Rational Advice on ‘Carbon Act’ Censored

ON Friday President Barrack Obama praised the House of Representatives for passing the ‘Clean Energy and Security Act’.  Everyone agrees that it’s far reaching legislation, and Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has made mention of the event as a reason for Australia to hurry-up with its own emissions trading laws.  

The US Environment Protection Agency had one of its employees, Alan Carlin, critique the supporting technical documentation for the legislation.  Mr Carlin’s report advised that the scientific hypothesis on which the draft legislation is based is seriously flawed. He lists its failings as:

“1. Lack of observed upper tropospheric heating in the tropics

2. Lack of observed constant humidity levels, a very important assumption of all the IPCC models, as CO2levels have risen

3. The most reliable sets of global temperature data we have, using satellite microwave sounding units, show no appreciable temperature increases during the critical period 1978-1997, just when the surface station data show a pronounced rise. Satellite data after 1998 is also inconsistent with the GHG/CO2/AGW hypothesis.

4. The models used by the IPCC do not take into account or show the most important ocean oscillations which clearly do affect global temperatures, namely, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and the ENSO. Leaving out any major potential causes for global warming from the analysis results in the likely misattribution of the effects of these oscillations to the GHGs/CO2 and hence is likely to overstate their importance as a cause for climate change.

5. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility of indirect solar variability, which if important would again be likely to have the effect of overstating the importance of GHGs/CO2.

6. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility that there may be other significant natural effects on global temperatures that we do not yet understand. This possibility invalidates their statements that one must assume anthropogenic sources in order to duplicate the temperature record. The 1998 spike in global temperatures is very difficult to explain in any other way.

7. Surface global temperature data may have been hopelessly corrupted by the urban heat island effect and other problems which may explain some portion of the warming that would otherwise be attributed to GHGs/CO2. In fact, the Draft TSD [technical supporting documentation] refers almost exclusively in Section 5 to surface rather than satellite data….

“These inconsistencies between the TSD analysis and scientific observations are so important and sufficiently abstruse that in my view EPA needs to make an independent analysis of the science of global warming rather than adopting the conclusions of the IPCC and CCSP without much more careful and independent EPA staff review than is evidenced by the Draft TSP. Adopting the scientific conclusions of an outside group such as the IPCC or CCSP without thorough review by EPA is not in the EPA tradition anyway, and there seems to be little reason to change the tradition in this case.

“If their conclusions should be incorrect and EPA acts on them, it is EPA that will be blamed for inadequate research and understanding and reaching a possibly inaccurate determination of endangerment. Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until about 2030 given the 60 year cycle described in Section 2) there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain much of the available data.

“Finally, there is an obvious logical problem posed by steadily increasing US health and welfare measures and the alleged endangerment of health and welfare discussed in this draft TSD during a period of rapid rise in at least CO2 ambient levels. This discontinuity either needs to be carefully explained in the draft TSD or the conclusions changed.”

Mr Carlin’s report was suppressed even within the EPA, but a copy leaked to meteorologist and blogger Anthony Watts who has posted it here: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/endangermentcommentsv7b1.pdf  [4 MB pdf]


78 Responses to Rational Advice on ‘Carbon Act’ Censored

  1. SJT June 29, 2009 at 10:52 pm #

    6. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility that there may be other significant natural effects on global temperatures that we do not yet understand. This possibility invalidates their statements that one must assume anthropogenic sources in order to duplicate the temperature record. The 1998 spike in global temperatures is very difficult to explain in any other way.

    That reasoning is so obviously flawed it could not have been written by a skeptic. Every scientific problem try to solve is going to be open to that accusation. How do we even know there is a force of gravity, maybe it is really just invisible fairies holding everything down. The 1998 is easily explained by the El Nino that happened in that year.

  2. Jan Pompe June 29, 2009 at 11:15 pm #

    SJT: “How do we even know there is a force of gravity,” the evidence for the existence of the force of gravity is rather more pervasive and consistent than for the existence os AGW.

    “The 1998 is easily explained by the El Nino that happened in that year.”

    Precisely “other significant natural effects” is by far the best explanation; glad you agree on that one.

  3. MattB June 30, 2009 at 12:16 am #

    This gets a good thrashing at Realclimate http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/langswitch_lang/de

  4. hunter June 30, 2009 at 12:17 am #

    You perfectly demonstrate the ciricular reasoning of the AGW cult.
    1998 was hot because of a strong, natural, climate driving event.
    The event ended, and temps have gone down.
    Does CO2 drive climate? Yes. Does CO2 drive climate into a catastorphe like that trumpeted by the disgusting behavior of the AGW community? No.

  5. Luke June 30, 2009 at 12:36 am #

    Hunter – you really are the most impertinent hick I’ve ever encountered. You have been provided with a perfectly good science showing a centennial warming trend. In that trend the climate wiggles up and down. There is no circular reasoning – the facts are clear.

    Carlin has also been provided with the facts. He choses not to listen.

    Like all lying denialist scum you continue to misrepresent the science – hence you’re not being listened to.

    Despite all the whining – sceptics are talking to themselves in their little secret societies and 5th column outfits. Recycling the tired old drivel arguments over and over. Really you lot couldn’t lay straight in bed.

  6. CoRev June 30, 2009 at 1:01 am #

    Luke, yesterday’s comment re: the weakness of the straws upon which you are reaching is becoming more and more obvious.

    As to the RC debunking, the article did not debunk Carlin’s paper. It used the typicaln obfuscate by attacking the source authors (Carlin and the authors of the papers/blogs he referenced), used a bunch of links to Wiki non-scientific articles, and tried to discredit Miskolczi by referencing a Nick Stokes (one of RC’s more rabid supporters) biography.

    After reading the article and its references I chose to NOT read any but a few of the comments. There was NO refutation of Carlin’s paper.

    As far as Carlin’s points they are not any different that what we have seen over these past many months. Nothing new there, just a new venue and consolidation. As a retired US Fed bureaucrat, what got Carlin in trouble was his paper actually questioned the Agency and its processes, before attacking the science. Remember rule # 1 is survival, and that goes for organizations also.

