Due Diligence on Science Underpinning Carbon Trade

YOU will have heard on the news over the last three weeks of the activities of Senator Steve Fielding in Australia. Steve is an independent cross-bench senator who holds a casting vote over the passage of the Australian ETS (termed the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme).

After attending the Heartland-3 climate conference in Washington in early June this year, Steve returned to Australia and asked Climate Minister Penny Wong three simple questions about climate change. The Minister replied, first in a meeting at which her Chief Scientist (Penny Sackett) and departmental science adviser (Will Steffen) presented a briefing paper, and secondly in writing. Senator Fielding then asked his advisory scientists – Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks and Bill Kinimonth – to perform an audit of the Minister’s replies to his questions.

Copies of Senator Fielding’s original questions, Minister Wong’s written reply, and other papers relevant to the matter are available for download from: http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/the-wong-fielding-meeting-on-global-warming-documents/

Senator Fielding’s summary of the results of his discussions with Minister Wong can be found here: http://www.stevefielding.com.au/climate_change/.

The Due Diligence Paper has now been released publicly by Senator Fielding’s office (July 3, 2009):  http://jennifermarohasy.com/data/7%20%20Carter-Evans-Franks-Kininmonth%20Due%20Diligence%20on%20Wong-Z%20.pdf

It shows, first, that the Minister and her Department have largely been unable to answer the questions that they were asked. And, second, that the Australian Department of Climate Change has little capacity to assess the science of global warming in an expert, knowledgeable and independent way.

We believe that this is the first time recently that a member of a western parliament has released a public document that makes an independent science assessment of the danger of human-caused global warming (as promulgated by the IPCC), thereby demonstrating (i) the lack of empirical evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are damaging to the environment, and (ii) that ETS are unnecessary.

However, though raising the issue in parliamentary context may be new, our general conclusions are most certainly not, for many other qualified scientists have reached them too; for example, the two independent assessments that have been provided recently by Craig Idso and Fred Singer (NIPCC), and Alan Carlin (EPA): http://cei.org/news-release/2009/06/25/cei-releases-global-warming-study-censored-epa  and http://www.nipccreport.org/

Given the large costs and the industrial and social disruption that established ETS are already causing – for example in Europe, and which will be added to greatly should similar bills pass parliament in Canada, Australia, N.Z., USA and elsewhere – we ask for your help in giving our Due Diligence document wide promulgation.

Kind regards,

Bob Carter, Townsville, Australia 


Notes and Links



73 Responses to Due Diligence on Science Underpinning Carbon Trade

  1. sod July 4, 2009 at 8:51 am #

    It shows, first, that the Minister and her Department have largely been unable to answer the questions that they were asked.

    nonsense. the minister arnswers completely destroy his arguments. as does tamino:


  2. janama July 4, 2009 at 9:39 am #

    Oh Sod – you are such an a…hole


  3. hunter July 4, 2009 at 9:48 am #

    No, she doesn’t.
    And Tamino does not either.
    Notice that for AGW true believers, it is the questions that are the problem.

  4. Louis Hissink July 4, 2009 at 11:28 am #

    SOD :”nonsense. the minister arnswers completely destroy his arguments. as does tamino:


    Scientific facts are not dependent on how they are agued – they are self evident. Wong’s reply, in its various versions, is simply dialectic obfuscation. The real problem is that her advisors actually believe this, as does Sod.

    Talk about broken down bullshit-radars among the lefties and warmenists. How more gullible can they become before the weight of evidence compels ’em to recant?

  5. cohenite July 4, 2009 at 12:37 pm #

    Tamino says this;

    “Natural variation is limited — too small to explain late 20th century warming — but that doesn’t mean it’s not big enough to explain the natural fluctuations “since 1998.”

    and then this;

    “This tells us only two things: 1st, the trend “since 1998″ is totally consistent with the trend since 1975, and 2nd, the time span in question is way too short to give any meaningful information about temperature trends.”

    The thing about post 1998 trends is that they have taken temperature levels back to what they were in 1979; that is “natural variation” since 1998 has been equal to alleged AGW before 1998; so in a way T is correct when he says the trend since 1998 is totally consistent with the trend since 1975, just not in the way he thinks.

    In addition, T and the other smarties ignore the 1976-78 Great Pacific Climate Shift which featured a step-change in temperature both in Australia and globally; this step change is notable for 2 things; firstly, it is responsible for ALL the temperature change between 1910 and 1998; and secondly it coincided with well-documented oceanographic events and PDO phase shift. In 1998 those oceanographic factors reversed and shortly thereafter so did PDO. This proves that the mantra that a ‘cherry-picked’ time span can be legitmate if it coincides with empirically verified natural events.

