UK Tories: Abbott a “16th century flat-earther”

You know you’re anti-climate change agenda is in trouble when:

  • the two world super powers turn against you
  • the third largest economy in the world gives you a serve
  • everyone else moves towards new and more aggressive policy action, and…
  • your traditional conservative allies start seeing you as a pre-science troglodyte, From the SMH:

The attitude of Prime Minister Tony Abbott to the global challenges of climate change is “eccentric”, “baffling” and “flat earther”, according to a group of senior British Conservatives.

The group, including Prime Minister David Cameron’s Minister for Energy and a former Thatcher Minister and chairman of the Conservative Party, says Mr Abbot’s position on climate change represents a betrayal of the fundamental ideals of Conservatism and those of his political heroine, Margaret Thatcher.

In a series of wide-ranging, separate interviews on UK climate change policy with The Age, they warn that Australia is taking enormous risks investing in coal and will come under increasing market and political pressure to play its part in the global battle against climate change.

Their comments come almost 25 years to the day since former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher addressed the United Nations to place climate change on the global environmental agenda. “It is mankind and his activities which are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways,”  she said

Just sayin’.

Houses and Holes

David Llewellyn-Smith is Chief Strategist at the MB Fund and MB Super. David is the founding publisher and editor of MacroBusiness and was the founding publisher and global economy editor of The Diplomat, the Asia Pacific’s leading geo-politics and economics portal.

He is also a former gold trader and economic commentator at The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, the ABC and Business Spectator. He is the co-author of The Great Crash of 2008 with Ross Garnaut and was the editor of the second Garnaut Climate Change Review.

Latest posts by Houses and Holes (see all)

Comments

  1. Abbott is just like coal…dirty and out of date. The only difference is he’ll be gone much sooner.

  2. Just to prove not all conservatives are complete arseholes when it comes to science and climate change, here is a sobering op-ed up on the Fox News website that compares our current response to climate change to the short-sited decisions and inaction by the U.S. and Europe in 1914 that lead to World War I.

    The piece, entitled “Time for Real Leadership on Climate Change, Energy and National Security,” was written by David Slayton, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, and David Titley, a Professor of Practice in Meteorology at Penn State.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/03/31/time-for-real-leadership-on-climate-change-energy-national-security/

    So you see, not all righties are wrong.

      • Similar number of lefties that are not insane about it either.

        Alexander Cockburn, Ian Abley, Vincent Gray, Denis Rancourt, Claude Allegre, plenty more……

  3. Abbott’s attitude to climate change is not baffling. It is the reason he got his job and the reason he retains his job.
    Malcolm Turnbulls’s support of Tony Abbott is baffling.

    • Turnbull is just hanging around to see if Abbott implodes before the election. If there’s no sign of it happening by 2016 I think he’ll give the game away.

      Certainly, Malcolm’s popularity is going to take a hit over cutting the ABC and defending Abbott’s ridiculous lies about “No cuts to the ABC and SBS”. FFS Malcolm, just fess up and say, the budget position is worse than we thought, so we have to break that promise. Don’t try to pretend that Abbott didn’t make any promises not to cut.

    • What is it about Turnbull?

      He appears reasonably personable and plausible when I see him on TV – but why do people chomp at the bit as if he was some great political visionary who will save Australia from itself?

      Is that just a reaction to the more numerous political neanderthals you have to contend with?

      Does he have a track record? (I’m a foreigner so am not familiar with his background…but he seems fairly ordinary and run of the mill to me….)

      • Yes Malcom does have a track record.

        Worked fro Kerry Packer as a young lawyer . Famously fell out with Packer. Made his fortune investing in a strip mining type deforestation (logging) of a pacific island , in the Solomon’s.
        To make matters worse he is a silk.

      • It’s for a few reasons: He is not a career politician (like most of them), he is “self-made”, having been a successful lawyer, investment banker, and technology entrepreneur (he founded OzEmail which was one of the early “big” and successful local internet service providers in the late 90s).

        And a big factor is that he was Chairman of the Australian Republican Movement, and gained a big public profile and quite a following during the lead up to the (unsuccessful) republic referendum in 2000.

        So because of all of this I think Turnbull is seen by many people on both sides of the left/right divide as a much better candidate for PM than just about any of the other career politician idiots that we seem to elect.

      • And he screwed every “partner” he’s had in every IT business I’ve seen him involved with.
        Want to see “seriously screwed”? Let’s have Turnbull as PM…

  4. Special request to all LNP party members reading this page: please do everything you can to get Tony Abbott (“global warming is bullshit”) and Joe Hockey (“I find wind turbines offensive”) out of their leadership positions ASAFP.

    Put anyone else in: Malcolm, Julie, whatever.

    Ta from me and most other Aussies!

  5. Hopefully this will give pause to those blinkered loons who see climate change, and doing something about it, as ‘Leftist-greenie crap’.

    I doubt it though.

  6. Apostate Abbott defies Tory saint Thatcher.

    When Tories turn on each other it demonstrates how antediluvian Abbott is.

    • They’re turning on each other because some of them are too intelligent or ethical to buy the line fed to them by the big polluters backing their parties.

      The cognitive dissonance is simply too much for some of them.

  7. The former UK Tory Environment Secretary received more death threats in that role than as Secretary for Northern Island! He famously referred to to activist and bureaucratic element as the ‘Green Blob’, a wicked one at that.

    Measures to combat climate change may be causing more damage than current global warming, a former environment secretary has said. Owen Paterson, who was sacked in David Cameron’s reshuffle in July, attacked what he described as a “wicked green blob” of environmentalists for failing to explain the pause in global warming. –Matt Dathan, The Times, 28 September 2014

    There has not been a temperature increase now for probably 18 years, some people say 26 years. So the pause is old enough to vote, the pause is old enough to join the army, the pause is old enough to pay its taxes. We were never told the pause was coming along, there are – as I understand it – about 30 different explanations for it and nobody explains why the pause is suddenly going to disappear and we’re going to get back on the track upwards. So I’m concerned that the measures being taken to counter projected dangers may actually be causing more damage now than those dangers. –Owen Paterson, The Times, 28 September 2014

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/29/uk-enviro-minister-green-rules-may-cause-more-harm-than-global-warming/

      • C’mon Lorax. There exist a diversity of views, Tory Party included. Abbott is not alone. Just sayin’…

      • No, you’re just a 3d1khead defending the interests of your employers by creating misinformation and doubt where there is none.

      • HAHA! +1

        3d1k – just when I thought you were losing your edge, you come out with this gem! A+.

      • creating misinformation and doubt where there is none.

        Sorta like the crashniks, everyone knows houses only go up in value.

      • Yeah whatever Mig. You know better than the combined work of tens of thousands of climate scientists, thousands of man years of research, and three decades worth of peer-reviewed papers. Yep, Mig the kid who sees conspiracies everywhere and offers 10,000 opinions a day has it all figured out.

        At least with 3d he’s got a good reason for being a Class ‘A’ 3d1khead. You can understand his motivations — self preservation — with you I have no idea. Just a complete absence of common sense I suspect.

      • Didn’t say anything about science whatsoever, didn’t say I knew better than anybody – you did!

    • General Disarray

      The “pause” argument doesn’t take into account average temperatures. The average has climbed throughout the “pause” and it’s the average that matters.

      Is that really beyond the grasp of these people?

      It will be interesting to see what happens when we have another year that breaks the previous peak. I’m guessing the spin will shift to something along the lines of the figures being manipulated.

      Anyway 3d, I’ll look forward to your links about manipulated data and the coming ice age.

    • 3d,

      You no listen.

      There have been 5 pauses in the last 150 years – following each temp has ALWAYS risen. Two pauses were longer than the current. WHY DO YOU ALWAYS IGNORE THIS BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS FACT.

      Also – the pause is obvious – yes. so why then;
      – is there still not one single peak body (including the Saudis and Russians) any where on this planet that has rejected AGW?

      – If it’s all about money – then OK – why has not one single peak body – anywhere on this planet – taken funding form – fossil funded govs – barking far right govs – fossil lobby – etc and – debunked AGW and broken the 100% peak body consensus. Not a single one 3d – NONE!

      I’m expecting the usual non answers 3d. No skeptic can offer a cogent explanation of the above. They don’t even try. Stunned silence is the usual response.