  7. William Hyde June 30, 2009 at 1:12 am #

    Aahh! Luke and “THE SCIENCE” again. Carlin is the scientist the EPA know-nothings should be listening to. As for you, who listens to you? All your diatribes are lies couched in the most insulting form you can think of. I simply scroll past when I see your ridiculous logo. Your infantile ramblings are certainly not worth my time, and I’m sure most of the readers here do the same.
    Get a life! Go acquire some actual knowledge for a change. I, for one, am sick of you and your frail dogma, which you call ‘THE SCIENCE”

  8. CoRev June 30, 2009 at 1:14 am #

    Luke, JeremyC and SJT and the other Team members, what is the problem with having the GMST go up 5 or even 10C? So what is so bad if we in the future lived in an environment similar to today’s Honolulu?

    I expect the typical there will be: (a long list can be inserted here), and yes, there will be some winners and losers. Just as there are today. There will definitely be changes, many for the better.

    Quit trying to fight against change. It happens!

  9. Luke June 30, 2009 at 1:29 am #

    All very boring CoRev – you lot have been caught lying too much. Nobody serious is listening anymore.

    And you’ve been telling us that we’re in for global cooling. You bloody liars.

    If so why is there currently a massive drought and heatwave in Nepal. 50,000 at risk.
    Major heatwave in India. Diarrhoea near epidemic in Bangladesh heatwave. Heatwaves in China.

    You rotten liars told us emphatically we’re in an ice age. Birdy has been telling us. Has he been lying his skanky butt off?

    And they’re blaming you – you CO2 squandering bastards.

  10. Cary June 30, 2009 at 2:24 am #

    Love your site. Dislike the insults and crude lanaguage of your commenters. Other blogs snip such comments. It improves the feel of the blog.

  11. Damocles June 30, 2009 at 2:45 am #

    I enjoyed reading the RealClimate rebuttals. These rebuttals can be grouped into two broad areas forming a pincer attack on Carlin’s paper. The first arm of the pincer, consists of the three horsemen of personal attack, ridicule and sarcasm: 1) Carlin is not a climate scientist (despite the fact there is no such branch of science. I’ve seen physicists, geologists, biologists and glaciologists that study climate, but climate scientist?). 2) A trail is revealed that leads from Carlin to Gregory who is something to do with anti-climate science lobbying and is based in Alberta (the tar sands connection? Those naughty Canadians again).
    3) The main summary points are put through Gavin’s funny machine adding a sprinkling of well placed exclamation marks, quotation marks and chuckle words (“no sirree” is my favorite). I give a nine for effort but would have liked to have seen some smiley emotocons and at least one LOL for a perfect score. Nevertheless, the first arm of the pincer has
    Carlin’s evidence demolished in brutal fashion. A blog is described as “heavily criticised”
    (by whom I wonder – no don’t bother, it was a rhetorical question), and a confusion among the troops ensues by the cleverly inserted link “it was the sun wot done it”, which if followed, leads you down a blind alley about the Thatcher election being won by virtue of the Sun newspaper editorials. Landscheidt is linked with Hitler and Stalin, Miskolczi with nonsense, Carlin with geo-engineering and something about computer modesl, sunstroke, astrology and
    boneheads. You can’t get better than that, except perhaps Abbot and Costello.

  12. CoRev June 30, 2009 at 3:38 am #

    Luke, mate, you are ducking and weaving; shucking and jiving; providing a lot of diversion, BUT WHY DID YOU CHOOSE TO NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION???

    “what is the problem with having the GMST go up 5 or even 10C? So what is so bad if we in the future lived in an environment similar to today’s Honolulu?”


  13. Luke June 30, 2009 at 3:43 am #

    No you answer the question you CO2 producing heatwave and drought monger. WHY have they got heatwaves.

    And I’ve told you before many times the answer to your question. Like most thickhead denialists you don’t listen.

  14. Henry chance June 30, 2009 at 4:13 am #

    Alan Carlin PhD has a doctorate from M.I.T. Not a shabby school. I took some of my grad work there. Today Krugman also an Econ PhD is howling about treason or some other exageration. Why call one economist as bunk and another as brilliant? At least Dr carlin has a degree in physics and many years in climate research.
    How well are the economists forcasting employment? They forcast unemployment max of 7.4% and it has exceeded that “forecast” by 25%. This in only 5 months. If we use actual measurementts and how far off they are, we can’t trus their data or their models. Sure glad surgeons and accountants don’t tolerate such horrible innacuracies.

  15. Michael June 30, 2009 at 6:23 am #

    Jennifer I read your blog often and what I don’t understand is why you tolerate Luke. Most of the other alarmists are responsible commentators but Luke’s arguments are rarely scientific most frequently rude and he resorts to Ad Homs on almost every occasion he posts a comment. Is it because you feel sorry for his lack of intellectual capacity that you continue to allow one so obviously deprived of any scientific understanding to continue posting his puerile comments?

  16. hunter June 30, 2009 at 8:47 am #

    Are you suggesting that there have been no 100 year temperature rises before?
    Are you, even at this date as we step off a cliff, still pretending that the climate of the last 100 years has been exceptional in any significant way at all? Are you that stupid or are you just cynical?
    Are you suggesting that the standard of measurement could not allow for noise to be mis-read as a trend?
    AGW predictions, as opposed to interpretations of events, have failed each and every time.
    I may be a hick, but at least I know the difference between the smell of a good ripe cheese and the bs that AGW sells.
    I was, when the issue first emerged, a believer. I bought it all. Then I started paying attention to the lack of performance, the lack of integrity, and the lack of accuracy in what the AGW leadership was saying. I noticed how they kept pushing policies, like Kyoto and now the disaster-in-waiting, cap and trade, and noticed that none of the policies they push actually do anything to cure what they claim needs fixing.
    Then, I started reading Spencer, Lindzen, Pileke, and what nearly every geologist I know – and I know more than a few- were thinking and saying.
    AGW has nothing to do with climate science.
    Then I read histories of how extremist fringe thinking can take over the public square, and how the extremsits behave. And there is no difference from the extremsits then and the AGW extremsits now.
    Personal attacks, circular reasoning, cherry picked data, unwillingness to debate, demands for vast public policy solutions, that actually do nothing for the alleged problem, etc, etc. ad nauseum.
    And here you are, personifying in your own tiny way, in nearly every post you make, exactly why AGW is not only bad science, but a disastrous and very likely dangerous, social dysfunciton.
    You know nothing, Luke, You do not even know what you don’t know.