    Tamino is wrong; natural variation is entirely responsible for the temperature trends in the latter 20thC.

  6. Graeme Bird July 4, 2009 at 12:38 pm #

    “It shows, first, that the Minister and her Department have largely been unable to answer the questions that they were asked. And, second, that the Australian Department of Climate Change has little capacity to assess the science of global warming in an expert, knowledgeable and independent way.”

    A powerful use of understatement for effect. These people are compulsive liars and anti-science dropkicks who ought to all be sacked at the very least. Its a shame we cannot have Penny deported. She is a menace. A totally blinkered menace.

  7. Luke July 4, 2009 at 1:15 pm #

    Great Pacific Climate Shit – hahahahahahah – utter bunk.

    Yawn – just another PDO change. It’s not PC 1 – off you go now …

    Tamino is dead right. Also are last 2 threads on RC. Right on target and intellectual exocets fair up the denialist jacksie.

    I have never seen such a sceptic slayer fest as the recent threads over there bear witness to.

  8. janama July 4, 2009 at 1:48 pm #

    yeah Luke – they fiddle the books to make out that sea level rise is increasing.

    On the other hand Prof Ole Humlum at climate4you using the direct data from the University of Colorado makes the following statement

    The 12-month global sea level change display significant variations over an aproximate 4 year period. These variations are superimposed on a general falling trend. Overall, since initiation of these satellite measurements, the 12-month sea level rise has decreased from about 4 mm/yr to about 3 mm/yr

  9. spangled drongo July 4, 2009 at 1:52 pm #

    Do you really believe that natural variations during this current interglacial haven’t exceeded present temperatures?

    Yes or no. Be straight.

  10. cohenite July 4, 2009 at 2:14 pm #

    “utter bunk” and “up the jacksie”; we’ll see luke.

  11. Luke July 4, 2009 at 2:32 pm #

    Spanglers – my answer – dunno – might have, might not

    guru of the stick – Steve McIntyre says he doesn’t know either. If it has – be VERY afraid as the Sun hasn’t been in the driving seat for the late 20th century rise.

    Be also afraid of the MWP consequences.

    Janama – after ALL that has been said – the fact the sea level wiggles up and down but always trending up – you want us to waste our time looking at a wiggle? Have you learned absolutely nothing by now? No they don’t fiddle the books – you fiddle your own silly brain to fit your own preconceived notions.

  12. Luke July 4, 2009 at 2:40 pm #

    Janama – I just kacked as you don’t even understand what you’re reading. You’re trying to spin an argument on rate of change as if it’s a conspiracy. You goober.

    Coho – not “we’ll see” – we have seen already – do the stats – there’s an underlying warming signal. It’s not the PDO. Otherwise give us your 400 year PDO analysis – my arm is aching waiting for you to hand it in.

  13. Jan Pompe July 4, 2009 at 3:44 pm #

    “my arm is aching ”

    it’s all that arm waving give it a rest and the ache will go away

  14. cohenite July 4, 2009 at 4:17 pm #

    “400 year PDO analysis” here;


    Slide 13 is the relevant one. In addition I’ll give you a 20thC analysis correlating PDO with climate regime shift based temperature changes shortly; and general decorum prevents me from commenting on your aching arm.

  15. Luke July 4, 2009 at 4:49 pm #

    Coho – my arm is even more tired now. Yes I know all about that pdf – some good work. But alas doesn’t answer the question. Obviously you believe in Jacks beanstalk – the ol’ PDO keeps adding heat for 100s of years without end. Give us a proper analysis not some sniffling hand drawn fiddle. Coho -noone serious actually believes the PDO explains more than a wiggle. Hey – why don’t you email Chris Folland and ask him (if you’re game). You know – do what sceptics never do – get some peer review. Might save you hours and hours of wasted time.

  16. Luke July 4, 2009 at 4:50 pm #

    Show me how the PDO correlates with GMT over 400 years.

  17. jkanama July 4, 2009 at 5:11 pm #

    Janama – I just kacked as you don’t even understand what you’re reading. You’re trying to spin an argument on rate of change as if it’s a conspiracy. You goober.

    I know it’s rate of change and the RATE is slowing NOT increasing.

  18. Rick Beikoff July 4, 2009 at 5:16 pm #

    Luke, sod, sjt et al,

    Have you ever considered that when the shit hits the fan over all this and the people are looking for someone to blame, Jennifer has your email addresses.

  19. DavidK July 4, 2009 at 6:57 pm #

    An implied threat from one of Jennifer’s groupies on Independence Day – typical. What stage of denial are you in, Rick?

  20. Luke July 4, 2009 at 7:10 pm #

    jee Rick dat’s a hard un.