      Why? How is that rational? It does my head in how you can ignore such freaking bullet proof logic… and don’t’ even try to defend it.

      Its like you wearing logic sensitive sunglasses – the sense logic and just block it out …..

      Oh and BTW – pauses have been predicted. That that statement is also utter bullshyt.

      • HR I used Owen Paterson’s view to illustrate Abbott is not alone in taking a moderate approach. Pretty sure Germany’s Industry Minister has had a few disapproving words in regard to the green energy putsch too.

      • Climate cycles have pauses, resumptions, and long term trends with resumptions and reversals. The Hockey stick with its straight handle for centuries is an artifact of straight-out fraud and appeal to authority to advance a lie. It is also historical denial; whereas skepticism about the hockey stick is NOT. Skepticism about the hockey stick is ANTI “denial”.

      • The hockey stick is so 15 years ago – move on. Note my comments above.

        I’m not a cardiologist – so I don’t get up my cardiologist mates about their practices – that would be insane.

        Equally – I’m not a climate scientist – so I observe the peer reviewed advice. Especially when it’s got a 100% peak body consensus.

        I’m not interested in scientifically illiterate cherry picking by armchair Google “experts”.

        Hit me with an intellectually compelling explanation for the 100% peak body consensus …..

      • Come on 3d – defend the indefensible.

        If you won’t defend it – tell me why your position is so fixed in spite of of your ability to defend it….

    • The pause is old enough to vote is it?

      Relatively speaking the pause has not even passed it’s first cell division after fertilisation if you want to represent the comparison to a person accurately…

      Taking the age of the earth as 4.54 billion years, your 26 years represents ~0.00000057% of it’s life span to date.

      Even against the total average human life span, fertilisation occurs at around 0.0000398% of time elapsed (~30 hours.)

      Oh that’s right, I forgot in my rush to consider the accepted science that the earth was actually created by god just a few thousand years ago and all this science stuff is just make believe anyway!

      What was I thinking?

      • Taking the age of the earth as 4.54 billion years, your 26 years represents ~0.00000057% of it’s life span to date.

        So let me ask you, if you were aware of only 0.000000057% of someones life could you predict their state of health in the future?

    • “..employers by creating misinformation and doubt where there is none.”

      Historically, that is what they do.. What gets me, is in the same breath many claim to be rational and respectful science! The fact is they only respect science when it suits them and their ideological and commercial interests.

      • The fact is they only respect science when it suits them and their ideological and commercial interests.

        Same thing happens with economics.

    • “There has not been a temperature increase now for probably 18 years, some people say 26 years.”

      Yeah, except this statement is complete BS and there is no evidence for it.

      The evidence indicates the earth has continued warming, but the warming is far from being equally distributed. Gee you would have thought that the warming is not nicely equally distributed…

      How about instead of reading biased opinion pieces written by morons, such as Owen Paterson, you try to read and understand some science? Maybe this:
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract

    • There has not been a temperature increase now for probably 18 years,

      A 5% probability of no warming (determined from a limited amount of data) does not mean a 100% probability of no warming.

    • I am not Owen Paterson !

      I have expressed my view that diversity of opinion is to be welcomed on the subject. I have not expressed an opinion on climate change as I am prohibited from doing so.

      • Distinguishing between Facts and Opinions

        Facts are statements that can be verified or proven to be true or false. Factual statements from reliable sources can be accepted and used in drawing conclusions, building arguments, and supporting ideas.

        Opinions are statements that express feelings, attitudes, or beliefs and are neither true nor false. Opinions must be considered as one person’s point of view that you are free to accept or reject. With the exception of informed ones, opinions have little use as supporting evidence, but they are useful in shaping and evaluating your own thinking.

        * Informed opinion or testimony – the opinion of an expert or authority

      • 3d…you’re a full-time paid liar. Your so-called “opinions” are just confectionery, invented to divert attention from the facts. There is nothing you have to say on the matter that, prima facie, is likely to be reliable or informative.

        You are a persistent dissembler and free-loader.

      • Our entire economic, technological, industrial, societal frameworks are structured on the exploitation of fossil fuels. There are a multitude of fossil fuel uses not easily replaced by current science. Economies have developed around existing fossil fuel use.

        Over time we will transition away from near total dependency on fossil fuels. As scientific innovation unfolds fossil fuels can assume an orderly realignment of uses in modern life – no rush.

  8. St JacquesMEMBER

    As usual the politicians have it wrong; most Europeans in the 16th century were aware the Earth was round. Our Anti-scientist in Chief has quite some catching up to do.

    • @ 3d1k

      I agree that our entire way of life is embedded in fossil fuels, we are oil& coal

      Where i disagree with you is I recognize that it is also going to kill us, SOON.

      Oil is almost a magical substance , for what we can derive from it.

      To just burn it is so short sighted , A. because we gain so many benefits from it . B. because by doing so we disrupt the climate balance we need to live here.

      We stand on the very verge of being able to produce electricity for power & locomotion by other means, i.e. Solar/wind /wave/ tidal /geo thermal/hydro that to keep relying on fossil fuels is nothing but suicidal vandalism.

      We cannot do it tomorrow, but given enough impetus we can be there in a dacade .I hope we have that long.

    • Usual stuff. And then basically ends it an exhortation to vote Labour – ‘Coz Cameron got you into this mess’.

      Seriously, with that kind of analysis, the young really are fucked.

      • That’s not really the message of that article. It’s much more than that. Maybe you should read it again.

      • 3d is trying to deflect because he supports the majority of bad policy that is screwing the youth.

        Anyway, thanks for the link.

      • Indeed. Young people, everywhere, should organize and form a party dedicated to their issues. The existing political landscape (including the left parties and the green parties) has been hijacked by vested interests and a generation of baby boomers whose sense of self entitlement is unprecedented.

        This is becoming a global phenomenon.. You can no longer trust existing political parties regardless of their orientations. A new dimension needs to be added and that has to be created, driven, and executed by young people because everyone else has failed them.

  9. How about this pathetic spin on the Great Barrier Reef.

    Hey we’re protecting it from stuff. A bit.

    Obama was talking specifically about CLIMATE CHANGE – what is the GBR authority doing to;

    a) cool the water

    b) reduce atmospheric CO2 to prevent further acidification …

    Bishop/Abbot are making us look like international fuckwits.

    • One of the best days of my life is when I heard libertarian denier Andrew Breitbart had died young. I almost started to believe in the same fairies as you, Phil

  10. This will be spun as
    “LNP stands up to the world”
    “takes a stand”
    “strong man Abbott”
    “real leadership in adverse conditions” etc.

    Or it will be ignored, in the main by the Murdoch Press (although the weak arse headline at The Oz is interesting)

    Hang on, just need to go wash my hands after visiting that site….

  11. ROFL.

    Not a big fan of Albo, but no truer words have been spoken about Sir Tony of Abbott ville.

    “In your guts, you know he’s nuts.”

  12. Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.

    Surely some revelation is at hand;

  13. Rent Seeking Missile

    As my mother used to scold me when I was young, ‘And if Michael/John/Peter stuck his head in the oven, would you do it too?’

    The whole anthropogenic global warming thing is not happening, guys. The game is up. What’s worse is the ‘science’ never supported it – there was never a proven correlation between increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide and increased temperatures – let alone causation.

    In fact, given the positive effect it has on plant growth, you would actually want more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than we have now.

    Even if there were causation, the problems this will cause the planet will be minor. The latest IPCC report indicates that the expected costs of the expected warming will equate to 2% of GDP per year. This is far from catastrophe and will most likely be outweighed from the efficiency gains from continuing to use fossil fuels.

    And why should Abbott leave his brain at the door just because Thatcher endorsed anthropogenic global warming 25 years ago? Am I supposed to conclude that you think the principle ‘Is Thatcher, is good’ now applies generally across all public policy?

    You would think the environmentalists would like this – but the green movements’ infiltration by ex-communists following the fall of the Soviet Union means that they prefer to focus on de-industrialising society and demonising ‘climate criminals’ rather than actually helping the environment.

    The other countries are just being bullies. Do you really endorse this behaviour? Do you really endorse their ‘playing the man, rather than the ball’?

    Come on, time for a re-think.

      • Rent Seeking Missile

        And instantly we have an ad-hominem attack.

        I’m a self-employed economist with no ties to the fossil-fuel industry.

