that I have always driven small cars, to keep my footprint on the environment small.
00
I open random bottles of soda water to release more C02.
I plan on having 10 or more children.
I only drive cars which achieve incredibly poor fuel economy.
I leave lights On during the day.
I have trained myself to breath out 15% more frequently than the national average.
I purposely stop on freeways to cause huge traffic jams.
I startle cows so they fart and crap themselves.
I ignore that little window that pops up to offset my air mileage.
And with these actions I offset 100 Maxines worth of enviro-quackery.
00
There really is no point arguing with someone who can’t even be bothered to find out the truth about the so many points mentioned in just these two short sentences.
See what I mean about a losing battle. It’s so disheartening. They just don’t even want to know.
Tony.
00
Umm, Maxine,
tell me, are they doing anything, umm, anywhere, to stop those emissions?
Tony.
00
I have converted a couple here away from being fooled about AGW.
Personally, I grow trees, dig manure, use mulch etc to sequester CO2 in my trees, soil. I walk where possible, use my bicycle and use my car as little as possible. I have insulated my house, put energy efficient globes/fluorescent tubes and get the bulk of my fruit/veges from my garden.
00
H
00
Funny that,
I addressed every single one of your points about global warming and sea level rise and even quoted exact statistics from the BOM to make my case.
You failed to acknowledge or address the arguments and data presented to you. I suspect it’s because you lack the mental faculties and relevant education to engage meaningfully in real debate.
You are like a little kid that has to resort to the argument “well my daddy says that …”
And when it is explained to you that your daddy is wrong with basic data and simple, rock solid reasoning you bounce off tail between legs only to come back later and tell us something else your daddy said.
You are proof of the conspiracy theory that the government can remotely perform full frontal lobotomies purely through electronic media. I hate to say it but I think in your case it’s less about religion and more about permanent irreversible brain damage.
00
Why is warming bad Maxine? I thought plants people and animals like warmth because they don’t freeze to death as easily and they have more nice fruit and vegies to eat which also like warmth?
Why is CO2 bad Maxine? I thought that CO2 helps all the veggies grow better so we can feed all our children better?
00
No, I like warmth! Lets let Global Warming turn the whole world into the Sahara desert!
CO2 in excess concentrations turns the atmosphere into a greenhouse.
Dunno why you mention CO2 being good for plants. We are talking real AGW not horticulure {rolls eyes}
00
Don’t be such a foolish clutz. High temperatures don’t cause deserts, LACK OF PRECIPITATION causes deserts.
The Amazon forest is warm, but NOT a desert.
The jungles of SE Asia are warm, but are NOT deserts.
Yet there are some very cold deserts in the Mongolian steppes.
Do you get it now?
In any case, didn’t some fraudulent scamming activist advocate lying data manipulating cherry picking cheating carpet bagging snake oil selling grant seeking shyster climate scientists recently declare that the rains sweeping across Eastern Australia are due to AGW? Does that mean if temperatures keep rising, we’ll end up with an ocean of desert?
00
Ohhh Noooo!!! He got me!
I had actually mentioned the increased moisture in the atmosphere. Extreme warmth, hotter than the tropics now is not good which I tried to show in my reference to the Sahara—too warm and plants and animals we rely on, including marine flora and fauna that are also already suffering from ocean acidification. There will be loss of diversity meaning ecologies become more fragile—empires have died from this.
Re the Qld & Vic floods: the rains were due to the La Nina, their severity may have been increased by the increasing moisture in the atmosphere.
00
Oh really? Name me a single species that has been adversely affected by warming/acidification. Citations, references required.
The 2010-11 rains were due to La Nina. The 2012 wet has absolutely nothing to do with La Nina.
The systems causing this wet are coming from the North West, not the East.
You are confusing wet/dry fluctuations with warm/cold fluctuations. Often, the two are not related.
You might like to stop embarrassing yourself.