    So you reckon then that because we support free speech on science that we should be subject to Nazi lynch mobs. So you’re really saying then following your drift that sceptics have a lynch mob morality. Kewl.

    Anyway Rick Jerkoff with the silent “p”. It’s like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NelBNtNm8l0
    “Get off my lawn”.

  21. Rick Beikoff July 4, 2009 at 7:53 pm #

    This is more fun than poking a dog through a fence.

    I use my real name. I’ve put my hand up and have no reason to hide, although it seems you do. Will you put your hand up and reveal yourselves, especially when you are proved wrong?

  22. Luke July 4, 2009 at 8:45 pm #

    Nobody could have a name like Rick Beikoff – sounds like a dam building serial pest with nothing to do now we’re at 76%. Put your pick in your gravatar mate.

  23. Will Nitschke July 4, 2009 at 9:12 pm #

    “nonsense. the minister arnswers completely destroy his arguments. as does tamino:”

    I read the Tamino post. It’s the same old same old. Which boils down to this: “If it looks like the warming rate has slowed down, easy fix, increase the number of years of smoothing.”

    Because nobody really know how many years makes a genuine trend, everyone is convinced whatever number they’ve plucked out of the air is right. 10 years used to be acceptable to show a trend, but now a longer period is required. 30 years sounds good in certain circles. Tamino has argued that 10 year periods going back to the 80’s also didn’t show periods of warming. Except he forgot to mention that this wasn’t inconsistent with models given the volcanism occurring at the time, and that increases in CO2 in the atmosphere require accelerating warming given the significant feedback required. Oops. I guess he was going to mention those things but just ran out of space. 😉

    On the other hand, Bob Carter et al argue that the 2001 IPCC assessment report ruled out natural variability as a possible explanation for recent expected levels of warming. (Which is .2C per decade as per the last IPCC report.) But it’s not good enough to just make the statement. Citations? Quotes of relevant paragraphs? An argument at least?

  24. cohenite July 4, 2009 at 9:19 pm #

    DavidK; when you, Pearman and Steffen go through a door how do you decide who goes first?

    luke; was there a PDO phase shift around 1976; was this accompanied by well documented oceanographic effects, particularly the the thermocline depth anomalies, but also including weaker Walker circulation and some IOD oddities; did the upwelling resume in 1998; subsequent to 1998 have temps dropped; bearing in mind lags has OHC declined; is there a place for break-points in temperature movements such that a linear trend is inappropriate, which also makes your last cliche point about heat accumulation irrelevant because the PDO redistributes heat at phase change; dovetailing with Miskolczi and Spencer and Lindzen is there an atmospheric water level and form effect coinciding with PDO shifts so as to mitigate the temperature movements?

  25. hunter July 4, 2009 at 9:32 pm #

    You are reaching more than a bit to pretend that skeptics are the ones seeking any sort of criminal action against the AGW community.
    But enjoy the stretch. Your ensemble is a great way to show Australian taxes at work, btw.
    The take on El Nino is an interesting theme, Luke.
    You seem to actually accept with complete credulity that the El Nino and other big oceanic heat turn overs, are well understood in an historical sense.
    That is amazing.

  26. Malcolm Hill July 4, 2009 at 10:30 pm #


    When the punters realise what a mess you mob have made, there wont be any need for threats, they will be coming after you types in droves–particularly when they realise that they lost their jobs and their businesses, for an outcome of less than 0.004C over the full 100 years.

  27. DavidK July 4, 2009 at 10:39 pm #

    Yeah, right.

  28. Luke July 4, 2009 at 11:26 pm #

    Yes yes yes Coho – but stop dodging – you believe in a periodic phenomenon that builds heat on a centennial scale – woo hooo – you have discovered Jack’s beanstalk – infinite self perpetuating energy – don’t just tell me how PDO works. Show me how all this works over Franks 400 years of record coz it doesn’t !!!!!!!!!!!!! You’re not giving lectures to saps in the school halls now matey. Indeed for the climate record you have for 150 years you should be able to give an analysis that shows the pattern of these trends. And we know what that shows don’t we? Don’t just tell me about ONE lil’ old PDO. So statistically lonely it is – well hush my mouth Ms Marietta – it could darn well mean anything.

    And you’re still not backing Mizo-watzy are you after Stevey drop kicked it.

  29. Lazlo July 5, 2009 at 12:14 am #

    Luke: so what? We are all supposed to go into spasms of guilt, anguish and economic self immolation over this tiny (geological time scale) phenomenon? But I suppose if your job depends on it Luke it must be important.

  30. janama July 5, 2009 at 6:40 am #

    Here’s a list of the piggies in the trough


    The loudest voices Karoly, Hoegh-Guldberg and Quiggin are all there with over $1mil grants.