      • Rent Seeking Missile

        ‘An economist climatologist! What next!’

        I’m not allowed to do my own research, and think for myself, on climate issues?

      • Climate is an immensely complex subject, so no, going to denialist blogs and soaking up their BS for regurgitation here does not pass as research.

        Bzzzt! You lose.

        It’s been said there’s a sucker born every minute but IMHO the birth rate is higher than that.

      • I’m not allowed to do my own research, and think for myself, on climate issues

        Your position on this matter suggests there’s room for improvement.

        ….but the green movements’ infiltration by ex-communists following the fall of the Soviet Union….
        Have you checked under your bed lately? Honestly, this sort of remark is devoid of substance.

    • You no listen.

      There have been 5 pauses in the last 150 years – following each temp has ALWAYS risen. Two pauses were longer than the current. WHY DO YOU ALWAYS IGNORE THIS BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS FACT.

      Also – the pause is obvious – yes. so why then;
      – is there still not one single peak body (including the Saudis and Russians) any where on this planet that has rejected AGW?

      – If it’s all about money – then OK – why has not one single peak body – anywhere on this planet – taken funding form – fossil funded govs – barking far right govs – fossil lobby – etc and – debunked AGW and broken the 100% peak body consensus. Not a single one 3d – NONE!I’m expecting the usual non answers 3d.

      No skeptic can offer a cogent explanation of the above. They don’t even try. Stunned silence is the usual response.Why? How is that rational? It does my head in how you can ignore such freaking bullet proof logic… and don’t’ even try to defend it.Its like you wearing logic sensitive sunglasses – the sense logic and just block it out …..

      Oh and BTW – pauses have been predicted. That that statement is also utter bullshyt.

      • Rent Seeking Missile

        ‘You no listen’.

        1. Me not 3d.

        2. I didn’t mention pauses. I am not interested in pauses. As far as I’m concerned they don’t prove anything.

        3. Temperatures rise and fall almost completely independently of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Remember – correlation is not causation.

        4. 150 years? Take a look at the temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide measures for the last 1,000,000,000 years. There’s your dataset.

      • 1. Me not 3d.

        You could be. It’s trivial to create multiple accounts using a VPN and different IPs.

        Temperatures rise and fall almost completely independently of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere

        Your source for this is ….?

        Take a look at the temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide measures for the last 1,000,000,000 years. There’s your dataset.

        Strange that expert scientists (not “economists” like you) have come to conclusions quite different to yours!

        Sit down, give your mind a rest – it obviously needs it.

      • RSM,

        “3. Temperatures rise and fall almost completely independently of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Remember – correlation is not causation.”

        Incorrect. The fact that CO2 causes air to absorb more heat is proven empirically and is as certain as the fact that hot air rises.
        This makes a mockery of the “correlation is not causation” BS. We have the physics and that is backed by observation. hence the 100% peak body consensus.

        150 years ….

        a) the current rate of CO2 rise is 40 times faster than the fastest in the previous 800,000 years. More critically, this CO2 spike is occurring in an interglacial – a period during which CO2 historically runs FLAT, (as per the air samples from the last 6 interglacials)

        b) geological times frames are irrelevant. yes in 5,000 years the next ice age will wipe AGW – sure – but what is of interest is the next 50-150 years. Hence geological time frames irrelevant.

        c) coinciding with the CO2 spike is 1) the warmest period in this intergalcial 2) the fastest rate of temperature change, in this interglacial. Now is hotter than the MWP – Greenland has melted yet – because this arm period (50 years) is so far, way shorter than the MWP (300 years).

        Shooting fish in barrel is easy when the science behind you is strong enough to cause a 100% peak body consensus ….

      • Rent Seeking Missile

        ‘You could be. It’s trivial to create multiple accounts using a VPN and different IPs.’

        Honestly.

        ‘Your source for this is ….?’

        http://deforestation.geologist-1011.net/PhanerozoicCO2-Temperatures.png

        ‘Strange that expert scientists (not “economists” like you) have come to conclusions quite different to yours!’

        Not strange to me. Reasonable people have differing opinions about all sorts of things.

        No need for the ‘scare’ quotation marks, I really am an economist.

        ‘Sit down, give your mind a rest – it obviously needs it.’

        Another insult! Oh dear.

      • Rent Seeking Missile

        ‘The 100% peak body consensus …???’

        Is that it’s really not a problem. I told you, in their latest report the IPCC said that they expect costs to be equivalent of 2% of GDP per year.

        So, even if it is happening, it’s not catastrophe. Nowhere near it.

        And that’s the consensus from the peak body.

      • You linked to this graph:
        http://deforestation.geologist-1011.net/PhanerozoicCO2-Temperatures.png

        Let me help you out, RSM:
        http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm

        If what you don’t know can’t hurt you, you’re practically invulnerable.

        As for the 2% gdp costs:

        The 2 per cent figured refers to the economic damage caused by around two degrees of warming. The IPCC says that without “substantial and sustained” emissions cuts the world is already well on its way to that passing that point, however.

        So the world is already locked into paying something approaching that amount, whether emissions are cut or not. And if emissions are not cut, costs are going to be higher – possibly much higher.

      • Rent Seeking Missile

        ‘The fact that CO2 causes air to absorb more heat is proven empirically and is as certain as the fact that hot air rises.
        This makes a mockery of the “correlation is not causation” BS. We have the physics and that is backed by observation. hence the 100% peak body consensus.’

        Yes I know that about CO2. But for whatever reason, it doesn’t translate into actual increases in temperature across the globe.

        ‘a) the current rate of CO2 rise is 40 times faster than the fastest in the previous 800,000 years. More critically, this CO2 spike is occurring in an interglacial – a period during which CO2 historically runs FLAT, (as per the air samples from the last 6 interglacials)’

        That is consistent with the fact that people are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere. I don’t disagree with that – I can’t, it’s obvious. What isn’t obvious is why this is a problem, when higher atmospheric CO2 doesn’t correlate with higher temperatures.

        ‘b) geological times frames are irrelevant. yes in 5,000 years the next ice age will wipe AGW – sure – but what is of interest is the next 50-150 years. Hence geological time frames irrelevant.’

        Not true. Geological time-frames give us useful data for testing the hypothesis of increased atmospheric CO2 giving us increased atmospheric temperatures. That is the context in which I was using them.

        ‘c) coinciding with the CO2 spike is 1) the warmest period in this intergalcial 2) the fastest rate of temperature change, in this interglacial. Now is hotter than the MWP – Greenland has melted yet – because this arm period (50 years) is so far, way shorter than the MWP (300 years).’

        They’re back to growing grapes in northern English vineyards now, are they, like they were in Roman times? 😉

        ‘Heat’ doesn’t mean ‘disaster’. As I’ve said, the IPCC doesn’t think ‘heat’ is ‘disaster’. Increased costs, yes, but well short of catastrophe – and we have to weigh up those costs against the costs to GDP (and thus living standards) of abatement and reducing fossil fuel use?

        I appreciate your not having insulted me!

      • Rent Seeking Missile

        ‘As for the 2% gdp costs:The 2 per cent figured refers to the economic damage caused by around two degrees of warming. The IPCC says that without “substantial and sustained” emissions cuts the world is already well on its way to that passing that point, however. So the world is already locked into paying something approaching that amount, whether emissions are cut or not. And if emissions are not cut, costs are going to be higher – possibly much higher.’

        What happened to ‘the 2% figure refers to costs of mitigation’ statement? I went off on a search to clarify that I was right (and I was).

        You’re just proving my point. It’s not a catastrophe.

        Stop worrying – there are plenty more, and more serious, things to worry about than a reasonably mild change in temperature over the next 100 years.

        And there’s no need to demonise, insult or belittle the people who disagree with you on this question. They are neither monsters nor idiots – they are reasonable people who just happen to see the world differently from you.

        Regarding the link about different causes of temperature change, I agree entirely. And the historical record shows that CO2 really isn’t a significant factor in temperature change. Thanks for the link.

      • RSM,

        Firstly – your IPCC 2% GDP thing sounds like a out of context, factually incorrect cherry pick.

        The card carrying, signed up position of the 100% peak body consensus, includes the positions that
        – the risk of catastrophic warming is significant – if NOT the most likely outcome.
        – that action should be taken to abate CO2.
        Ie Not at all consistent with your cherry pick.