00
Baa,
Don’t confuse the girl with facts. The climate optimum was obviously the Maunder or possibly the Dalton minimum, the optimum CO2 level is below 200 ppm, blizzards are just terrific for wildlife to flourish to its maximum, 0.7deg in 130 yrs is sooo worrying and obviously extrapolates to 6 deg warming by 2050 without any creative maths, ocean pH above 8.0 is clearly acidifying (diurnal and estuarine variations aren’t more substantive after all), any cooling events are only weather while any warming events are climate, any rains are caused by La Nina events but any drought events have nothing to do with El Nino events, and everything Maxine says isn’t even remotely ridiculous, illogical or naively stupid. Got that!
00
There was an El Nino this summer, not as strong as 2011 but there. You can expect future El Ninos to cause more and more flooding as AGW puts more moisture in the air which it is doing. Rainfall in theSW corner of WA has decreased heaps as predicted by AGW theory. You can close your eyes to facts but AGW will still kick you in the bum! I just prefer to rely on accepted science and to look unpleasant facts in the eye, a much better coping mechanism.
It is frightening, especially when you have kids and grandkids to think of AGW, changing rainfall patterns, reduction in ecological diversity but you really should face it, find out what changes AGW will bring and change your lifestyle to a less emitting one (which will also make you healthier BTW) and advise your kids to take heed of AGW predictions.
00
Still stirring in more ways than one, Maxine. How’s that home brew of yours – as good as ever?
00
My imaginary friend does not like Maxines imaginary friend
00
Maxine, earlier you presented the argument that the world was still warming based on an “adjustment” to the global temperature record by the UK Met Office. You then challenged me to “look at the temperature data of the BOM / CSIRO etc.”.
I did, and was able to reproduce it for you. I then asked you to calculate by how much the world has warmed in the last decade. The challenge is still open. Statements like “the world has warmed”, “the oceans are rising”, “the ice caps are melting”, don’t prove anything. BY HOW MUCH is a very important part of the debate.
00
I have already said that 2011 was cooler (yet was STILL the warmest La Nina ever) because of the La Nina conditions. I would imagine some of the data still needs to be collected.
Do you imagine that the global temp goes up in a nice smooth curve? Nope, Volcanic eruptions and La Nina provide cooling, the solar cycle also provides some variation etc etc.
But the global temperature just keeps inexorably climbing. Little, hmmm games of looking at individual temps are just games by people pretending to themselves they don’t see the inexorable increase in global temperatures.
Face it, global warming is real.
00
Global warming by 0.8 degrees in 100 years.
Global warming by 0.0 degrees in the past 10 years.
Global warming prediction by CSIRO for the next 90 years:
5.0 degrees.
Your argument that 2011 was the “warmest La Nina year on record” may be true but it is deceptive and meaningless. It is spin designed to catch out the inexperienced and sound impressive. It is Orwellian double speak. “cool = hot”
2011 was in fact the second coldest year in the last 11 years. (2008 was the coldest).
http://climatecommission.gov.au/topics/the-science-behind-southeast-australias-wet-cool-summer/
In those 11 years we have seen no statistically significant warming. This is absolutely not contestable because I have provided you with the data.
If this is what you consider global temperatures “inexorably climbing”, you may want to look up the definition of “inexorably”.
You may be right Maxine that this past decade has been just a blip in the record and that global warming will increase at an accelerated rate. This is what would need to occur for me to change my mind and start believing in CAGW.
What would it take for you to change your mind Maxine?
It represents another year in which global warming has not been observed.
00
Good question. A lobotomy?
00
No, it would require a reverse lobotomy. But here is where Maxine is out of luck – you can’t unscramble an egg.
Still I admire you Maxine for at least engaging in debate! This is more than can be said about many paleoclimatoligists and other scientists who refuse to debate climate realists.
00
Oh dear, Sonny, climate “realists” really? No realist would say the globe is cooling when looking at graphs of global climate. No climate realist would call impeccably scientific reports as “anti science” or propaganda because they contradicted the realist’s theory.
You are a deluded person.
00
I don’t do imaginary friends.
00
You are an imaginary friend.
00
Actually, consider it this way:
1. Set up such a body, with advisory powers only, no actual authority.
2. For a country to be represented, it must allow its representative to be democratically elected. Voting rights in proportion to population.