  31. Steve WH July 5, 2009 at 7:17 am #

    Once again in the document


    the Andre Illarianov chart is displayed. (Page 16)The caption to the chart states:

    “Note that during the last 9,000 years of the Holocene, temperature change occurred regularly at rates between +2.5° and -2.5°C/century. Earlier, during the last glaciation,rates of change as high as 15°C/century are indicated.”

    Has anyone reproduced that chart?

    Well I believe I have, and the from my reproducing that chart I believe the above statement is wrong.

    The more true statement would be that changes per century, in central Greenland could often be around an average of plus or minus 0.95 Deg C/Century.

    Would anyone like to check this for me? I have the Excel worksheet. It has often bugged me that this chart is used in the manner in which it is.

  32. Graeme Bird July 5, 2009 at 11:10 am #

    Karoly doesn’t understand climate science at all. Hearing him speak is like listening to the crudest, lamest commie that has just read Coby Becks online book of feeble excuses for having no evidence. He claimed on TV that the warming could not be explained by the sun on the grounds that it was disproportionately warmer at nights and in winter. So he hasn’t even progressed to the idea of the oceans absorbing a motherload of joules. He still appears, at least on TV, to be working on the crude flat earth model to do with watts-per-square-metre. He’s treating the earth as if it was a black body that could never absorb joules and let them go over time. He’s a first-class dummy is Karoly.

    But then the alarmist model is idiocy itself. They at first treat the earth as a black body. Then in recognition that it is not they correct after the fact with this single fudge factor of lambda. The whole thing is just an ongoing embarrassment. It is by no means surprising that he has gotten a grant from our tax-eaters.

    Right there we have a great tipoff as to where budget savings can be made. Find the bureaucracy that gave Karoly that grant and sack them all. Sack all their friends. Sack the friends of their friends and all their family members. Just try and bring our budget back into balance and leave some over for tax cuts that can launch this economy.

  33. Luke July 5, 2009 at 11:36 am #

    Do bung it on Birdy – what are you going to do you fat whinging waddler. Ya gonna do nuttin’. Now sit down shut up or we’ll have someone come around to your humpy and give you a good bitch slapping – we know where you live ! Look out the window now – see that car. (it’s Rick Beikoff – hahahahaha)

    We found out what a political disgrace you were in the last election You should be convicted of electoral fraud for wasting the electorates time. And a bloke like you surviving on “overtime” should be sacked for not being available 24 x 7 – are you some sort of non-committed communist?

    You ain’t gonna do nothing. So STF up !

  34. AGW Agnostic July 5, 2009 at 11:58 am #

    A convincing article by Dr David Evans posted recently on Climate Debate Daily as me slipping off the fence into the deniers camp.


  35. Graeme Bird July 5, 2009 at 12:49 pm #

    You ought not be confessing to being such a slowpoke Agnostic. Why did you fall for them in the first place? They have never had a scrap of evidence in their favour. Any alleged past evidence has turned out to be bad data, horribly manipulated. You can hardly be agnostic about a malignant bunch of compulsive liars who never had any evidence for their act in the first place surely??? David Evans is a fine scientist. But he never ought to have been some sort of tie-breaker, to turn you away from a fraud of such transparency???

    What was it that had you duped in the first place? The power of the inductive inference that the whole thing is based on? The sheer weight of mindless propaganda? The powers of persuasion of TEAM GRAMSCIAN LUKE? Of the Deltoid Dwarf? Of those idiots at gristmill? Were you taken in by the most transparent idiocy of all???……. the IPCC reports- just another UN scandal.

    What was it that made a stooge out of you in the first place? Tell us and hang your head in shame.

  36. Luke July 5, 2009 at 1:23 pm #

    haahahahahaha – an ex-AGO computer programmer now shilling for a US think tank. barf.

  37. Graeme Bird July 5, 2009 at 2:10 pm #

    What exactly is your argument GRAMSCIAN TEAM LUKE?

    See the problem with making a confession of this sort agnostic? Fascist excrement like Gramscian team Luke will simply go into defamation mode about Evans. You ought not have been taken in by this transparent fraud in the first place. Find me some evidence for this racket before you ever confess that your opinion hung in the balance.

  38. Luke July 5, 2009 at 2:18 pm #

    Birdy – the difficulty is that your mental condition and ego make it impossible to conduct such a logical discussion.

  39. Graeme Bird July 5, 2009 at 2:36 pm #

    Beat it you group of frauds. This weekend duty is atypical and cannot get you off the hook for four years of abuse of the taxpayer. Imagine that hey? A government department conspires to mislead the public ON THE PUBLICS TIME.