        “Yes I know that about CO2. But for whatever reason, it doesn’t translate into actual increases in temperature across the globe.”

        This statement is utterly incorrect. The warmest period in this interglacial is now. the fastest rate of warming in this interglacial is now. Deep ocean heating continues even if atmospheric warming has paused. But in any case – again – if what you was even remotely correct – why would there be a 100% peak body consensus?!!!!??? ELEPHANT IN ROOM!!

        ” Geological time-frames give us useful data for testing the hypothesis of increased atmospheric CO2 ”
        – a) have a close look at the error bars in past CO2 concentrations (up to 100% of the value) and also the results from the same periods that indicate 750 ppm at the same time as other results indicate 3000 ppm. Plimer removed both the error bars and the 750 ppm results from his chart in heaven and earth. Truth s that we DO NOT have an accurate knowledge of past CO2 and temps beyond the ice ice cores, (900,000 years).
        – b) the elephant again – if what you say was even close to valid – how come we have a peak body consensus ….. ???!!!

        “They’re back to growing grapes in northern English vineyards now, are they, like they were in Roman times?”

        – you could now – it would be uncompetitive with what you can NOW buy at Tesco – but if you were desperate to get drunk (ie during the MWP) – then yes you would grow low yield grapes in northern England. Not exactly cracking evidence that one ….

        ‘Heat’ doesn’t mean ‘disaster’. Etc etc …
        – the IPCC has about a 20% chance of greater than 4C warming and describes it as “CATASTROPHIC” and when you read the impacts – they are quite clearly, catastrophic and particularity so for Australia’s food bowls… 4C rise also runs the risk of a runaway affect due to the thawing of Siberia. methane farting out, methane hydrates gasifying – serious shyt going down actually… Hence the 100% peak body consensus and the exasperation of those peak bodies with attitudes such as yours.

        I appreciate your not having insulted me!
        – I actually respect people and their views and you don’t get anywhere in a debate or learn from others via abuse
        – ad homs are for halfwits I much prefer to slowly bludgeon people into acquiescence …

      • Yes I know that about CO2. But for whatever reason, it doesn’t translate into actual increases in temperature across the globe

        Oh dear gawd, this is tedious. Your statement is demonstrably wrong. Heat continues to collect on Earth as CO2 goes up, as every climate scientist agrees.
        http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

        Geological time-frames give us useful data for testing the hypothesis of increased atmospheric CO2 giving us increased atmospheric temperatures.

        You’re simply ignoring the fact that on geological timeframes the sun was much dimmer, so the CO2 record on those timeframes cannot be taken in isolation. 🙄

        What happened to ‘the 2% figure refers to costs of mitigation’ statement

        The IPCC says governments will have to implement policies that will cost between 0.04 and 0.14 per cent of global consumption growth each year. The average cost could be around 0.06 per cent a year to mitigate AGW, it says.

        As I showed you, the 2% BAU costs is already baked in, and it will climb up to 10%+ (as per the leaked IPCC report).

        Stop worrying – there are plenty more, and more serious, things to worry about than a reasonably mild change in temperature over the next 100 years.

        Mild? According to David Wasdell’s May 2014 analysis “equilibrium temperature increase predicted as a result of current concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gasses is already over 5°C.” I see no way for humans to survive such a rise in global-average temperature.

      • Temperatures rise and fall almost completely independently of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Remember – correlation is not causation.

        Nice non-sequitur there.

    • This comment wins the “dumbest thing on the internet” award for today.

      If your opinion doesn’t obey the laws of physics, you have no right to express it. And if you do, you deserve all the ridicule you get.

      • Rent Seeking Missile

        Yet another ad hom.

        ‘If your opinion doesn’t obey the laws of physics, you have no right to express it.’

        Rubbish. Who gave you the power to decide what people can and cannot say?

        Nobody did. It’s (still, just) a free country.

        And there’s going to be more people saying what I am saying as yet more wheels fall off the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change. Get used to it.

        ‘And if you do, you deserve all the ridicule you get.’

        Oh I’m sooooo shaking in my boots.

      • And if you’re going to call that an ad hominum attack, you don’t even know what that means. There was nothing personal about that, it was purely aimed at your comment. Which was demonstrably wrong.

        Basic, fundamental physics.

      • Rent Seeking Missile

        ‘Dumbest thing on the internet’ is an ad hom.

        ‘Most wrong’ is probably what you ought to have said. (And you would have been wrong).

        Basic, fundamental physics is great – let’s have more of it.

      • More physics – says the person who doesn’t understand the role of greenhouse gases in regulating temperature.

        This is too comical for a Friday afternoon. Maybe try the Andrew Bolt blog.

      • ‘Dumbest thing on the internet’ is an ad hom.

        Calling an argument dumb is not an ad hominem. Capiche?

        Basic, fundamental physics is great – let’s have more of it

        How many Physics courses did you take in your Economics degree? 🙄

      • ‘Dumbest thing on the internet’ is an ad hom.

        I like this example from https://bookofbadarguments.com/?view=allpages :

        “Your ad hominem attacks are evidence that your arguments are baseless,” wrote user226. Rodney began typing his reply “You appear to be too stupid to understand the difference between an insult and an ad hominem attack.”

    • “As my mother used to scold me when I was young, ‘And if Michael/John/Peter stuck his head in the oven, would you do it too?’”

      Abbott is a total F$#@g wanker & hopefully a 1 term loser BUT on climate change I’m afraid I have to agree he’s correct.

      Its a shame to see MB descend into a bully boy club where to say different to the mob will get you outed !

      What a hoot – NOT ! I’ve read enough to come to my own conclusions and that’s that. The world has been heating & cooling in cycles since it all began. Climate scientists have plenty of incentive (and have been caught out) to come up with results that please their paymasters.

      Anyway everyone commenting here should be entitled to say what they believe in – not this puerile ganging up like a bloody lynch mob.

      • “everyone commenting here should be entitled to say what they believe in”

        You are only entitled to what you can argue. And if you’re arguing against physics and scientific evidence, you don’t have an argument. You can’t justify nonsense by saying it’s what you “believe in” and then complain when people point out you are wrong.

        There are plenty of conspiracy theory sites you can go to discuss fairy tales.

      • Yes they’re losing it completely now that China and the US are doing something about it.

        Pretty sure it’s all 3d and his multiple personalities.

      • @DT – -You are only entitled to what you can argue. And if you’re arguing against physics and scientific evidence, you don’t have an argument. You can’t justify nonsense by saying it’s what you “believe in” and then complain when people point out you are wrong.

        There are plenty of conspiracy theory sites you can go to discuss fairy tales.”

        Typical BS response – there is NOT 1 response to this article (including yours) that has the depth in argument to convince either way. That’s an obvious fact that even someone with the DTs can’t argue against.

      • There’s decades of peer-reviewed science. We’ve understood the fundamentals of the science for 150 years. If that’s not enough for you then that says more about you than about the evidence.

      • Anyway everyone commenting here should be entitled to say what they believe in

        Sure. Researchtime can tell us all about Jesus, and I am entitled to mock him. Equally, I can mock your climate denialism. They are both highly irrational “beliefs” for which there is no evidence and have no basis in fact.

        I’ve read enough to come to my own conclusions and that’s that.

        So you’ve read enough to conclude that tens of thousands of climate scientists are plain wrong? Do you not think that perhaps these scientists have read considerably more than you and have come to the opposite conclusion. Indeed, these scientists have devoted their life’s work to studying the climate, examining the evidence, and modelling the impacts of carbon emissions. And yet, they are wrong and you are right because of your “reading”.

        I assume you accept other mainstream scientific theories such as Natural Selection, Plate Tectonics, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. If so, why have you accepted these and not AGW? I mean, Plate Tectonics was very controversial for a while, and amongst many, Natural Selection still is!

        I’m interested in what you think the odds are of AGW being completely wrong. Is it 90%? 80%? 50%? FWIW, I’ll go with 5%.

      • “Typical BS response – there is NOT 1 response to this article (including yours) that has the depth in argument to convince either way.”

        Where are your facts? How do you explain the huge body of scientific research into climate change? Do you have a rational (non conspiracy theory) explanation?