There are a lot of people in countries with no major environmental movement. The resulting body would be dominated by India. And people like Stix would be surprised at its output.
There wouldn’t be an ETS pronouncement from such a body. At most, what you would get is a recommendation that nuclear power be made more widely available, cancelling non-nuclear proliferation treaties.
The idea may be worth trying, if only to watch Stix’s head explode.
00
BobC, Mike Formerly From Oz, Eddy Arula, and many others here, will probably appreciate this post on Quadrant:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2012/03/bacharach-vs-marx
It is so authentic, so succinct, so very… true.
Best of luck to all in the struggle against tyranny, both here and abroad.
00
Here is a book written in 1972 that might join up a few dots for people.
00
Abbott, Joyce, Robb, Mirrabella did not attend todays CATA astroturfed anti Carbon Tax rally. Alan Jones couldn’t be stuffed to drive to Canberra to address a tiny rally in person and addressed the rally over the phone.
Think people have accepted the Carbon Tax (really an ETS with fixed price permits?) Or you going to follow Clive Palmer (you know he is rich and nutty) and blame the CIA?
The world accepts the science of Global Warming, why don’t you lot? Next El Nino summer could be a sizzler!
00
Wow Maxine! in one breath you condemn those who play “games of looking at individual temps” then come out with “Next El Niño Summer could be a sizzler”. How intellectually dishonest are you Maxine. Shame!
And your argument “The world accepts the science of global warming, why don’t you”, is yet another dishonest appeal to the manufactured “consensus”. You are effectively inviting us to suspend our critical thinking and believe in something purely based on an appeal to authority.
Allow me to quote Albert Einstein
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of the truth”.
No thanks Maxine. I’ll continue to research, think and debate. I’ll be watching how the temperature record unfolds in the future and track how well the IPCC and CSiRO “projections” are aligned to reality.
00
If we had two cooler years due La Nina and AGW is still going on, as it is, then the next El Nino will be a sizzler.
A prediction you can quote back at me, if you like, if we ever have a cool El Nino. If the globe is cooling (no sign of that tho you guys believe it is? Self hypnosis perhaps) the next El Nino will be nothing special.
Last El Nino summer Adelaide temps went over 45°C. I shudder to think what the next El Nino summer will bring. 50°C, and a power outage? Hundreds of senior citizens will die in that scenario. Got oldies living somewhere (aunts and uncles as well as parents?) Plan what you can do to help them.
Bush fires in the next El Nino will be even more frequent, large and hot, and right now a big bushfire are more like firestorms that can kill you from hundreds of metres away. Will your house be OK?
00
What’s the point? Your statement is based on ignorance about the nature of the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle.
ENSO is a wet/dry cycle, not a warm/cool cycle.
During a La Nina, MORE warm ocean waters accumulate around the east coast of Australia than during an El Nino. What makes El Nino years warmer is the lack of evaporation and evapotranspiration due to the lack of precipitation.
El Nino shifts moisture laden air eastward, often causing floods in South America. La Nina causes moisture laden air westward, often causing floods in Eastern Australia.
You may like to gain some knowledge about ENSO at Bob Tisdales blog before further ignorant comment.
00
Maxine,
“There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead”
Labors’ use of deception – a form of lying, has become an artform and a habit.
They have deceived on climate matters and now Andrew Robb has exposed how the Australian economy is going sown the gurgler while Swan at the same time tells us that the Ship is sailing along smoothly.
Don’t you have any doubts about the verbage your beloved Labor party feeds you?
http://barnabyisright.com/2012/03/23/thank-god-for-andrew-robb/#respond
00
Gillard promised no carbon tax and we have no carbon tax. Gillard promised a carbon price mechanism and that is what we have. Try reading not just believing MSM sound bites.
00
Go on then Maxine,
you have the floor.
Explain this mechanism to us.
No, look, on second thoughts, don’t bother.
Better people than you have tried here, and we’ve shredded them.
Tell you what, as a recent blow in, how about you go back through the Threads here and find out for yourself.