    You idiots aren’t going to last. You have moronically chosen to hang around and compound your four years of malfeasance. Yourr current behaviour is merely further abuse of your parasitical position.

    Or then again. Stick around. Somebody will pick up on the scandal sooner or later if you do.

  40. Rick Beikoff July 5, 2009 at 2:57 pm #

    Don’t we already know the feedback is negative? Haven’t Lindzen and Spencer (seperately) proved that? The positive feedback house of cards has come tumbling down. Surely it’s time to close the book, put down the glasses and go and have a beer and a laugh at these fools. For a bit of sport we could send in the Auditor General to do a bit of clean-out work. It seems the science is, finally, settled! The IPCC is wrong!

  41. cohenite July 5, 2009 at 3:13 pm #

    luke, PCA, EOF, linear regression wants;

    “Indeed for the climate record you have for 150 years you should be able to give an analysis that shows the pattern of these trends”;

    and that’s what I’ll give you, with a little bit of help from some friends. And what’s with this genuflecting towards Deltoid? I don’t recall biting the dust, or whatever expression you used, over there; like you the Deltoid dipsy-doodlers couldn’t get their little pin-heads around the fact that natural variation wasn’t necessarily linear in any correlation with temperature; or rainfall for that matter.

  42. Graeme Bird July 5, 2009 at 3:27 pm #

    Yes it is disproved Rick. But the movement keeps its stuff in the air by compulsive lying. So what can you do? A relative suggested to me that if its soon going to get progressively colder then won’t the movement disappear…..? since the cold weather will prove them wrong? But I said that they were already proven wrong. And still they are here.

    We simply will not get rid of these guys until we start sacking people in the public sector for incompetence and dishonesty. People are just completely underestimating the demonic motivation and persistence of these people. Until we get down to mass-sackings, which we have to do anyway for fiscal reasons, then you will continue to see the sort of things you see on this blog:

    1. Conspiracies to mislead the public by a government department calling itself “LUKE”.

    2. Any number of public servants showing up under any amount of pseudonyms to keep the argument going but never once showing up with valid evidence.

    3. And the above is nothing to the shenanigans we see on other blogs.

    You will not believe me now. But just wait awhile. Years of colder winters will not stop these vermin until the sackings start in the public sector. Only then will public servants start giving honest advice to the public again. When they know that incompetence or lies will get them sacked. Everyone has to come around to my point of view sooner or later. Because they completely underestimate the virulence and bad faith of these people.

  43. Rick Beikoff July 5, 2009 at 3:41 pm #

    Perhaps we just need a group of our most senior and eminent scientists to stand up and say that the scientific literature proves that the science is NOW settled! AGW alarmism has been proved wrong!

  44. cohenite July 5, 2009 at 3:57 pm #

    It’s already been done Rick;


    Not to mention the Due Diligence report which is the subject of this post by Bob Carter.

  45. Graeme Bird July 5, 2009 at 4:39 pm #

    Yes that would be helpful. But what happens then is these goons go to work on those scientists credentials. So Evans becomes a “shill” as the department that calls itself LUKE now claims. Put the words “Jennifer” “Marohasy” and “shill” in the google and you will get north of 400 entries. The cowardliness of this vermin simply does not bottom out.

    Ian Plimer, until his new book came out, had gotten his reputation trashed, even within the “skeptics” movement. And you could scarcely get a better example of scientific eminence then Plimer. Consider the scientist David Bellamy. Trashed. Apparently no longer a scientist. Kicked off a number of boards. When I was a kid he had seven separate degrees. But you see him getting discussed now and he’s just a has-been television presenter, in the view of alarmist bully-boys.

    In the States 31,000 legitimately qualified people signed a petition against this fraud. The petition itself comprised an impeccable summary of where the authentic science stands at the moment. The UN scandal calling itself the IPCC has nothing like this sort of brainpower and the scientists don’t write the farcical summary reports anyway. Now I’m not saying that Art Robinson’s petition wasn’t a great thing. It was fantastic. But we won’t beat these guys until we get serious about boosting our private sector workforce in the appropriate way. Thinning out pubic sector salaries overhead is really the beginning of solving any public policy problem.

    The more general problem is that far too many people are getting degrees. Far too many of these degree-holders are in the public sector. And their public sector tendencies have now gone global with the net. These people hold hands across the globe and their natural slant towards looking askance, at the very people who pay for their life-styles, is multiplied to the nth degree. The government now dances on a string to the skewed and unnatural world-view of these people.

    We won’t get much headway until we thin non-defense public sector numbers out, and the department calling itself Luke and other global warming goons are then contemplating their exalted self-importance whilst down at the centrelink, or working in the short pants jobs.