  17. hunter June 30, 2009 at 8:51 am #

    Your last post, from a guy who cliams to live in a desert continent,
    “WHY have they got heatwaves” (?)
    Is classic.
    All of the willfuil ignorance, apparently mixed with cynicism and ill will, reduced to one poorly typed question.

  18. Luke June 30, 2009 at 8:54 am #

    All very boring Hunter

    So why is London suffering a heatwave when you lying shonks have been telling me the world is cooling?

    As well as India, China, Nepal, Bangladesh. Birdy says we’re in an ice age – none of you lot contradicted him?

    Eventually the lying fraudulent denialist scum will be brought to trial for their anti-science crimes.

  19. Neville June 30, 2009 at 9:32 am #

    The most obvious omission by Carlin is the recovery from the LIA, this is where the warming must start and by this one event the +0.7c ( or is it 0.5c or 0.6c )is easily explained.
    The cultists must concede ( but I bet they won’t) that when we confirm the ending of a minor ice age the temp must go up ( especially in the NH ) knowing the planet’s history since 1850.
    Oh gosh is that another logitech keyboard I see flying out the window, sorry luke facts and the truth are a real bummer I know.

  20. SJT June 30, 2009 at 9:42 am #

    ““The 1998 is easily explained by the El Nino that happened in that year.”

    Precisely “other significant natural effects” is by far the best explanation; glad you agree on that one.”

    But no one ever said it was anything but an El Nino, and it was a single, massive spike, far above the long term AGW trend. You can’t explain 2008 with a La Nina though, it must be the start of the next ice age according to the punters here.

  21. Geoff Brown June 30, 2009 at 11:47 am #

    Perhaps we’ll get to the bottom of this matter after all. Senator James Inhofe has called for an investigation into why the report was suppressed.

    The Obama Administration promised to put science above politics, but I suppose they meant only faux science that agreed with the whle AGW hoax.


  22. Dallas Beaufort June 30, 2009 at 11:48 am #

    The proponents of global warming CO2 climate change science has mutated to a sickness as this hidden report verifies where not allowing factual science air insults human advancement and exposes the intents of the political correct and their miscreants desire to produce outcomes which lie behind reason.

  23. JeffM June 30, 2009 at 11:53 am #

    The governments of the industrialized world have spent tens of $billions for research that supports manmade climate change and only manmade climate change. To me it looks like they WANT it to be so. Or more likely, they want it to support an agenda…what that is could be anything. Efforts to search for alternative causes of climate change have been vigorously resisted by all variety of means, and those who try to speak out against it have suffered one form of derision or another.

    This is not how science is supposed to work. Cutting off disenting viewpoints is not how free, democratic societies work. This is enough to make any non-scientist feel that we’re being hoodwinked. Otherwise, why the protect AGW science from scrutiny in the light of day? Why shroud reasoning for public policy decision making behind such protected science?

    Do the scientific and political elite think the public is really that ingnorant, that stupid, that trusting?

  24. Ian Mott June 30, 2009 at 12:03 pm #

    Now lets see, we have seven major points of concern with AGW doctrine and not a word from our slimy little departmental mate, Luke. Entirely normal. So we need to ask the half dozen IPCC clowns who actually plucked the 90% certainty number out of their bums whether they considered these factors in their decision.

    The most important point made by Carlin was to point out that the US EPA, and the Australian and numerous others, have abrogated their statutory duty to conduct their own detailed investigation of the IPCC position. To defer to the IPCC as sole authority on this is gross negligence and criminal deriliction of duty. The fact that the IPCC has deliberately ignored highly relevant matters does not absolve the various national entities from their duty to avoid improper exercise of power.

    So my advice to anyone making submissions on any matter related to climate science is to ensure that you remind the reviwers of their legal obligations, then formally advise them of the entirely foreseeable harm they may cause if they do not consider all relevant matters, and then request that they take “all reasonable and practical steps” to prevent this harm.

    The time to line up these f@#$%ers for a massive negligence class action is now.
    The time to link their own performance, or lack of it, to the consequences of their innaction is now.
    And the time to remind them that their own indemnity from prosecution does not extend to acts done negligently or unlawfully is now.
    We need to get the shimmy shammers in the cross hairs and have the guts to pull the legal triggers.

    Here in Australia we have had a gentleman called Garnaut who was presented as an expert conducting an expert inquiry into this complex issue. But the turkey’s opening statement was a HUGE COP OUT along the lines of “IF the IPCC reports are correct then blah blah..”

    We need to demand that policy is based on inputs that the promoters are willing to accept full responsibility for. At the moment not one of the climate scum will do so. So we have every right, in fact we have a duty to our children, to refuse to accept any climate related statement that no-one will sign off on. Accountants, engineers, geologists and medicos do it all the time but these venal climate low life want to avoid the same ethical standards for what they claim is the biggest issue of all time.

    I just want to see a single one of these slime balls put their money where their mouth is.

  25. janama June 30, 2009 at 12:25 pm #

    i find it amazing that they brush Dr Carlin off as if he were some office boy with allusions of grandure. “oh – he wasn’t part of the climate change research team” etc

    here are his qualifications FYI:

    Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA

    B.S., Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA

    Senior Economist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1971 to present

    Economist, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 1963-71.

    I wonder what positions they employ above Senior Economist.


  26. janama June 30, 2009 at 12:47 pm #

    BTW – has anyone noticed that Greenpeace is advertising on Jen’s site asking for donations so they can save a species 😉 The irony ….he he.

  27. eco-terrorists and moral pygmies June 30, 2009 at 1:24 pm #

    “Mr Carlin’s report was suppressed even within the EPA, but a copy leaked to meteorologist and blogger Anthony Watts who has posted it here:”

    So what’s new here? Nothing. Crime and corruption prevails in the EPAs. It is common knowledge in developed countries that the EPA’s are the rent boys for pollutant corporations, from whom they take orders.

    In fact, had the EPA’s (and successive, sycophantic governments) enforced the mandate they were given, some 40 years ago (to protect the environment and public health) no-one would be debating Australia’s and America’s degraded state of the environment and billions of futile dollars would not have been bled from taxpayers to remediate the damage caused by corporate eco-terrorists who are sufficiently deluded in believing they have a mandate to pollute with impunity.