Your lot are all the same, the only difference being you have different icons.
No point bothering to shoot you down.
You’re just here to give us some laughs.
See Comment 64.1.1.2.2 above. In just two short sentences, you showed us perfectly that you have no idea at all what you’re talking about, and there’s 9 points of interest that you could even bother to find out information on.
No point repeating it here. It’s all here at this site. Just go looking, but gee, why would you even bother.
You have your belief system, and nothing, let alone the truth, will change you from that.
Oh dear! Are you in for a rude awakening when what you call for comes to pass. Trouble is that you’re subjecting all of us to it, (and I never thought I would ever get to use this line) and it’s our children and their children who are going to suffer.
You? Well you won’t accept any of the blame, just say … “Who? Me?”
Tony.
00
I won’t accept any of the blame? I will accept blame if action is not taken to reduce emissions. That is why I come here, I can open a few eyes and I live my life in a way where I minimise my emissions.
I do not believe, as such. I know the global temps have increased, that is a fact that cannot be argued with. So have C)2 and other GHG emissions. Now, correlation does not imply causation, of course but we do not need to rely on correlation alone since CO2, CH4 etc are greenhouse gases, they let radiation through of the frequencies of visible light but not the longer frequencies when that light is reflected off a surface. That is a fact.
Therefore it is likely that the increase in concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere is keeping more heat in the atmosphere and oceans.
00
Maxine,
If we tell you that nothing you might think you have to offer us will open any eyes here, will you go away?
Tony.
00
That would be a case of the blind trying to influence the enlightened.
00
Hey Maxine,
If hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars cannot be converted into a compelling argument for CAGW, what makes you think an intellectually dishonest maggot like yourself will have any better luck?
00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=cCNYb3XWVTE&NR=1
5 big Julia Gillard lies proven
00
It’s a CARBON TAX dummy.
00
Re Robb’s rubbish of an MPI—maybe have a look at the circumstances applying at the various times.
The current deficits are due to Costello cutting income tax too much. That was paid for by the credit fueled boom 2001-7. Now there is no boom, company tax which now is a major source of tax is depressed because losses in 2008 are being applied to profits now to reduce stated company income & tax due. This is perfectly valid and acceptable, of course. Treas Head said this will be the case for 8-10 years.
Nevertheless Swan has pruned over $25Bn of wasteful Howard expenditure and middleclass welfare. Next Budget will show a surplus, a surplus in todays difficult economic times and about the only surplus in the developed world. The silly Libs are making the surplus bigger by opposing company tax cuts!
00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOMiVVSW_H4&feature=related
Corporate Government by lies and deceit
00
Sonny i cant find your post but you said:
Author: Sonny
Comment:
I open random bottles of soda water to release more C02.
I plan on having 10 or more children.
I only drive cars which achieve incredibly poor fuel economy.
I leave lights On during the day.
I have trained myself to breath out 15% more frequently than the national average.
I purposely stop on freeways to cause huge traffic jams.
I startle cows so they fart and crap themselves.
I ignore that little window that pops up to offset my air mileage.
And with these actions I offset 100 Maxines worth of enviro-quackery.
In reply i would strongly advise you dont do this “I have trained myself to breath out 15% more frequently than the national average” and the reason why is simple.
If you breath to quickly you rob your body of much needed carbon pollution, you see we need carbon pollution to transfer oxygen from red blood cells to our muscules therefore if you dont have enough carbon pollution in your body you will feel lethargic and will become unwell.
While i am here is this caused by excessive carbon pollution or La Nina, maybe Max can tell us
http://iceagenow.info/2012/03/historic-spring-snowstorm-strikes-western-oregon/
00
Yup the very cold winters in US/UK etc is due to global warming.
The Arctic is warming up, esp the Arctic ocean as the icecover has decreased & thinned more light is hitting dark ocean rather than being reflected back into space by thick white ice & snow. This warming is causing Arctic ocean currents and circum Arctic winds to change. This means that lobes of frigid Arctic air can escape southwards causing frigid weather/snow etc.