  46. Luke July 5, 2009 at 5:09 pm #

    Sorry Coho – almost missed you in the debris field here. It’s fun watching them go off chasing their conspiracy theories. Bit of auto-suggestion and they’re off.

    Do the SST analysis so we don’t have to argue about UHI. You’ll notice Birdy is too lazy to do any analysis himself. Typical arts graduate – no ability except ranting. If you added up the time he spent ranting he could have done some actual science and presented it to us. Anyway someone has to do the comedy sketch I guess.

  47. Graeme Bird July 5, 2009 at 5:14 pm #

    Government departments posing as private individuals ought not speak too loudly about conspiracy theories.

  48. DavidK July 5, 2009 at 5:28 pm #

    So, all you goofballs jerk off at the surprise, surprise – the planet won’t undergo catastrophic climate change anytime soon … well, duh.

    That’s what the vast majority of scientists have been saying all along you idiots. What they also say is that AGW is real and poses a serious threat to, well – just about everything.

    You get a few alarmists, you get a few (oh gee, Bob Carter, David Evans and Watts come to mind) deniers. Thing is, the bell curve is skewed way way way to the AGW side of things – for very robust reasons.

    I know it’s a big ask, but put your collective wanker brains together and present something for Copenhagen – they just might listen to you debunk the science in favour of your own brand.

    Oh, please excuse the ad hom, learning it from Jen’s jackals.

  49. Graeme Bird July 5, 2009 at 5:41 pm #

    “That’s what the vast majority of scientists have been saying all along you idiots. What they also say is that AGW is real and poses a serious threat to, well – just about everything.”

    No you are lying. And even if you weren’t lying about what the scientists are saying this is neither here nor there. We aren’t worried about science-worker sentiment. Only scientific evidence counts. And you don’t have any.

    Furthermore; Though I lack soothsaying skills I happen to know that you aren’t about to present any evidence to back your lying claim. What you are about to do instead is filibuster.

    Now I could not know these things, lacking as I do the gift of leftist second-sight, were it not the case that I happen to know that NO-ONE has the evidence for the ludicrous anti-scientific claim that you just made.

  50. cohenite July 5, 2009 at 5:46 pm #

    UHI won’t come into it; its a pure statistical result with impeccable empirical correlation with tried and tested oceanographic effects.

    janama; that list of grantees is beyond belief; take a gander at some of the subjects; one of my favourites;

    R. Thompson “More Bang for your Carbon Buck: carbon, biodiversity and water balance consequences of whole-catchment carbon farming.” $708,000.

    That’s more than I make in a year and what the hell is “carbon farming”?

  51. Graeme Bird July 5, 2009 at 7:33 pm #

    “…what the hell is “carbon farming”?”

    Something that needs to be stopped for the sake of the biosphere is what it is.

    Its not just that this movement is stupid dishonest and wrong. Its just HOW stupid dishonest and wrong it is that knocks me out.

    Imagine thinking that robbing the biosphere of CO2 is somehow helping nature???????

    You just could not make up lunacy on that level.

  52. spangled drongo July 5, 2009 at 7:59 pm #

    With 200 million bikkies in that trough these pros will be making up as much lunacy as possible.

    What a slush fund!

    And that’s just a small contribution from Australia. How big is the US and the ROW?

    No wonder it’s the fastest growing religion. I could believe too, for a slice of that.

    And we ain’t seen nuthin’ yet!

    And these gummy snouts have the hide to criticise the peanuts that sceptical scientists occasionally get to present the other side of the “debate”.

  53. Louis Hissink July 5, 2009 at 8:07 pm #


    carbon farming is a euphemism for rent seeking or milking the taxpayers.

  54. Louis Hissink July 5, 2009 at 8:15 pm #


    It’s called institutionalized science prostrating itself at the feet of the ALP Mammon.

    It’s how the Fabians implement wealth distribution – instead of directly stealing from us, they call it “grants”.

    Luke and his useful idiots don’t really understand how they are being manipulated, hence the pejorative “lumpen masses”

  55. Malcolm Hill July 5, 2009 at 8:19 pm #

    If crap science doesnt get your dander up, then what about the crap legislation now voted in by members of USA Congress, who admit they havnt read the Bill before them.

    Here is 50 reasons why its a disaster


    With the dopey yanks doing this, whats the bet the morons in Canberra will do something similar.

  56. janama July 5, 2009 at 8:46 pm #

    “…what the hell is “carbon farming”?”

    good question

    according to Flannery if you take wheat stubble and convert it to charcoal you can save the planet. Of course it takes energy to create charcoal but that doesn’t seem to count. “Charcoal is pure carbon!” Flannery was heard to say on lateline last week, bury it in the ground and you are offsetting emissions. Note the offsetting, not the cutting.