    William Sanjour, physicist and former senior bureaucrat with the USEPA gives an excellent account of the criminal behaviour which prevails in the USEPA::


    In Western Australia, Liberal politician (Kym Hames) and Deputy Chairman of the Parliamentary Enquiry into the Lead Poisoning of Esperance, had this to say about the EPA’s sister-in-crime, the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC):

    “The Committee has identified major failings in DEC’s industry regulation function and shortcomings in other regulatory agencies. The committee believes that these regulatory failures, combined with the irresponsible and possibly unlawful conduct of the Esperance Port Authority, Magellan Metals and BIS logistics, exposed workers and the community to unacceptable and avoidable health and environmental risks.”

    Well that’s actually an understatement and only last month, 250 Australian citizens made application to the US courts to commence a class action against Alcoa in WA. These citizens have charged Alcoa with causing serious diseases amongst communities including cancer and death. So what has Western Australia’s impotent and corrupt EPA been up to the last 40 years? Yep! Committing crimes against humanity!

    So let’s not make up stuff to pursue the pretence that we don’t know what we do know! Industrial CO2 is the progeny of the most lethal chemicals known to man – fossil fuel chemicals!

    Let’s ask the deniers to cease presenting howling green monkeys as climate experts – such as the duplicitous Ian Plimer (now the laughing stock of the global science community) or the grizzly desperadoes at the Heartland Institute.

    Gold diggers and vulgar empire builders will continue to offer the contents of brown paper bags to politicians who promise to cut taxes but this is borne from an avarice and hypocrisy. It’s going to take cash, and it’s going to require valuing nature to remedy the primitive and shocking behaviour of pollutant corporations. Continuing to degrade nature is as unacceptable as rape and murder.

  28. Rob H June 30, 2009 at 2:10 pm #

    A twentieth century warming trend over the globe, based on admitted incomplete, inaccurate data that was “adjusted” and came up with a 0.74C “warming” is not significant, alarming and is likely not accurate. This is 3/4 of a degree over 100 years! Get a grip. If you pick a different start and end decade you will get less or more “warming” (including “cooling”). The AGW is shaping up to be the biggest scientific mistake in history. It will certainly be the most expensive.

  29. hunter June 30, 2009 at 2:25 pm #

    Texas is having a heat wave as well.
    Surely you AGW true believers still understand that weather is variable.
    Cooling and heating is what weather does.
    Heat waves in summer are pretty much when one would expect a heat wave.
    The inability to reason is exactly what one has come to expect from AGW true believers.
    Your pose is infantile to the point where I am wondering if the real ‘Luke’ is the only poster using the Simpson’s alien invader as their logo.

  30. hunter June 30, 2009 at 2:28 pm #

    Exactly. There is no evidence produced, outside of self-referential studies and models, which shows any changes beyond normal variability.
    Ensembles of garbage will not produce one byte of worthwhile inforation.

  31. Neville June 30, 2009 at 2:32 pm #

    Whether it’s a deliberate con or hoax whatever, common sense should tell everyone that the climate will not be changed 20 ( or 100 years) years after Copenhagen anymore than it changed after Kyoto. ( except cool after every country did sweet FA )

    We may as well flush those trillions down the toilet for all the good it will do.
    Just look at the surface area of the pacific ocean for example covering one third of the planet and larger in size than all land areas combined. 90% of all the volcanoes on the planet exist under the oceans, so what happens if they are more or less active at an inconvenient time for the bedwetters and fanatics?
    Will we have to cough up even more trillions to justify their ever increasing fanaticism?

  32. Ron Pike June 30, 2009 at 2:52 pm #

    Hi All,
    I wrote this some time ago for an American audience, but it seems little has changed.

    ” Our world is doomed,” intoned Al Gore.
    To all the media he could cite;
    With whom he had such great rapport,
    He knew his timimg was just right.

    “With all this burning oil and coal,
    We’ve global warming and no hope.”
    “With glaciers melting and ozone hole,
    Our world is doomed, it just can’t cope.”

    “We’ve felled our forests, cleared the land,
    There’s desolation all around.”
    “Where once majestic trees just grand,
    We now have salty farming ground.”

    “The Polar Bears have naught to eat,
    They’ll be extinct before long now.”
    “The ice shelf’s melting ‘neath their feet.”
    “To fossil fuels, we can’t kowtow.”

    “With CO2 and global warming,
    We must adapt and bring in changes.”
    “Use less power and stop consuming
    Resources, as we’ve done for ages.”

    The media clapped and how they cheered,
    They had the headlines which they sought.
    Things were worse than they had feared;
    This florid copy could not be bought.

    An old grey headed man of science
    Was listening in the crowd,
    He understood the weathers puissance.
    A lifelong work that made him proud.

    “Mr. Gore, you’ve had your say,
    With arguments that just inflames,
    Irrational thoughts of earths doomsday.”
    “With no data to support your claims.”

    “I’ve studied fickle climate all my life;
    And know that science must be humble.”
    “Sensational claims have oft been rife;
    Foundations later, just to crumble.”

    “In the clear light of reasoned truth,
    Your predictions so calamitous.”
    “In the future will seem uncouth.”
    “Just scaremongering, most outrageous.”

    “For if we torture data sufficiently,
    Well, it will confess most anything.”
    “Results thus obtained most poignantly;
    Truly, they amount to nothing.”

    “So Mr. Gore, I put it to you now;
    You’ve had acclaim and won a Nobel Prize.”
    “Yet live a life voraciously, you must avow.”
    “Seen as hyprocritical in most our eyes.”

    “From the comfort of your privilage,
    You demand of others, sacrifice.”
    “For no purpose other than to assuage,
    An hypothesis, unproven, imprecise.”

    “But our world is doomed,” rejoined Al Gore.
    “In politics I need the headlines.”
    “Your rational science I deplore;
    My status rests upon my by-lines.

    Still the case in my view.

  33. Graeme Bird June 30, 2009 at 3:19 pm #

    “And you’ve been telling us that we’re in for global cooling. You bloody liars.”