    • @DT – Must read Lord of the Flies again -I’m being reminded of that this morning (WA time)

      Anyway Global warming has FA to do with getting rid of as much pollution as possible -which I am 150% in favour off. It’s ALL about another TAX ! — oh yeah – keep on polluting -buy carbon credits & plant some trees even in another Country. What a F$#@^ joke.

      • @Rob W Where are your facts? How do you explain the huge body of scientific research into climate change? Do you have a rational (non conspiracy theory) explanation?”

        Did you think that up yourself OR copy & paste from the plethora of similar remarks ? Are you a follower or free to think for yourself. (BTW – I’m not really interested 🙂

      • “Are you a follower or free to think for yourself.”

        Do you think the views you’ve expressed are somehow special or unique? If so, that is a very interesting insight.

    • RSM, what are the chances that you, a self-employed economist, understand the problem better than thousands of climate scientists?

      Any rational person would have to conclude the chances are extremely slim. Would you agree? I’m not saying its not possible, just very, very improbable.

      If you are correct, this is scientific failure and/or fraud on a truly epic scale. Again, not impossible, but I wonder why after all this time why the consensus hasn’t collapsed? If there is clear incontrovertible evidence that AGW is flawed then surely there’s enormous prestige (and perhaps even a Nobel) in it for the scientist who exposes it all?

      • Rent Seeking Missile

        Lorax,

        I don’t know if I’m right! It’s possible that I’m wrong, of course. But I’ve thought a lot about this, I’ve read a lot about it, a lot of intelligent and informed people have the same or a similar position. It’s the position that my research and thinking have led me to, and so I can’t lie to myself about what I think is true. Also, this issue has public policy implications, so I feel obliged to speak my mind, especially as the consensus is running so strongly one way and it’s generally ‘open season’ on those who dare to raise their voices against that consensus: that is deeply unhealthy for a society and quite undemocratic, I think.

        The news was so alarming that, a few years ago, I decided to examine the whole thing for myself. ‘We’re all going to die ‘ – who wouldn’t want to do more research?!

        What brings me to my present position is that none of the science can point to a sustained causal relationship between levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and atmospheric temperatures.

        We know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which helps to regulate the earth’s temperature and keep it warm enough for life to exist (well, mammalian life at least). What the scientists can’t demonstrate is large, sustained changes in temperature caused by large, sustained changes in carbon dioxide levels.

        To me, what the scientists have done is made the argument ‘carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, therefore more atmospheric carbon dioxide = more greenhouse effect = hotter world’. Somewhere along the line, hotter world = disaster’ got thrown in there, even though the earth’s climate has never had runaway anything and carbon dioxide is A++ plant food. I suspected the environmental movement caught on to the basic scare story and saw it as a grist for the mill of de industrialising society.

        I became suspicious when the climate scientists began relying on computer models to justify their conclusions. If there was a strong relationship, it should be easy to demonstrate from historical data. They couldn’t and can’t do this. In fact, if any relationship exists, it is one of carbon dioxide levels increasing with a lag after temperature increases, as a result of oceans releasing carbon dioxide as they warm.

        Because of this, it’s no surprise to me that the climate scientists’ models have failed.

        Every scientific hypothesis, in every discipline, ought to be soundly based on the scientific method and logical reasoning. If you are familiar with scientific method and logic, you can examine people’s arguments, and check if they stand up to scrutiny.

        For me, the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming does not stand up to scrutiny because it is not based on scientific method and its logic is flawed.

      • If there was a strong relationship, it should be easy to demonstrate from historical data.

        So it’s easy to look up large variations of atmospheric CO2 in historical data?

        Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.

      • so I feel obliged to speak my mind, especially as the consensus is running so strongly one way and it’s generally ‘open season’ on those who dare to raise their voices against that consensus: that is deeply unhealthy for a society and quite undemocratic, I think.

        That’s exactly what the “creative design” anti-evolutionists say, to a word! 🙄

        They couldn’t and can’t do this. In fact, if any relationship exists, it is one of carbon dioxide levels increasing with a lag after temperature increases, as a result of oceans releasing carbon dioxide as they warm

        Rubbish!
        http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

        Because of this, it’s no surprise to me that the climate scientists’ models have failed.

        The models are remarkably good. Stop reading denialist blogs. 🙄

        For me, the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming does not stand up to scrutiny because it is not based on scientific method and its logic is flawed.

        lol. My conclusion: you’re a microcephalic. And I mean that clinically, in the nicest way

    • but the green movements’ infiltration by ex-communists following the fall of the Soviet Union means that they prefer to focus on de-industrialising society

      Since when did the Soviets try and de-industrialise society? They were very gung-ho about pro-industrialisation.

      • Rent Seeking Missile

        From what I can gather, they changed their tune when it be some obvious that the capitalist system abolsolutely beat the pants off them in the industrialisation race, and when they joined the green movement in order to use it as a vehicle for legislating their social agenda.

        They’ve always hated capitalism. But their slogan ‘capitalism is oppressing you’ wasn’t playing well after the post-war boom. Scaring the pants off people with ‘Capitalism is killing the planet!!’ was a much better bet.

        (This is my opinion, of course).

      • This has become a problem on this site. There are too many bat shit crazy people to remember which ones are real and which ones are poes.

    • What’s worse is the ‘science’ never supported it

      Yes all that research in the 1950s by the US Air force into infra-red heat seeking missiles are stories dreamed up by the left in the same vein as Roswell/Area 51. Or maybe it’s just a CIA plot.

  14. I love the global warming debate. The two contributing factors that no one will talk about are limiting global population and, the result of economic growth. India, for example, uses about 10% of energy per capita as Aus. This, of course, is due to our economic differences. When economic and population growth have finished with us we’ll fry.

      • Rent Seeking Missile

        You really think that all expressions of contrary opinion are a result of gullibility or mendacity?

        It’s not possible for reasonable, well-informed people to disagree with you?

      • You really think that all expressions of contrary opinion are a result of gullibility or mendacity?

        Anyone who makes the claim there is NO warming in 18 etc years, zero, zippo, zilch is plainly mendacious. Plenty of those people around.

  15. send in the shills baby! 99% of this thread filled w/Astroturfers. Yeah, lets fuck up developing nations with more pollution and increase our (already insane) electricity and fuel prices until we can no longer move. Sweet 🙂

  16. World Bank 2014 Climate Change – Deep Uncertainties

    A cascade of uncertainties plagues climate change, and these uncertainties preclude prediction of the precise nature, timing, frequency, intensity and location of climate change impacts. The chain of increasing uncertainty begins with assumptions about the socio-economic characteristics of the global population, which determine the specification of a range of possible emissions scenarios. Estimates of climatic effects depend not only on the scenarios chosen but also on the configuration of the climate model used and existing knowledge of biophysical responses. Additionally, the farther into the future our projections, the greater the uncertainty. Uncertainty is also compounded by geographical resolution: uncertainty increases as the resolution of effects increases, from regional to country to local impacts. Even climate experts are unlikely to agree on a prediction of specific impacts of climate change.

    Many go even further in rejecting the specification of probabilities for climate change impacts because of the lack of repeated experiments, lack of independent observations, and the fact that all probabilities are conditional on a multitude of socio-economic and other developments.

    ‘Future emissions of greenhouse gases, which will shape future climate change. Future emissions, in turn, are driven by demographic and socioeconomic trends, technology, values and preferences, policies, which are also deeply uncertain. Scientists have developed emissions scenarios to capture a wide range of potential emissions trends that consider these diverse drivers.

    – Scientific uncertainty and modeling limitations. These limitations are a result of our imperfect knowledge of the climate system and of the systems that climate, in turn, affects, such as lakes, glaciers and ecosystems. In particular, “climate sensitivity” refers to the increase in global mean temperature from a doubling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This sensitivity is uncertain.

    – Irreducible natural variability. Global climate variables have their own dynamics linked to the chaotic behavior of the climate system.’

    ‘ All climate models use the same knowledge base and are based on the same basic methodologies. So it is very likely that all models share common biases, making the epistemic uncertainty larger than the differences across models. Thus, testing project robustness, looking outside the range of model results is advisable.’

    There’s more…

    • Interesting that the propaganda machine has moved on from outright denial to “it’s happening but we don’t know what will happen”.

      Some have even moved into “yes it’s happening and we’re causing it, but it’s not a bad thing”.

      You’ll get there too 3d.

    • It’s also completely uncertain what chance you have, as an individual, of getting cancer from smoking. So would you take up smoking on that basis?