    But Tim – we are still burning fossil fuels and this will balance it?? Well yes says Tim because the stubble would have decayed in the ground producing green house gasses.

    It get funnier every day.

  57. spangled drongo July 5, 2009 at 8:51 pm #

    Louis, maybe Luke has his proboscis in there too.

    Malcolm, be optimistic. Our senators may save us both.

  58. Graeme Bird July 5, 2009 at 9:12 pm #

    We ought not refer to “Luke” since there is no such person. You ought to cut and paste the following when referring to Luke:


    If you cut and paste that every-time you refer to these irresponsible money-wasting clowns then sooner or later someone will get around to firing them.

  59. sod July 5, 2009 at 9:22 pm #

    Scientific facts are not dependent on how they are agued – they are self evident. Wong’s reply, in its various versions, is simply dialectic obfuscation. The real problem is that her advisors actually believe this, as does Sod.

    Wong destroyed the fielding arguments. this is a fact.

    even Fielding had to admit on question 3:

    1.1. It is indeed clearly the case that individual GCM model runs simulate natural variability in a way which includes the depiction of periods of several years to a decade or so of cooling within a temperature projection that nonetheless progressively rises.

    and this is completely contradicting the question:

    Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the
    period 1990-2008
    , whereas in fact there were only 8 years of warming were followed by 10 years
    of stasis and cooling. (Fig. 3)?

    case closed on the fielding questions. they are rubbish.


    I read the Tamino post. It’s the same old same old. Which boils down to this: “If it looks like the warming rate has slowed down, easy fix, increase the number of years of smoothing.”

    you did not understand what Tamino said. try some basic statistics. tamino can SHOW with statistic methods, that a short term trend is unreliable. if you are arguing against this, you are arguing against facts.

  60. Graeme Bird July 5, 2009 at 10:21 pm #

    No her advisors are all liars and incompetents and ought to be sacked. Now sod why don’t you just stop lying and present your evidence for the likelihood of castastrophic warming or otherwise refrain from this pathetic lying.

  61. Graeme Bird July 5, 2009 at 10:22 pm #

    So your evidence sod is ………………………………………………………… what?

    We are all waiting.


  62. Luke July 5, 2009 at 10:34 pm #

    Oh the appalling disgraceful piggy ignorance of the Bird – you utter foolish art graduate – soil carbon comes from the atmosphere as a result of plant growth and is released again through decay or organic matter over time – are you that dense? There are very good reasons to build up soil carbon in various pools – microbial, fungal and long term as charcoal. Infiltration by water, water holding capacity, cation exchange, soil structure and perhaps as a carbon store.

    Soil carbon is just about as much as soil health as carbon sequestration.

    The terra preta story says it all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta

    Yes it takes some energy to make charcoal – but it’s a matter of nett though isn’t it !

  63. Graeme Bird July 5, 2009 at 11:00 pm #

    I’m a commerce graduate who majored in economics. Which is a more difficult subject then anything you guys are posing at. After all Keynes, Abe Lincoln, Alexander Hamilton and others were genius level characters and never came to grips with the subject.

    I’ll ignore the-government-department-calling-itself-LUKES’ evidence-filibuster for the moment and take Senator Fieldings coterie to task.

    In their conclusions they claim:

    “At the moment the planet is no longer warming; only time will tell whether the stasis and minor cooling trend will deepen significantly or will instead be succeeded by resumed warming. BOTH ARE EQUALLY PLAUSIBLE………..”

    But this is not true. Both are not EQUALLY plausible. The evidence says that the cooling will deepen. If the evidence turns out to be pointing us in the wrong direction, nonetheless thats where the evidence is pointing. And as a matter of fact the chances that we will see sustained resumed warming short of mid-century are really very remote.

    The climate will continue to cool. And though one would not normally want to place bets, we can all be very sure that the 2030’s (for example) will be a great deal colder than the 90’s were. It will be disastrously cold and by that time dry as well one would expect. And it will be CATASTROPHICALLY-so, if we have not got our nuclear and synthetic-diesel industries running full blast.

    Now all Senator Fieldings people would have known that the evidence dictates that powerful cooling is more plausible than resumed warming on the basis of the work of solar scientists. They would have all known this.

    Great job that these guys did otherwise. But they ought not have backed off on that point. There is nothing to be gained by allowing the weight of this lunacy to bend oneself even one centimetre away from what the evidence is saying.

  64. Cathy July 5, 2009 at 11:40 pm #


    You may view it as splitting hairs, but the Fielding Four said that warming or cooling were equally plausible, not that they were equally likely.

    The first wording implies that either MIGHT happen whereas the latter wording implies that there is an EQUAL CHANCE each will happen. These are not the same thing.