    WELL WE ARE!!!! We are in for global cooling if the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE is anything to go by. But lets talk about you Luke. Are you a homosexual? Or are you just a plain sissy? How does things work with you Luke?

    So here we have Luke walking down the street, and his Mother starts to recede in the distance, and there he is, dangerously far from home. Like 200 metres from home. And this big girls blowse starts worrying about the air that is surrounding him right?

    Is that how it works Luke? First you start worrying that Mums not close enough. Then you start worrying that you’ve gotten too far from home. And next you burst into tears because THE FUCKING AIR ISN’T QUITE RIGHT!!!!!

    Thats about the size of it with you sissies isn’t it?

    You see I can respect these homos if that is in fact the way they are meant to be. If that is how god has made them. If thats the best person that they can be. In my mind, given that, there is no cause for me to be disrespectful.

    But I can never respect a pooftah like you. So much of a non-man that you are frightened of the clear-air around your ass.

    The trace-gas-hysterics are unmanly. They are not masculine. They are not really MEN. THEY ARE NOT MEN. They’re not. You might think they are, but they are not.

    This is the message we must get out there.

  34. janama June 30, 2009 at 4:36 pm #

    you are crazier than Luke Birdie.

  35. SJT June 30, 2009 at 4:53 pm #

    Exactly. There is no evidence produced, outside of self-referential studies and models, which shows any changes beyond normal variability.
    Ensembles of garbage will not produce one byte of worthwhile inforation.”

    You are conflating being within the range of normal variability of weather, and the underlying trend. We are only at the beginning of the coming warming. It will be a few more years and we will be outside that comfort zone and into the unknown. A climate expert was saying that one indication is the number of extreme heat records being broken is double the number of extreme cold records being broken. I think that’s a good indication of the way things are heading.

  36. Ian Mott June 30, 2009 at 5:13 pm #

    The name “Luke” is the designation of a desk and PC in a Queensland Government Department. Various people are tasked to man this desk to provide regular, if hardly consistent, misinformation and distraction to the discussion on this blog and any other that might have the nerve to stray from the party line.

    This desk has operated continually since 2005 and it must be said that the quality of the staff manning this desk has undergone a marked decline to the point where very little of substance is ever said. Some time ago the senior departmental management (comprising some of the most venal and loathsome low life ever conceived) decided that posting real research on this forum was “counter productive” due to the proven capacity of a great many contributors here to completely dismember the carefully constructed edifices of climate bull$hit.

    Some might argue that it would be better to exclude “him” from discussion but to my mind he is a classic example of what is most loathsome in a green undergraduate ignoroid. And the more the public understands what kind of squalid intellects we are really dealing with, the better. Keep him here because he certainly serves to highlight our own reasonable and rational nature.

    He is, as Sun Tsu might have said, Al Gores most feared enemy, a foolish ally.

  37. janama June 30, 2009 at 5:19 pm #

    the number of extreme heat records being broken is double the number of extreme cold records being broken


  38. Jan Pompe June 30, 2009 at 6:12 pm #

    SJT: “But no one ever said it was anything but an El Nino”

    So are you now saying there was no point to your pointless post?

    I couldn’t agree more.

  39. Jeremy C June 30, 2009 at 6:45 pm #

    So just what is the paper trail or evidence that shows Dr Carlin and John DAvidson’s report was suppressed. Who said it was suppressed?

  40. James Mayeau June 30, 2009 at 7:02 pm #

    Comment from: Cary June 30th, 2009 at 2:24 am

    Cary it gets a bit rough and tumble, but I like it. I like the fact that Jen doesn’t play favorites, without leaning heavy on the delete key.
    It lends a certain credibility to the site, letting us see everybody’s warts, and bad hair days.

  41. Luke June 30, 2009 at 7:38 pm #

    The fact that Mott would write what he has above indicates what pure venom you’re dealing with here folks. So he’s actually prepared to tell 1000% pure lies to defend his extremist property rights and greenie-bashing activism. You’re dealing with the worst type of bully you can come across.

    So this is the game of the ultra right wing – silence dissent with threats. Sort of Nazi style don’t you think? And you lot go on about freedom to publish and listening to dissent.

    And this guy has the sheer indecency to bluff on about Cenotaphs around the nation as if he has some monopoly on morality on families who have offered national service. Let me tell you matey – we didn’t fight for the likes of un-Australian scum like you.

    Let’s do a quick tally on Mottsian philosophy here in the archives:

    Advocates a fist fight with Goolwa residents.
    Suggests arson on public land
    Advocates punching out NSW govt staff
    Likes to talk about his love “exploits” on line
    Thinks you can herd whales
    and that’s just for starters.

    As for his previous infantile rant today – well all the questions posed have been answered in recent days on-line.

    In any case – I couldn’t say it better – tamino and realclimate in their recent leads have slaughter Carlin’s droll points.

    But what Mott is all about is silencing opinion – or you’ll cop a bit of 3 x 2 about the ears.

    Think carefully who you make allies with folks. Think real carefully.

  42. James Mayeau June 30, 2009 at 7:43 pm #

    Make no mistake this is a big deal. Anthony rolled boxcars on this one. A good time to do it too, because the medias are suffering Michael Jackson overload, the congress put Al Gore’s crippled money grab back in the spotlight, and Glen Beck is in the primetime on the prime channel.
    You all knew that Anthony Watts appeared on the Beck show during the first IIPPC conference, right?
    There’s going to be a Senate investigation led by Inhofe, a review of the EPA’s public comment collecting procedures. The bad guys are caught red handed this time.
    Doesn’t matter how much RC wiggles and squirms. They’re busted suppressing the science.
    During the Congressional vote for Waxman/Markey the Capital switchboards were logging calls 50-1 against Cap’n Trade.
    Oh yes.
    The warministas are in a hurt locker.

    Did I ever mention that Anthony Watts is my dear close personal friend? – *( that’s the story I’m going with ; )

  43. James Mayeau June 30, 2009 at 8:08 pm #


    So you are saying that today’s Luke isn’t necessarily the Luke I beat with an ugly stick all those many times in the past?

    That it is an amalgam of Aus Gov employees?

    In that case.

    Comment from: Luke June 30th, 2009 at 3:43 am

    ….And I’ve told you before many times the answer to your question. Like most thickhead denialists you don’t listen.

