20 Responses to Sceptics Versus Actorvists

  1. cohenite July 5, 2009 at 8:43 pm #

    Save the Earth from what and for what? It’s not a rhetorical question; there is a large section of AGW support for reduced population or even eradication of humanity.

  2. Louis Hissink July 5, 2009 at 9:02 pm #

    Cohenite

    The AGW movement started with Margaret Meade and her 1975 conference – Stephen Schneider, William Holdren, et al of the Woods Hole institute were all part of it. I suspect it could be traced to the early English Fabians of the late 19th/early 20th century, and the spread of that political movement throughout the Anglo-Saxon world afterwards.

    Fabianism is essentially Keynesism, and this is capable of explaining most of what of what we are observing today.

    Lenin had his useful idiots, Rudd his with our AGW types here.

  3. sod July 5, 2009 at 9:14 pm #

    same old guys.

    i would be very glad, if i had never heard about Plimer….

  4. janama July 5, 2009 at 9:21 pm #

    would be very glad, if i had never heard about Plimer….

    I sympathsise – he f*kd you guys around totally did he – even doggied you!

    you’ll get over it.

  5. sod July 5, 2009 at 9:30 pm #

    I sympathsise – he f*kd you guys around totally did he – even doggied you!

    you’ll get over it.

    the Plimer book is so full of errors, that you need a book to point them out.

    http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer1a9.pdf

    i will just remind you of the discredited graph from the “warming swindle”, that turned out to be a swindle, and was used by Plimer, even though he knew that it is rubbish.

    ps: your perception on who is doing what to whom is seriously false.

  6. cohenite July 5, 2009 at 9:44 pm #

    sod, so Plimer is totally flawed? We’ll let that pass; what is your take on Wong’s reply to Fielding; here’s a clue; her OHC graph begins negatively; ie. the ocean was a block of ice; the graph also finishes in 2006 just before the down-turn in warming which even NOAA and Levitus show; and the graph also ignores the controversy of the transitional effect on OHC between 2002-2003 which produced an increase in OHC greater than the rest of the 55 year trend measurement?

    Take your time.

  7. Luke July 5, 2009 at 10:10 pm #

    OK MFOs – how about a temporary philosophical truce. Do we agree that living in Australia in an off/on drought/flood environment is problematic. So forget about ETSs, Gore, Hansen, Flannery for a while

    – do we agree it’s a good thing to have first class meteorological data, and a first class understanding of the climate phenomena that affect our fair shores?

    A single example – You’ve all been quoting Indian Ocean Dipole – this understanding is relatively new. It’s from climate science.

    If we knew a drought or big wet was on the cards would you behave differently in that season?

  8. hunter July 5, 2009 at 11:00 pm #

    It is starting to look like people are paying attention, at last.
    This is such a creative way to shut down the idea that there are no credible skeptics.
    Luke,
    What does getting good weather info have to do with wrecking economies over climate predictions?

    Sod,
    Just because some AGW true believers say something is false ro wicked does not make it so.

  9. Henry chance July 5, 2009 at 11:00 pm #

    Luke:
    “do we agree it’s a good thing to have first class meteorological data, and a first class understanding of the climate phenomena that affect our fair shores?”

    Unaltered temperature readings? That is why i came into denial of global warming. When temperatures don’t match expectations, the warming activists substitute models and claim them as “evidence”..See how Mini ster Wong abuses the word “evidence”.

    Misister Wong shakes her fist in the face of scientific methods.

    One of the tests we call baloney detection is speaking with bravado. Watch algore. all bravado and no proofs.

  10. Lawrie July 5, 2009 at 11:05 pm #

    Well well well -is the the Luke of yore who used to write interesting (indeed informative) comments on this blog? If so welcome back!
    But be aware there is some idiot troll who writes sheer garbage here and also calls itself “Luke”.

  11. SJT July 6, 2009 at 9:50 am #

    It’s all about the framing, isn’t it? The AGW side is represented by “Green” activists, who are made up of actors, airheads, dreamers, romanticists. The Skeptic side is represented entirely by many scientists who are experts in climate and actively researching and publishing in that area.

    The framing misrepresents entirely what the situation actually is, but it does it’s job, it creates the lie.

  12. Patrick B July 6, 2009 at 10:31 am #

    I’ve got a few chooks of my own. I think they’d turn up their beaks at the scraps you feed your lot. Louis’s looking skinny and coho’s not laying regularly (may have an egg stuck iin it’s b*m), you better watch out for the RSPCA.

  13. WJP July 6, 2009 at 12:13 pm #

    YOu said it SJT “……”Green” activists, who are made up of actors, airheads, dreamers, romanticists.”

    SMH, 6/7/09, Ben Cubby “Al Gore mines a new source of climate change messengers”

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/al-gore-mines-a-new-source-of-climatechange-messengers-20090705-d98t.html

    I always thought Don Henry had a gig at Treasury, doing Treasury things, like……

  14. hunter July 6, 2009 at 1:33 pm #

    SJT,
    Something is working right. I see you actually using the ‘S’ word, “skeptic”, and I thank you for it.
    I think it is good to point out a few odd facts from time-to-time. The fact that there are very good scientists who are skeptics is one of those odd facts. The fact that lefty/greens/artsies are active in the AGW camp is another of those odd facts.
    That does not make something a lie. Just unexpected.

  15. PeterB July 6, 2009 at 3:42 pm #

    Interesting article in this weekend’s Fin Review saying that Australia has become a world leader in climate change scepticism. Sen. Fielding has apparently created quite a favourable impression and has told a recent gathering that Sen. Wong’s response to him was insufficient.

  16. hunter July 6, 2009 at 10:17 pm #

    PeterB,
    Another good reason to consider emigrating to Australia.

  17. SJT July 7, 2009 at 9:45 am #

    “I think it is good to point out a few odd facts from time-to-time. The fact that there are very good scientists who are skeptics is one of those odd facts. The fact that lefty/greens/artsies are active in the AGW camp is another of those odd facts.
    That does not make something a lie. Just unexpected.”

    You missed the point. The number of ’emiritus’ professors is always telling, and scientists who are outside their field of specialisation, and scientists who are not actually scientists and publishing. When you take them away, the field is pretty thin. The scientists who are ‘skeptical’ are usually don’t actually know what they are talking about. As I have said before, it’s like Galileo all over again. Old farts who are out of touch can’t acknowledge the recent advances in science.

  18. kuhnkat July 7, 2009 at 12:22 pm #

    Little Sod,

    “i will just remind you of the discredited graph from the “warming swindle”, that turned out to be a swindle, and was used by Plimer, even though he knew that it is rubbish.”

    and the Hockey Stick and other IMPORTANT alarmist studies are what exactly???

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  19. kuhnkat July 7, 2009 at 12:23 pm #

    Little SJT,

    “Old farts who are out of touch can’t acknowledge the recent advances in science.”

    especially when those advances are based on fraud!!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  20. SJT July 7, 2009 at 4:35 pm #

    I don’t know what you are on kuhnkat, but I’ll buy some.

Website by 46digital