    • So we should do nothing?

      As you know – the problem we have is this.

      To be able to very accurately predict the outcomes, we’d need about 1,000 years of high frequency data for about every cubic kilometer in the ocean and possibly higher in the atmosphere – but we don’t.

      We know we are adding heat. We know it will get warmer. By how much? Maybe a little, maybe a lot.

      So – you seems to say lets throw risk management out the door and do nothing…..????

      irrational 3d…

      Why are you so opposed to action? It’s not even that hard – US has already peaked – China will before 2030 …. Is not that hard.

    • 3d = merchant of doubt.

      That’s why he’s here people, to spread doubt and prevent action that will hurt his employer.

  17. The IPCC climate modelling is so primitive it is a sick joke. The models only allow for solar influence through TSI, which changes minutely. They ignore all the other influences of the sun including sunspots, magnetic field variation and wavelength of emitted radiation. These vary much more significantly than the TSI and have significant correlations with global temperature.

    To fill the gap left by essentially ignoring the solar variation they used a correlation between CO2 increase and temperature rise. So primitive and naive it is laughable as it ignored the increased solar activity though the calibration period.

    Meanwhile many parts of the northern hemisphere are setting record low temperatures:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/18/us-usa-weather-cold-idUSKCN0J227820141118
    And record snow falls:
    http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000331509

    Australia recorded one of the best snowfalls in decades in 2014:
    “With over two metres of snow falling in a two week period, Perisher Ski Resort reported that 2014 has been “one of the best in decades in terms of snow depth and consistency”.

    Due to great snow falls Perisher is extending their snow season till October 10th. (Note: Ski Rider closed for the season on Friday 26th September).”
    http://www.skirider.com.au/winter-season-2014-wrap-up-from-ski-rider/

    A decade ago climate modellers concluded that Australia would not get enough snow now to bother with a snow season.

    Sea ice in Antartica reached record levels in 2014:
    http://www.deftnews.com/2014/extent-of-antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-record-levels-scientists-say/

    Anyone who takes the time to understand how the IPCC modellers arrived at their dire predictions will appreciate why they have been so wrong. They now dream up all weird and wonderful distractions such as wavy jetstreams, new ocean currents, missing heat in oceans and a myriad of other implausible explanations rather than accepting that their models and theory failed.

    Scientists monitoring solar activity have been much closer to predicting the ups and downs of climate. Cycle 24 has low activity and will be a long one:
    http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
    So the cooling we have had for the last 18 years will continue for a while yet:
    http://www.sott.net/article/256803-Why-should-we-be-concerned-about-the-next-cold-climate-era

    • Rick-turfer, do you have any idea why we are seeing record rainfalls and snowfalls around the world?

      • Rick-turfer, do you have any idea why we are seeing record rainfalls and snowfalls around the world?

        I’ll answer my own question ’cause the “Rick” head of the hydra is awol.

        “When we looked at the association between the intensity of rainfall extremes and a record of global mean near-surface atmospheric temperature, rainfall intensity was found to increase at a rate of between 5.9% and 7.7% for each degree, depending on the method of analysis. Snow also increases (it’s just frozen rain).

        “This kind of change is precisely what can be expected if one assumes that the intensity of the most extreme rainfall events will scale with the capacity of the atmosphere to hold moisture. This is well known to increase with temperature at a rate of about 7% per degree.”

    • Firstly — eerrr Sea Ice – SEA ICE – In the case of Antarctica – that is what comes off the glaciers! It is what is expected under AGW is supports AGW. Check the ICE VOLUME on land. It’s down – as expected. Ice has increased in the East I think due to higher precip (due to WARMER more humid air off south America) but – it’s warmer, total on-land volume is down and glacier flow (leading to sea ice) is up…. I point you to this 100% peak body consensus thing …..

      There still not one single peak body (including the Saudis and Russians) any where on this planet that has rejected AGW?

      – If it’s all about money – then OK – why has not one single peak body – anywhere on this planet – taken funding form – fossil funded govs – barking far right govs – fossil lobby – etc and – debunked AGW and broken the 100% peak body consensus.

      Not a single one – NONE!

      No skeptic can offer a cogent explanation of the above. They don’t even try. Stunned silence is the usual response.Why? How is that rational? It does my head in how you can ignore such freaking bullet proof logic… and don’t’ even try to defend it.

      Its like you wearing logic sensitive sunglasses – the sense logic and just block it out.

      • Re:
        “Firstly — eerrr Sea Ice – SEA ICE – that is what come off the glaciers! It is what is expected under AGW is supports AGW.”

        This is one of those implausible ideas dreamt up after the theory failed. The story was different 20 years ago before the globe began cooling again:
        “Reduced sea ice will provide safer approaches for tourist ships and new opportunities for sightseeing around Antarctica and the Arctic (IPCC 1996, WG II, Section 7.5.5”.

        Re:
        “There still not one single peak body (including the Saudis and Russians) any where on this planet that has rejected AGW?”

        Statement is incorrect. This extracted from the Geological Society of Australia newsletter:

        “Regardless of whether climate change is from natural or anthropogenic causes, or a combination of both, human societies would benefit from knowing what to expect in the future and to plan how best to respond. Just as we now attempt to prepare for intense, but short-lived disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides and volcanic eruptions, so preparations should be made for other variables such as climate change that may have more wide- spread and longer term effects. The GSA makes no predictions or public policy recommendations for action on climate beyond the generally agreed need for prudent preparations in response to potential hazards, including climate change.

        http://www.gsa.org.au/pdfdocuments/publications/TAG_165%20TAG.pdf

        Many more peak bodies are examining their policy on AGW given the fact that the globe has been cooling for 18 years.

      • The Geological Society of Australia is controlled by the Minerals Council and has never endorsed the climate science. It’s full of fossils like Ian Plimer.

        AUSTRALIA’S peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.

        After more than five years of debate and two false starts, Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton said a statement on climate change was too difficult to achieve.

        The backdown, published in the GSA quarterly newsletter, is the culmination of two rejected position statements and years of furious correspondence among members. Some members believe the failure to make a strong statement on climate change is an embarrassment that puts Australian earth scientists at odds with their international peers.

        And no, no true peak body is reconsidering anything.

      • Rick,

        No cigar. That statement caused an uproar and was retracted.

        Geological Society of Australia

        After a long and extensive and extended consultation with society members, the GSA executive committee has decided not to proceed with a climate change position statement

        Graham Lloyd (June 4, 2014). “Earth scientists split on climate change statement”. The Australian. Retrieved June 4, 2014

        I do my homework, Rick.

        Either way – if the since is so completely stupid as you suggest – why can not even the Oz Geos agree that it’s BS?

      • Okay, that’s a link to “Rick Astley – Never Gonna Give You Up”

        We’ve jumped the shark

        That’s it, this article is done, stick a fork in it! 😉

    • The IPCC climate modelling is so primitive it is a sick joke.

      If its so primitive why hasn’t it been exposed and why didn’t the consensus collapse years ago?

      Genuine question.

      • Re:
        “If its so primitive why hasn’t it been exposed and why didn’t the consensus collapse years ago?”

        No scientist would seek a consensus to support a theory. The consensus is a contrived construct of a political body. Any scientist is aghast at the idea that a consensus has any meaning in science. It is the basis of IPCC argument, which is politically motivated. No scientist would ever seek a consensus to test a theory.

        As soon as anyone mentions the consensus regarding AGW I know they have not looked through the data themselves and understood it.

      • Exactly, it is the nature of the scientific method to try to expose flaws in your peers work. So why hasn’t this happened?

        If there is clear, incontrovertible evidence that AGW is flawed why hasn’t this been exposed?

        Again, genuine question.

      • Rick,

        Incorrect.

        The scientific academies have singed joint statements supporting the IPCC position on climate change.

        Peak bodies, separatley have formal position statements on climate change – and not a single one has a position statement rejecting the IPCC position. or AGW.

      • Re:
        “If there is clear, incontrovertible evidence that AGW is flawed why hasn’t this been exposed?”

        It is highly unlikely that you will find any scientist or engineer say that humans are not capable of altering the climate. In fact I expect most would know the climate was altered during the 1960s open air nuclear testing era. On the other hand a very large number disagree with the IPCC projection of 4C rise by 2100 due to continuing use of fossil fuels.