    A message for new readers; no he hasn’t.

  44. Luke June 30, 2009 at 8:09 pm #

    Honestly James – that is just so limp – I can hardly even muster a giggle. Carlin’s been whinging for years. His opinions are, as they say in policy land, “noted”.

    You’re really dreaming if you think these little sidelines get a serious run in the IPCC process. Do you think they populate these panels with just anyone?

    But again – here we are – showing that denialists will do ANYTHING – go to any level – no matter how low to defeat an ETS or Cap n’ Trade by attacking the climate science. It’s just another variant of Tokyo Rose WWII. Be very careful you don’t throw the science baby out with the policy bathwater.

    Vote Cap ‘n Trade down if you don’t like it. Doesn’t worry me. Your choice.

    But hey don’t libel the climate science just for effect in this. The science is what it is – imperfect but a fairly coherent story nonetheless.

  45. Luke June 30, 2009 at 8:13 pm #

    Well James you’ll just have to make you own mind up on Motty’s comments. But you wouldn’t want to entertain any doubts would you – might make you wonder about ethics and values. Easy to just believe Motty – he sounds more plausible doesn’t he. Makes sense doesn’t it.

  46. jimmock June 30, 2009 at 8:26 pm #

    Luke: “Let me tell you matey – we didn’t fight for the likes of un-Australian scum like you.”

    Who’s “we”, Paleface? It’s a slow night so perhaps you would care to regale us with your war stories.

  47. spangled drongo June 30, 2009 at 8:28 pm #

    Ian, I think you are right about the Luke desk but I think Luke still runs a loose supervision. I reckon he comes in when things aren’t going too well and takes a broom to the desk like John Cleese in Fawlty Towers when he had car trouble [“Start, you vicious bastard…”]. That would account for the broken keyboards. As James says, they are in the hurt locker so desperate measures are needed.

  48. spangled drongo June 30, 2009 at 8:35 pm #

    “Vote Cap ‘n Trade down if you don’t like it. Doesn’t worry me. Your choice.”

    A sceptic at the Lukedesk now?

  49. James Mayeau June 30, 2009 at 9:27 pm #

    I’m thinking about it Luke. Keeping an open mind. Wouldn’t it be fun though to find a paper trail of gov memo’s assigning people to the “Luke” desk. heh

    That would be a kick. I enjoy the back and forth either way. Said it a long time ago when Louis was trying to out your real name. Like I care.
    Far as I know (or want to know) your name is Luke Skywalker…. Kind of catchy. Maybe you should be in movies.


    Here’s a link to the story from CBS. That’s the Tiffany network here in the states.
    A few weeks ago that story couldn’t have seen the light of day. CBS is the liberal lap dog of stations.
    But a funny thing happened just about a week ago. Progress hit the airwaves. All television has converted from analog to digital nationwide. This makes the Tiffany, which use to be the exalted home of such luminaries as Charles Kurault, Dan Rather, and Walter Cronkite, into just another number out of 900 channels.
    They’re on the same basis as Nickelodean, or SpikeTV or the E! entertainment channel now.
    Have to work for their supper all of a sudden.
    Ain’t equality grand?

  50. Luke DESK I June 30, 2009 at 10:25 pm #

    Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

    5 general tactics are used by denialists to sow confusion. They are conspiracy, selectivity (cherry-picking), fake experts, impossible expectations (also known as moving goalposts), and general fallacies of logic.


  51. hunter June 30, 2009 at 10:34 pm #

    You dare to talk about conflation? Conflation is when a belief system evolves around the assertion that a tiny move around a vast data set that is demonstrably noisy and full of inaccuracy and bias is proof of impending doom.
    And we have been hearing the mantra of ‘we will be outside the range of normal in a few years’ for decades now.
    That chant lost credibility awhile ago.

    Your point is well made.

    Ian Mott,
    I have noticed for awhile that ‘Luke’ seems to have significantly different personalities and writing styles from time-to-time. I thought it was simply because Luke was a drunk and we were getting sober and and stoned versions. Your explanation makes more sense.

  52. hunter June 30, 2009 at 10:38 pm #

    Your more recent sock puppets are tarnishing your brand. Instead of being a snarky, mean, bright AGW true believer, your brand is now associated with ignorant, circular, and dull.

  53. James Mayeau July 1, 2009 at 1:44 am #

    Comment from: Luke DESK I June 30th, 2009 at 10:25 pm

    They are conspiracy, selectivity (cherry-picking), fake experts, impossible expectations (also known as moving goalposts), and general fallacies of logic.

    1) conspiracy – You mean like having a member of Real Climate in charge of editing the history of the hockeystick controversy for Wikipedia? Sounds like a conspiracy to me.

    2) selectivity – Like starting the world temperature record in the 1880’s, when the temp was forced as much as 1.5 degrees C lower then normal by the Krakatoa eruption? Sounds selective to me.

    3) fake experts – You mean like reporting that the AR4 was created/reviewed by more than 2500 experts, but later we find out only 62 reviewers commented on the key critical chapter in which the near certainty of GW being due to human activity is asserted. And of those 62 we find out 59 had a profit motive. Sounds pretty fake to me.

    4) moving goalposts – You mean like when Steve Mc examined the “In Press” and “Accepted” citations in IPCC AR4 Second Draft Chapter 6 to verify whether Wahl and Ammann 200x had received unusual and special treatment? It did. W&A 200X benefited from IPCC Authors bending the rules to accept papers not published before the Dec 2005 deadline. In fact 16 articles — all by IPCC Contributing Authors – failed to meet an important IPCC Publication Deadline and were accepted after the December 2005 final date. No non IPCC Contributing Authored papers were accepted in this manner. Sounds like they moved more then goalposts. Sounds like they moved Heaven and Earth to get “preaching to the choir” papers included.

    5) general fallacies of logic – Sheesh – You mean like the non-physical property of evaporative heating evoked to provide necessary “tipping points” to put catastrophy in the catastrophic climate change? Considering that there is no such thing as evaporative heating, sounds like a problem with basic logic to me.

    Five out of five. Color me skeptical, not as confused as you would like me to be, and 100% four square in denial of your climate change consensus.

    Darned sockpuppets.