If you want to know more then ask the UK Met Office to send you their last email newsletter.
00
Dumbass, the incoming light doesn’t care if the ice is thick or thin further, ice is not as reflective as snow. Ask yourself if more snow occurring further south as has happened this year increased total reflective surface of the globe or not? Then ask yourself if open water radiates more to space than ice and snow.
Stick to growing trees and saying your prayers to the false Warming God whilst you shiver and worry. Your ability to grasp how things work is severely challenged.
00
Maxine,
You may consider this to be debating but sadly you have no clue.
This is how a debate SHOULD play out.
Step one, you make a statement:
“The globe is warming, both on land and in the seas. Arctic ice cover and volume are shrinking. Sea levels are rising, the atmosphere holds more moisture because of the warming of the oceans. The oceans are becoming more acid because of increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere. These are facts, recorded over about 150 years for the temperature readings. We need to try and reverse the warming trend while also working to mitigate the warming and its effects—reversing such trend involving a vast system as the atmosphere and the seas won’t be done quickly.”
and other such statements
Step two, you produce any scientific evidence to support your views unfortunately you failed to do so
Step three, i then stated the Arctic is not warming and the sea ice extent is doing quite well and most importantly i produced scientific evidence to support my views.
Step four, you now have a choice you can either produce alternative evidence which contradicts what i have said and we can then debate the merits of each others evidence or you could accept my evidence as being the only evidence but you could explain how you have interpreted the evidence differently to arrive at your polar opposite views.
There is no Step five but if there was a step five for you it would say, ignore everything your opponent states and push ahead with your own beliefs. For example lets take your last statement.
Firstly The Arctic is warming up you have failed to produce any evidence that this is the case so therefore as everything else is based on this premise everything else is not supported by evidence, conversely i have produced evidence which shows you to be wrong.
Secondly,
once again you have failed to produce evidence to support your position and conversely i have produced evidence that proves you wrong.
Thirdly,
this is speculation on your part and is not backed up by evidence.
Fourthly,
A statement based upon heresay does not make it true, you need to provide evidence the Arctic is warming before you can express this theory.
Fifthly,
And now we come full circle which is what happens when we speculate without evidence. In the above statement you have told me that the Arctic is warming up you also told me the ice is melting and getting thinner because the ocean is warming but yet frigid cold air still seems to exist and “escape” to cause record snowfalls elsewhere and this is all caused by man?????????????
I will no longer waste my time entertaining your climate conspiracies, go and predict the end of the world somewhere you wierd little man.
00
One other way to reduce emissions:
Telecommuting over the NBN. This is a quantum leap from trying to telework via ADSL.
Less cars on the road, less gridlock, less emissions.
Broken Hill is lobbying to get the NBN:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-21/broken-hill-lobbies-for-nbn/3903174
00
Sea ice extent is doing well? For the first time in 40 years? And it is extent not volume?
00
Maxine,
This is classic crap and a very good example of what i am trying to say/educate you on.
You said
2012 – 40 = 1972 no go here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_07.pdf
Read what the IPCC have to say and pay particular attention to the graphs showing how much ice there was in 1972, then come back here and mount a rational arguement as to why we have anything to worry about.
Remember everyone who reads this comment are going to do the same and they will all come to the same conclusion so you need to be careful with what you say otherwise you will be show to be nothing but a troll. In fact i dont think you will read it and make any comment at all because that would constitute a debate.
00
All the info I quoted comes from informed, scientific sources. CSIRO, BuMet, UK Met Office, NASA etc.
The sea ice extent has shrunk, volume even more. Sorry you don’t want to accept that but that is your problem.
00
Here is another test of your trollism Max if you look at the data on this website you can plainly see that there is no warming of the arctic
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Obviously this data runs counter to your position and you will simply dismiss it which is OK but the question is why? What is wrong with this data that causes you to dismiss it?
00
Interesting, because that chart shows that for most of this year the temperature is well above the green line showing average temperatures. It seems spring s a tad late in the Arctic so the latest shows the current just slightly under the average temperature, so you cherry pick and look at just the last day and say the Arctic is cooling!