        Google “IPCC predictions flawed” – I get 187k hits. You will find many scientists skeptical of the IPCC predictions and offering more plausible theories that the data actually supports.

        We now have the situation with those accepting the IPCCs position on AGW without question, denying that the globe is cooling.

      • Google “IPCC predictions flawed” – I get 187k hits

        Oooh, that’s new. Decide on the truth of science by Google hits!

        I googled “obama is an alien” and got 27,500,000 results. I’m sold!

        You will find many scientists people who are not climate scientists skeptical of the IPCC predictions and offering more plausible theories that the data actually supports

        Fixed

      • Rick,

        So all the leading scientists at organisations like NASA, NOAA,CSIRO, JAXA, ESA – in Russis, Germany, China, Saudi, Iran, Israel, UK, canada – so crossing politics, culture, types of government and scientific discipline – are ALL completely stupid, or corrupt or gormless … all of them…

        OK Rick …..

        It’s either that or the other possibility – is that the science is solid, or at least the current evidence supports AGW ….

  18. I’m starting to get a carpet burn from all the astroturf here today.

    The lobby is sinking into irrelevance but the band is playing louder and louder.

      • Rent Seeking Missile

        I wish!

        I could do with the money.

        But I’m fascinated that you see conspiracies everywhere.

        In also fascinated that anyone who disagrees with the consensus is labelled ‘troll’ or ‘astroturfer’.

        It’s as if you really do want to live in an echo-chamber.

      • It’s well known that lamebrains armed with simple, spurious messages are employed to attack sites like this. That’s well documented, not a conspiracy theory.

  19. About to annoy most, but it must be said.

    I have always been quite green in my politics, but we must not let the greens get their way always. Tony Abbotts is outspoken and I believe wrong on coal, that said we should not let the US and UK lecture us when they are wrong.

    Australia has done more to actually cut emissions, while not fully believing in climate change than the UK or US has (according to yesterdays OZ). Both the US and UK are good at say one thing and doing another, if either has reduced CO2 it is due to the recession more than anything else.

    China has a likely strong rise in CO2 emission per capita over the next 20 years at least as it fully urbanised.

    They are black pots calling the semi cleaned kettle dirtier.

    If we want to go green, I have tried it, it is fairly straight forward, but not easy. Drive the smallest engined car your EGO will allow, plant a garden of veggies and fruit trees, walk when you can and bus when you can’t as much as possible. Buy local food, give all your cast offs to charity shops and buy all you can from them.

    We do and actually save more on one wage with two small kids (8 and 6) than we did with no kids and two wages.

    If you have no garden, all the electronic gismos, twice the clothes you will ever wear, spend the weekends in cafes and pubs with import beer from Belgium or similar – then fly to Europe or Asia each year – telling the world you are green then count up your own CO2 use age.

    Farming and mining are big CO2 creators, but what is wiser no farms or mines and import it from a country with higher CO2 / unit output, but sing the national CO2 is down, global CO2 up, song.

    Our salvation must be in controlling our consumption, recycling and growing our own food as much as possible domestically or in our own farms. Yeah, I am old now!

    • Did yopu know US CO2 emissions peaked already? In 2006, prior to the GFC.

      Oz is flirting with it’s peak.

      So this is pretty well wrong;

      “Australia has done more to actually cut emissions, while not fully believing in climate change than the UK or US has (according to yesterdays OZ). Both the US and UK are good at say one thing and doing another, if either has reduced CO2 it is due to the recession more than anything else.”

      The US was heading down PRIOR to the GFC – in fact whilst their boom, boomed.

      http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/

      UK peaked long ago;
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_the_United_Kingdom

      Please don’t come to this debate nothing but incorrect, baseless assertions … Don’t make stuff up. That’s half the problem…

    • As well as the fuel efficient car and backyard produce, Australia is in the very fortunate position of having abundant sunlight. That makes off grid power economically viable for households now. I have most of my household load running off-grid but it is still worth my while to stay on grid to collect the income from export. Overall household energy is in profit for me. On a good day I make around $8 exporting power:
      http://www.rickwill.bigpondhosting.com/Power_Oct_Nov_14.png

      The economics for off-grid power gets better every day as batteries and panels get cheaper – might change if our exchange rate falls much more.

      The use of rooftop solar is contributing to Australia’s reduced CO2 output since 2008:
      http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/d616342d-775f-4115-bcfa-2816a1da77bf/files/nggi-quarterly-update-dec13.pdf

      • Re:
        “Did you forget to switch personas before posting this? ”

        I installed solar because it made economic sense. I then installed batteries and more solar because that made economic sense. I am on the top FIT. Using 8 minute solar is not inconsistent with using fossilised solar just smarter in my view. However if it was not an economic proposition I would not have solar.

  20. @HR and Mamba

    That was one of the best academic ‘bar fights’ I’ve ever seen! No surprise you’re the only ones left standing.
    My shout to wet yer whistle and clean your teeth.

    Thanks for the info and links.

    ( Note: we better get a move ‘in and hence the urgency coming from everywhere)

    Walks to the porch, sits on the picnic bench and grabs the 6 string and remembers one by Little Feat.

    “And I’ve been kicked by the wind
    Robbed by the sleet
    Had my head stoved in
    But I’m still on my feet
    And I’m willin’, oh, I’m willin'”
    “To be movin'”

  21. Honestly – the most embarrassing list of comments I have ever come across on the web.

    I have been in IT since the early 90’s, was coding in the early 80’s and was one of the first people to attend world earth summit PRIOR to the Rio conference in ’92 in 1989.

    I have been reading online commentary of global warming from total acceptance without any political interference, to the rise and rise of the merchants of doubt, to quiet acceptance but well considered fight back.

    To be reading people actually trying to claim, literally arguing that it does not exist is one of the most disheartening, shocking and above all embarrassing things I have had to endure.

    It is profoundly depressing to think my country is akin to the backwardness I used to envisage South Africa as, Zimbabwe, but to now have to conclude that we have been utterly over run by morons, totally feckless, gormless, asinine idiots – stupid, stupid people is sad.

    Rent Seeking Missile, 3d1k et al, the simple truth is that you are idiots. Stupid people. You think you’re smart because you can earn a buck – you’re not. Conservatism is, unfortunately, clinically, scientifically proven to be genetically driven by fear, it is clinically proven to be a regressive mind set of diminished capacity. Its a fact.

    Stupid people driven by fear, terrorised, grasping at the most mundane, puerile logic.

    Devastating to have to watch it unfold in what I thought was a country on the pathway to progress being pulled back by the saddest, regressive, dullards humanity has ever offered up.

    What beggars belief however is that you continue to argue. In the light of global scientific consensus beyond any other issue ever explored by science – you persist with your denial. Astonishing. At what stage do you sit down in the room of mirrors and say wow – if I can be this wrong, this stupid, this totally inept and utterly moronic – what else am I missing.

    The truth is you are “that guy” at the BBQ, you are “that guy” at school, “that guy” at the party. The embarrassing, stupid idiot who just doesn’t even realise how reviled they are and how disgusted everyone is with their behaviour.,

    • +many

      Your words a wasted though. The kind of ignorance that lends itself to this kind of denial is the same ignorance that blinds them to themselves. They genuinely, truly think that they know better than the entire scientific community. There is no rational argument, no amount of evidence that can convince them.

    • The Traveling Wilbur

      I believe the terminology you’re grasping for towards the end of your thoughtfully constructed rant is “narcissistic sociopath”.

      Not necessarily endorsing that viewpoint btw – just trying to help out a fellow 90s IT prof. and wordsmith with the mental imagery.

    • Yes its the stupidity that gets me. 3d1k I can excuse because he is a paid mouthpiece, and would no doubt happily argue the opposite case if paid appropriately.

      Its the guys who pretend to understand the science and have cleverly seen through its flaws that leave me flabbergasted. What is it that makes them think after few days skimming through denialist blogs they know more than the combined efforts of climate scientists over three decades? Is it ego? Some kind of psychiatric condition? Or just plain recalcitrance?

      One thing is for sure, they all demonstrate an extraordinary lack of common sense.

      • “Is it ego?”

        I don’t think it is stupidity (although I could be wrong). I used to think it was a special combination of ideology and denial, but I’m starting to think it is partly ego. Maybe they honestly believe they’re somehow special and able to see things highly trained and experienced scientists don’t see. I think we should do a mini Macrobusiness study into the subject!