  54. Luke DESK I July 1, 2009 at 3:22 am #

    Wee James – thanks for playing. The reason that you are pig ignorant denialist filth is because you’re pig ignorant and filthy. You actually fell into the 5 classic sciences of denialism skank – you couldn’t help yourself. I am quite taken aback actually – you really aren’t that bright are you. I hope you’re not in any position of authority.

    (1) no reference as to who. You’ve suggested a conspiracy but haven’t said why. This is what POINT ONE means doofus – you don’t make up false stories about conspiracies. Indeed the formal differences of opinion are explicitly tabled.

    (2) numerically wrong; and even if it was so – you’ve asserted a conspiracy with no evidence

    (3) fake experts – no the experts weren’t fake – not proven nor shown. As for profit motive – you’ve posted an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory with no evidence. Incidentally that’s libel so be careful

    (4) Not what is meant. In any case – an important issue so perhaps a working group exercised some discretion. Does not imply any conspiracy – case utterly unproven. Hearsay blog gossip.

    (5) “tipping points” – that’s an example of you moving the goal posts – I’m not familiar with the IPCC tipping points – show how it relates (I’m politely telling you to “put up”). Here we have a good example of classic denialist manipulation. I tabled two papers on water vapour and feedback on recent threads. Obviously you can’t read.

    James – again thanks very very much for playing.

    You’ve provided a classic example of autonomic denailism. You’re so immersed in filth and lies that you don’t even know when you doing it.

  55. Graeme Bird July 1, 2009 at 1:07 pm #

    “The name “Luke” is the designation of a desk and PC in a Queensland Government Department. Various people are tasked to man this desk to provide regular, if hardly consistent, misinformation and distraction to the discussion on this blog and any other that might have the nerve to stray from the party line.”

    But don’t you see Ian. Its not something to mention. There has mass-sackings. Everyone involved. Their bosses. Their contential contacts in the same department. Their subordinates. Any known friends. The only way to stop this abuse by parasites on the public dime is to sack everyone you can and take a massive gouge out of the department, supposing you cannot wind up the department entire. Nothing like the taxpayers asserting themselves to restore some morale to the public sector.

    Would you want to tell us which government department has been used in this defamatory, wasteful and totally unacceptable fashion.

    You’d want to just hit the ground firing people in 360 degrees fashion. Save the taxpayer a great deal of money and improve productivity and motivation in the department.

  56. Graeme Bird July 1, 2009 at 1:10 pm #

    “But don’t you see Ian. Its not something to mention. There has mass-sackings. Everyone involved. Their bosses. Their contential contacts in the same department. ”

    Wow a lot of mistakes there.

    That should read:

    But don’t you see Ian. Its not something JUST to mention. There has to be mass-sackings. Everyone involved. And their bosses. Their tangential contacts in the same department……..

  57. James Mayeau July 1, 2009 at 1:18 pm #

    Comment from: Luke DESK I July 1st, 2009 at 3:22 am

    How many Phd’s went into the creation of that snappy retort, do you think?

    It’s hard to believe. The best and brightest of Bom on display in all it’s glory, and yet little old Jimmy keeps on tap tap tapiddy tap sliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide tapiddy tap tap tap tapdancing across the collectives’ “Luke” desk.

    How can it be? Is it because I’m a super genius? A modern day Saturn born in the age of Aquarius?
    Oh I’m a bad man,
    I’m giving you on count of three
    to show your stuff or let it be . . .
    I’m telling you just watch your mouth
    I know your game what you’re about

    Well they say the sky’s the limit
    and to me that’s really true
    but my friend you have seen nothing
    just wait ’til I get through . . .

    Because I’m bad, I’m bad-
    Come on you know I’m bad, I’m bad-
    you know it
    (nod to the MJ)

    but I’d never claim that. You know the click the link to test your IQ website “Madonna scored a 124” on?
    Yeah, I did that one time. Scored a 74. ( 2 points below Jethro Bodine, Uncle Jed.)
    I am the living embodyment of the scientificly illiterate American the Japanese keep doing studies on. Then again…
    History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men.

    (I know that somewhere on Earth a Samurai flinched)

    How come everytime I have a mind to apply the boot to Luke’s head, he gets kicked?
    (check the archives)
    I’m so small and yet I punch so
    way up high, way up high, way up high, up high, up high, up high, high, high, high, high.
    Way up high

    over my paygrade.

    Could it be because I’m pretty? Not a mark on my baby face…

    I’m so pretty, so so pretty, i’m so pretty and witty and wise.
    and so I beat the crap out of ETS guys

    Um no. I’m as plain as day, snaggletoothed, with a beer gut. I could pass for a Brit.

    Is it because I am pure of heart? ::: ding :::
    “Thaaat’s thinkin with your dipstick, Jimmy.”

    Word to the nubies. Stick to the truth, especially against a polyphonic socialist like the Lukes here.
    Poor, poor, Luke collective. I think about their futures, and it makes me sad.

    He’s got patches,
    on the patches,
    of his worn out memes.

    they used to be new,
    when they used to be cool,
    when they used to be green.

    One of these days, see them driving round town, in their solar powered carts, with the tops pulled down, nothing to lose, just the ETS blues, yelling “Hey Look out for me.” when ever they see a truck.
    No it ain’t no fun.

    Working nightshift in the Walker chair.

    No it ain’t no fun. (do you believe me?)

    Working night shift in the Walker chair.

    No it ain’t no fun. (Hear what I’m saying to ya?)

    Working night shift in the Walker chair.

    No it ain’t no fun
    (ain’t no fun)

    It ain’t no fun
    (ain’t havin no fun)

    Down here with the scum
    (down here with the scum)

    Ain’t having no fun
    (ain’t no fun)

    Ain’t no fun workin nightshift in the Walker chair.

    Ain’t no fun workin nightshift in the Walker chair.
    (Hey Albert. Get your damned Private Jet off my airport)

    Sorry folks. My Pavlovian reflex kicks up like that sometimes.
    It’s a curse. Half the time I don’t even know it’s happening.

    You learn to live with it.

  58. SJT July 1, 2009 at 3:04 pm #

    I have to disagree with topic heading. There was nothing ‘rational’ about the advice at all, but just odd quotes from random web sites.

    I keep asking, why can’t the ‘skeptics’ lift their game? If you are going to counter AGW, at least use some high quality arguments and evidence.