You guys have no idea how to read a graph! Look at days 0-75, actual temperature well above average! That implies the Arctic is WARMING and one day below the average does not mean it is cooling! Read the average, not the statistical blips!
You guys know NOTHING!
00
Maxine,
“The sea ice extent has shrunk” –
–
I wonder what else is shrinking because of climate change? Maybe body parts are repositioning themselves as well? Whatever,it seems to be a problem mainly constrained within the Labor and Green parties.
00
Yet out of those studies and other esoteric, seemingly-useless, specialised scientific research come that discoveries that, via technology, transform our lives.
Since Global Warming is proceeding merrily along studying how it effects animals and people seems quite important to me.
Trying to direct pure science along “practical” or “commercially profitable doesn’t work.
00
Maxine you spruik such nonsense since when have the Government’s Climate lapdogs come out with any information that counters the IPCC. Like you have they have agreed that AGW is settled and that no correspondence should be entered into.
We don’t all follow the faithful in the religion of AGW simply because you or any body else says so.
As far as cooling goes no one on this site is saying the earth is cooling! They are saying it may cool or warm but as far as the case that man is driving this contrivance is a matter for debate and as far as I am concerned the matter is far from settled.
I would suggest you go look at the records that exist to prove your point rather than read and accept what’s put in front of you and stop trying to convince us without copy and pasting reports from various authorities because most of us have read them.
Most people on this site are reasonable and will listen if you have some new evidence but so far your vagueness hasn’t won us over.
00
So CO2 etc are not greenhouse gases? Poppycock!
00
No “etc” is not a greenhouse gas.
Why don’t you go and spruik man made global warming to your friends Over at Youth Climate.
00
Lord Monckton (III) IS A CONSPIRACY THEORIST!!!
”On Dennis Miller’s radio show Thursday Lord Christopher Monckton, a former policy adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and an activist against global warming “alarmism,” went all-in on questioning President Barack Obama’s citizenship.
“… the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley hinted about his position on the issue in April 2010 at a tea party rally on the National Mall near the White House.
But on Miller’s show, he said the birth certificate issue was far more important that combatting so-called anthropogenic global warming.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/22/lord-monckton-im-no-birther-but-obama-birth-certificate-plainly-a-forgery/
00
Monckton is a [snip] ED
00
Woohoo !!
Kevin in Queensland it looks like the LNP party are going to stitch up a rather large win in the State election and from the polling going on on the Courier Mail’s web site it looks like a very substantial margin.
I think Bob Katter’s Australia Party and the ALP are pretty much level pegging.
Oooh this is gonna be sooo good !!!
00
Kevin, my apologies I was trying to respond to your comment at 74.2 with my last but strangely it didn’t work as I expected. I will be more careful next time.
00
Bob,
I will enjoy tonight. I was surprised labor weren’t kicked out at the last election.
The big worry is that Newman is hamstrung by massive debts.
The banks can make or break the new government.
The Banks would achieve their goal much quicker with a compliant socialist party but I suppose the Fabian process of gradualism is the way to go – too many sudden changes while penning the sheep might scatter the flock.
00
Conspiracy Theorists should be called “Truth Seekers” as the Elite are trying to coverup their lies whichever way they can.
People Worldwide are waking up to the lies to keep us down, steal from us and kill others for them, example the same recycled lie of the weapons of mass destruction is proof that they are lying to achieve their objectives which are to invade Syria and soon Iran.
The Osama Bin Laden lie to induce fear to the world, and the massive con job of 9/11, they needed a false flag operation to justify the invasion of Iraq and we know the rest of the story, besides where were the WMDs?
It is up to humanity to stop this charade, the world will be a better place once we get rid off these Oligarchs and there is more of us than them, and even their closest servants will rise against them, it is written in the Bible, sorry don’t mean to preach but these people have it coming and there is NOTHING they can do to stop it….
00
Louis, what was “the massive con job of 9/11”? Do you really believe that 9/11 was a “false flag operation”?
00
[…] […]
00