  65. Graeme Bird July 6, 2009 at 12:04 am #

    They aren’t equally plausible. At this point, and at least up to mid-century, any serious warming is entirely implausible. If that was to happen, then it would be because of evidence that is entirely unavailable to us right now. There is just nothing to suggest it.

    We cannot put a probability on these things. Since if we get serious warming it will be because of something currently not known. Its not like everything is so well known we can put odds on it. Rather all the evidence points to cooling, and if it warms it will be as a result of some sort of factor so far unknown. Like the rewriting of the way we look at the geological record. Something pretty implausible. The weather report is for nasty cooling. And all of these guys would know it.

    Maybe they think the truth is just a little bit too much to soon for the public. Maybe even our best people are swayed by the constant propagandizing.

  66. Find Luke July 6, 2009 at 12:56 am #


    Really? It’s a government department? Like a bunch of overpaid public servants types wasting taxpayer money and posting stuff over the web all day?

    Fellas if we ever find out where it comes from, I copy everything you’ve said at this site and send it to the government auditor to figure out how much time you’ve wasted.

  67. Graeme Bird July 6, 2009 at 5:50 am #

    Right. Four years of it. Or so it would seem. And gloating about it after the fact. But if not you are a compulsive liar. Here is a good website to do with the actual science as opposed to the tax-eater lying:



    Here is one of the fathers of this global warming movement back in 1972, despite there being cooling fears at that time, talking up his anti-industrial, and centralization views. Later he was going to become a bigshot warming liar. Its the anti-industrialism and globalism that remains the same and that has nothing to do with any weather forecast and never did. Reducing CO2 means destroying or taking control of industrial activity. Thats the entire motive for this and there is nothing more to it.

    Which is why none of the compulsive liars care about coming back day after day after day without any evidence. Either they are goose-stepping morons or they are motivated by these other goals. All of which of course are treasonous. Although people in the public sector have lost any sense of what treason is. Its a social faux pas now to even mention such a quaint concept. The-government-department-calling-itself-LUKE is essentially motivated by goals that must ‘on a technical level’ (since no-one can seem to get animated by the concept anymore) be considered treasonous. Which is why the total dearth of evidence does not matter.

    Anyone who is behind this must be sacked. If not for malice, and working AGAINST the public interest, then otherwise for incompetence. There isn’t a warmer left in 2009 that is not a self-selected failed analyst. It really doesn’t matter what his specialty is. He has to be presumed to be getting in the way. Removing such people would slow our accumulation of debt and make the public sector less ineffective overall. We could turn this whole despicable subject into an advantage since its an acid test to decide the failed analysts from those who we might shortlist to stay on in a much more streamlined public sector.

  68. sod July 6, 2009 at 6:38 am #

    So your evidence sod is ………………………………………………………… what?

    We are all waiting.


    bird, i know you are a little bit slow, but even you should spot the contradiction:

    Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008


    It is indeed clearly the case that individual GCM model runs simulate natural variability in a way which includes the depiction of periods of several years to a decade or so of cooling

    both this sentences are from the fielding “team”.

    please educate me. is that “decade of COOLING” part of the “steady INCREASE” that ALLL models show?

  69. Luke July 6, 2009 at 8:05 am #

    “I’m a commerce graduate who majored in economics. ” – how tragic – a trumped accountant who took the soft option – arts crap – turned political freak (now unelectable swill) who is PIG IGNORANT of basic science. Get off the blog clown.

  70. DavidK July 6, 2009 at 1:16 pm #

    “Anti-scientific claim,” Bird? This coming from a “commerce graduate who majored in economics” failed wanabe politician?

    Do yourself everyone a favour, go back to science primary school.

  71. Graeme Bird July 6, 2009 at 1:19 pm #

    Of course the GCM models predict warming. Thats the way they were programmed you idiot. We really are dealing with morons here. CONCEPTUAL AUDIT FAIL for you sod you twit.

  72. sod July 6, 2009 at 4:37 pm #

    Of course the GCM models predict warming. Thats the way they were programmed you idiot. We really are dealing with morons here. CONCEPTUAL AUDIT FAIL for you sod you twit.

    your reading comprehension is seriously limited.

    look at the pink line, that is the highest on in the mid-90s


    it ends up as the LOWEST one around 2008. that model did NOT predict warming over that period!!!!

  73. Graeme Bird July 6, 2009 at 6:32 pm #

    But its all irrelevant. I wanted some evidence. I didn’t ask for you to program a computer that says that CO2 will warm things up you stupid stupid low dog. Nor did I ask for you to refer to such computers.


    Evidence moron.


    Either get the evidence or admit that you are wrong. Thats what we used to do in the old days prior to the global warming fraud.

Website by 46digital