  59. James Mayeau July 1, 2009 at 3:52 pm #

    I was going to include a blurb at the end saying “over to you C3PO“.

    Ah damn.

    Water under the bridge.

  60. James Mayeau July 1, 2009 at 5:04 pm #

    Speaking of Fox , Alan Carlin, Suppressed EPA Scientist speaks out on Fox News.
    “… the U.S. should not rely upon recommendations of the UN in making policy decisions regarding global warming.”, says Carlin. “The most important conclusion, in my view, was that EPA needed to look at the science behind global warming and not depend upon reports issued by the United Nations, which is what they were thinking of doing and in fact have done,”

    Well I’ll be. Dip me in Crisco and call me a Senator. Check the callender because it has to be Christmas. July 1st. It came early this year, boys.

    see video here.

    “Thaaat’s thinkin with your dipstick, Jimmy!”

    I feel a primal scream coming on. Excuse me.

  61. Jan Pompe July 1, 2009 at 8:48 pm #

    SJT: “I keep asking, why can’t the ’skeptics’ lift their game?”


    You? I think you should take your own advice, perhaps a lot of the time you just don’t know what you are saying.

  62. SJT July 1, 2009 at 10:49 pm #

    “You? I think you should take your own advice, perhaps a lot of the time you just don’t know what you are saying.”

    You are confusing what I am saying with your inability to understand it. Miskolczi is not science, G&T is not science. It’s pretty simple.

  63. Jan Pompe July 1, 2009 at 11:17 pm #

    SJT “It’s pretty simple.”

    You have used the wrong pronoun but I agree you are pretty simple. The fact that you can understand neither Miskolczi nor G&T is proof.

  64. J.Hansford July 2, 2009 at 1:23 am #

    There is something fundamentally disturbing with that depiction of Obama and Gore…. It will give me nightmares… I’m sure of it!

  65. Jan Pompe July 2, 2009 at 2:28 am #

    J.: “There is something fundamentally disturbing with that depiction of Obama and Gore…. ”

    I’ll say. Obama all tongue and Gore with nothing between the ears. What a combination!!!

  66. hunter July 2, 2009 at 4:41 am #

    In SJT land, “Scientist” means “Agreeing with all claims of AGW”.
    “Wicked denier scum hack” means “One who disagrees with any claim of AGW”.
    Minitruth has a job opening just for you, SJT.

  67. SJT July 2, 2009 at 3:03 pm #

    “It’s” = “It is”. Another waste of time nitpick, and it’s wrong.

  68. SJT July 2, 2009 at 3:09 pm #

    ““Wicked denier scum hack” means “One who disagrees with any claim of AGW”.”

    Not at all.

  69. Jan Pompe July 2, 2009 at 7:18 pm #

    SJT: “Another waste of time nitpick, and it’s wrong.”

    It that case, don’t you think you should stop nitpicking.

  70. hunter July 3, 2009 at 2:49 am #

    Then it is time to shine, SJT. Tell us what you believe. Not what you read about defending Gore. Not cut-n-pastes of other reports.
    Tell us how much dissent is OK before it drifts into denialism.

  71. SJT July 3, 2009 at 9:04 am #

    “Tell us how much dissent is OK before it drifts into denialism.”

    There is a very simple test.

    * Does the dissent address the issues raised by AGW, or does it create it’s own version and attack them.

    * Does the dissent accept any contrary evidence, no matter how bad.

    * Does the dissent descend into lunatic conspiracy theories.

    * Does the dissent understand the case for AGW.

    I see people here failing that test constantly. They do not understand the case for AGW, they believe any piece of non-science, such as Miskicolzci, they rant on about lunatic conspiracy theories, they construct elaborate straw man arguments, misrepresent the case put by the IPCC and indulge in frantic arm waving. Denialism.

  72. Graeme Bird July 3, 2009 at 6:14 pm #

    What contrary evidence you moron SJT? Just present it? For our civilisational survival what we have to come down on is the obsessive lying that you represent.

  73. hunter July 3, 2009 at 9:41 pm #

    That really was not a clear answer.
    Your continued clinging onto AGW skeptics = conspiracy theory is not justified by the facts. You should at least address continual indictments of skeptics – by opinion leaders of AGW.

    With all respect, going straight to the insults and calling people liars is not very conducive to conversation. It doesn’t work any better when Luke tries it, either. AGW is a social movement. People get more defensive of the beliefs, not less, when simply attacked.

  74. Graeme Bird July 3, 2009 at 9:45 pm #

    No its no good hunter. They are liars. When asked for evidence they will not come up with it. Thats just fraud. None of them have the evidence. Yet they have put us in an energy crisis just the same. It does no good for you to pretend that this is not fraudulent malevolent behaviour.

    Why fake reality to that extent? Pretending that they aren’t filthy liars isn’t going to reform their character. Perhaps you’ve just begun your investigation of these matters and so don’t realise what these people are like. If not wake up.

  75. SJT July 3, 2009 at 10:38 pm #

    “Your continued clinging onto AGW skeptics = conspiracy theory is not justified by the facts. You should at least address continual indictments of skeptics – by opinion leaders of AGW.”

    Exhibit A. G Bird.

  76. Graeme Bird July 4, 2009 at 12:51 pm #

    I don’t contend any conspiracy theory. Thats an interesting debate. The debate goes like this:

    Is there a conspiracy? Or are they just evil and stupid pack-animals. I respect the former point of view but I take the latter perspective. You don’t need to infer a conspiracy with leftists, since they are just goose-stepping automatons. Worse than pack-animals. More like spineless insects.

    And it doesn’t matter whose right or wrong in this debate, healthy debate that it is. What matters is that these people must be stopped. Since they are aiming to do exactly what they did with the malaria-control-centralization holocaust. But the energy-deprivation crusade will kill far more people then their still ongoing efforts with malaria population eradication.

    You have misrepresented my point of view SJT. Filthy liar that you are.


  1. Jennifer Marohasy » Rational Advice on ‘Carbon Act’ Censored (Part 2) - July 4, 2009

    […] Part 1 of this series is here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/06/rational-advice-on-%e2%80%98carbon-act%e2%80%99-censored/ […]

Website by 46digital