    • Rent Seeking Missile

      LOL!

      And how do you think you look to ‘us’, Leviathan?

      If you think I’m wrong, please debate me and show me where I’m wrong.

      I’m open to reason and can admit when I’m wrong.

      But I’m not going to take yours or anyone else’s word for something that quite plainly, on all the evidence I’ve seen, isn’t happening.

      • RSM, I didn’t want to debate the science. I’m pretty damn sure neither you or I understand the science well enough to make a judgement.

        I will ask the question again. Hopefully you will answer it this time.

        What are the chances that you, a self-employed economist, understand the problem better than thousands of climate scientists? Any rational person would have to conclude the chances are extremely slim. Would you agree?

        I’m not saying its not possible, just very, very improbable.

        If you are correct, this is scientific failure and/or fraud on a truly epic scale. Again, not impossible, but I wonder why after all this time why the consensus hasn’t collapsed? If there is clear incontrovertible evidence that AGW is flawed then surely there’s enormous prestige (and perhaps even a Nobel) in it for the scientist who exposes it all?

        Why hasn’t this happened?

      • Rent Seeking Missile

        I answered you, Lorax. I’m not sure at all. But my reasoning leads me to this conclusion, and I’ve seen scientists get things wrong before – not least because it comes with the territory in economics!

        Another thing that comes with the territory in economics is everyone having an opinion about it, despite having little or no training in the discipline. That’s fine with me, but why should it be acceptable in economics and not in climate science?

      • DNA was discovered in 1869, but for a long time, it was kind of the unappreciated assistant: doing all the work with none of the credit, always overshadowed by its flashier protein counterparts.

        Even after experiments in the middle part of the 20th century offered proof that DNA was indeed the genetic material, many scientists held firmly that proteins, not DNA, were the key to heredity. DNA, they thought, was just too simple to carry so much information.

        It wasn’t until Watson and Crick published their all-important double-helical model of the structure of DNA in 1953 that biologists finally started to understand how such a simple molecule could do so much. Perhaps they were confusing simplicity with elegance.

        Phlogiston, proposed in 1667 by Johann Joachim Becher, was another element to add to the list (earth, water, air, fire and sometimes ether); it wasn’t fire itself, but the stuff fire was made of. All combustible objects contained this stuff, Becher insisted, and they released it when they burned.

        Scientists bought into the theory and used it to explain a few things about fire and burning: why things burned out (must have run out of phlogiston), why fire needed air to burn (air must absorb phlogiston), why we breathe (to get rid of phlogiston in the body).

        Today, we know that we breathe to get oxygen to support cellular respiration, that objects need oxygen (or an oxidizing agent) to burn and that phlogiston just doesn’t exist.

        A couple of hundred years later, Albert Einstein’s work would take us in a whole new direction, viewing gravity as the curvature that objects cause in space-time. And it’s not over. To this day, physicists are ironing out the kinks and trying to find a theory that works equally well for the macroscopic, microscopic and even subatomic. Good luck with that

        But 10,000 scientist MUST be right!

      • But my reasoning leads me to this conclusion

        We are not bloody well interested in what your self-employed (unemployed more likely) economist’s “reasoning” leads you to conclude, idiot.

        But 10,000 scientist MUST be right!

        When it’s 10,000 scientists over 150 years, with no climate scientists taking the opposing side, then yeah, you’re pretty safe concluding they’re on the right track.

      • Rent Seeking Missile

        Lorax, I apologise I realise now that no I didn’t give you the answers that you’d asked for.

        My excuse is that I’ve been preoccupied with preparing presentations for a conference – Friday afternoon was a bit of ‘free time’ for me so I waded into this topic, I didn’t realise the conversation would extend through the weekend.

        1. ‘What are the chances that you, a self-employed economist, understand the problem better than thousands of climate scientists? Any rational person would have to conclude the chances are extremely slim. Would you agree?I’m not saying its not possible, just very, very improbable.’

        I think the chances are better than you put them. As I said previously, all scientific work can be judged against its adherence to scientific method and the logic of the arguments in which it is presented.

        It’s not a matter of scientific knowledge, expertise or qualifications alone. Anyone can inform themselves of scientific method and logical reasoning, and use this knowledge to present a critique of hypotheses in any branch of science. My scepticism about the current consensus is based on my thinking that the reasoning of the arguments presented is weak, and that the climate scientists who promote the hypothesis cannot demonstrate evidence from history which supports their hypothesis.

        In the case of climate science, it helps to know something of statistics as well. I have this knowledge. The rest, specific knowledge about climate science, I’ve been able to gather from my readings to a degree that I can understand what is being discussed. Of course, my area knowledge isn’t near that of a climate scientist. But that doesn’t mean that these scientists can’t make mistakes, and that outsiders can’t pick up these mistakes.

        I can’t put a number on the chances, but as you would expect I think it’s a better than even chance that I’m right that AGW isn’t changing temperatures significantly, isn’t going to do so, and that it isn’t anything of a threat to humanity or to the planet. If someone disagrees (as many do) – then it’s time to put our money where our mouths are and lay bets! That’s the best way of testing the strength of one’s convictions.

        2. ‘If you are correct, this is scientific failure and/or fraud on a truly epic scale. Again, not impossible, but I wonder why after all this time why the consensus hasn’t collapsed? If there is clear incontrovertible evidence that AGW is flawed then surely there’s enormous prestige (and perhaps even a Nobel) in it for the scientist who exposes it all?Why hasn’t this happened?’

        Yes, if I and others are correct it is indeed scientific failure and fraud on an epic scale. I would say that it has some parts of both – partly from a young science learning its way, partly from scientists’ overconfidence in their models, and partly from fraud, as the Climategate emails and the ‘hockey stick’ scandal have demonstrated.

        It’s also the case that parts of the climate science community made v. big claims for what they expected to happen – why they did this, I don’t know – and now that these events haven’t happened and aren’t likely to happen they have egg on their faces.

        I’m not sure that the consensus existed in the first place. Scientists tend to be a prickly bunch, prone to disagreeing over even small points at issue, and not particularly open to being herded into a group. The IPCC process has been criticised by scientists working within it for misrepresenting their arguments and conclusions, and there are plenty of serious, professional-minded scientists who disagree with many of the conclusions which are presented as the consensus opinion.

        There have been many scientists who have criticised the AGW hypothesis. But rather than being met with applause and having received prestige, they have been demonised and slandered by other scientists, by civil society groups and by politicians! For me, as you can guess from my position, I find many of their arguments convincing, but they’re having a hard time of it.

        I think to answer this question we have to leave the world of science and enter the field of personal and group psychology and group dynamics. Who was it said that ‘science advances one funeral at a time?’ I think it was a physicist. If this sort of behaviour can affect physics, the queen of the sciences, then it is likely also to affect climate science.

        Hope this helps.

      • Leviathan, “concern trolls” like RSM never look at data, so you’re wasting your time.

        There have been many scientists who have criticised the AGW hypothesis. But rather than being met with applause and having received prestige, they have been demonised and slandered by other scientists

        Total bullshit. Show me where “many [climate] scientists have criticized the AGW “hypothesis”.

      • Rent Seeking Missile

        [I’ll try again:]

        Leviathan, you’ve linked to data which shows temperatures rising.

        What are you asking me to accept? That temperatures are rising?

        Yes, I can accept that. I have no problem with accepting that. I avoid being lumped in the ‘mentally ill’ bucket this round.

        If that’s your argument, then yes you win – but I don’t know against whom, because I’m not arguing against you.

        Apologies for my late reply. I didn’t expect this discussion to continue, but I’m now clicking the ‘send an email’ button so that I’ll know when people reply, so I’m happy to continue this conversation.

  22. Rent Seeking Missile

    Leviathan, you’ve linked to data which shows temperatures rising.

    What are you asking me to accept?

    That temperatures are rising? Yes, I can accept that. I have no problem with accepting that. I avoid being lumped in the ‘mentally ill’ bucket this round.

    If that’s your argument, then yes you win – but I don’t know against whom, because I’m not arguing against you.

    Apologies for my late reply. I didn’t expect this discussion to continue, but I’m now clicking the ‘send an email’ button so that I’ll know when people reply, so I’m happy to continue this conversation.