Defining the Scientific Sceptics (Part 9): John Izzard

IF you are going to set up a new cult, which is what the emissions trading bill [currently before the Australian Senate] is all about, you really have to get in quickly and corner all of the best descriptive and emotive words; seize the moral high ground; then get out and kick hell out of any doubters.

The problem for those who question the scientific and ethical nature of the new Climate Cult, is that all the beaut stuff has been snaffled by the New Age Weathermen, and, as a result we are battling to get a decent foothold on the mountainous terrain of public opinion. But all is not lost!

If Rudyard Kipling was still about, or still fashionable, he would have, no doubt, given us something like this to fall back on:

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are loosing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good nor talk too wise.
 

The first difficulty those classified as “climate sceptics” face is the word ‘sceptic’. It has all sorts of various connotations, but a short version goes something like; “a person who habitually doubts generally accepted beliefs”. Ouch!   No wonder the Climate Cult love the word ‘sceptic’.

So the first thing needed is to re-badge ourselves. The Pharaoh Akhenaten tried it around 3300 years ago when he attempted to change the way most Egyptians saw themselves, both in relation to the heavens and how they depicted themselves in art. It only lasted until his death. How will climate sceptics be remembered in the next 100 or 1000 years? Not that well, I fear— unless we re-badge.

The reality is that most of those who are badged as climate “sceptics” actually have no axe to grind about the science one way or the other – they are actually climate “agnostics”, and just want the facts of the matter to be allowed to fall where they may.  But the word hasn’t caught on, and another alternative – climate “realists” – has all the appeal of a wet fish. So, of the available terms, climate “rationalist” is probably the best, and perhaps we should stick to that.

The second problem that doubters of the current climate-mania face is that they are depicted almost exclusively for what they doubt rather than what they believe. It is an age old trick. “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” Don’t you just envy the warmaholics/carbonistas for their ignorance. The certainty of dogma.

In facing the above problem it seems that what is needed is a concerted effort by Climate Rationalists to continually expound their beliefs. Not a sort of Soviet style manifesto, or gormless, meaningless list of “save the planet” jingles or chants, but a substantial statement of belief and purpose.

Climate Rationalists certainly believe (or at least all the ones I know or have read about do) in fresh air, unpolluted seas and rivers, lush woods and the aroma of a distant wildebeest. Most dislike the wasteful use of resources, coal and oil included, or the slashing of forests and mountains of garbage, to say nothing of awful rush-hour traffic and unpredictable weather. So any notion that Climate Rationalists are generally against the cut and thrust of sound economic and social management of both the planet, and its resources, is really a gross libel.

What Global Warming and Climate Change warriors believe in is very straight forward and clear. They believe that human activity is causing the planet’s climate to change (warm dangerously). They believe that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions are bad, and should be controlled. They believe that just about any recently detected change to land, ocean or atmospheric activity is the result of accumulating, human-caused carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere. Anything that is changing in this world is being caused by irresponsible humans, not Sister Moon or Brother Sun.

So what do Climate Rationalists believe? Well this Climate Rationalist, for one, believes in the following:

1. Science based upon science, and in particular science which is rooted in empirical and experimental observation rather than unvalidated computer models.

2. Science, defended against the heavy hand of politics, religious fervour, and media manipulation.

3. Science based on the premise that all plants and creatures on this planet evolved because of the changing nature of this planet through time, that natural earthly events such as changes to atmosphere, ice-caps, land shifts, volcanic eruptions and non-earthly solar influences. And the natural ups and downs of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

4. That all these changes ebb and flow through time, and are natural, evolving and to a large degree, unpredictable and unpreventable.

5. Humans need to think deeply about the possible consequences of believing that they can interfere with the natural environment on a global scale by trying to stop evolution.  Carbon dioxide today! What tomorrow?

As the Senate is voting this week on the future of Rudd’s ETS there could not be a better time for readers on Quadrant Online [and this weblog] to toss around the five notions listed above and add, subtract or demolish.

We need a positive creed for our beliefs.

Perhaps Kipling would say:

If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ‘em up with worn-out tools.

The days when our lives were so much simpler.

*************

Notes and Links

John Izzard is a documentary film producer and director whose credits include “Bastards from the Bush” on Les Murray and Bob Ellis; “Conversations With a Dead Poet” on John Forbes; and “A Fine Body of Gentlemen” on 1868 Aboriginal Cricket tour of England. Regular contributor to Quadrant magazine, and Quadrant Online.

This article was first published by Quadrant Online as part of its ETS Forum on August 8, 2009.  To read other articles in the ETS Forum click here: http://www.quadrant.org.au/.    Permission to republish this article here is appreciated.

To read other articles in the ‘Defining the Sceptics’ and ‘Defining the Greens’ series at this weblog click here and scroll down.

107 Responses to Defining the Scientific Sceptics (Part 9): John Izzard

  1. SJT August 10, 2009 at 9:09 pm #

    Heavy on empty rhetoric and polemic, threadbare on content.

    Empirical observations make up a large part of the IPCC reports. Have you even read it?

  2. Joe Litobarski August 10, 2009 at 9:56 pm #

    I have to say, I’m not at all convinced by your argument (although it was well-written).

    Is it possible to have science, “free from media manipulation” and at the same “rebrand” your position? Rebranding is an uber-typical “media manipulation” tool, after all.

    Or to hate “Soviet” style manifestos, jingles and chants – but use the same Soviet-style propaganda tricks? For example: should you really be calling those that believe in man-made climate change “climate cultists,” “warmaholics/carbonistas” and “climate change warriors” whilst criticising THEM for calling you (very mildly, by comparison) “climate sceptics”? You may hate you opponents with a passion – and calling them names can be entertaining – but it’s a cheap trick.

    At least climate “sceptics” is much better than “climate deniers,” which makes sceptics sound like holocaust deniers. “Climate rationalists,” however, implies that your opponents are not rational, which is just the kind of arrogance that puts people off. It’s a Soviet-style dirty trick. Your opponents may disagree with your position, but they are JUST as rational as you. Perhaps you cannot understand why they don’t agree with you, and put it down to them not being rational, but that’s absolute rubbish.

    No, the term “sceptics” is just fine, I think. It’s perfectly descriptive without undermining the sceptical position. It doesn’t mean you are sceptical of everything – just that you are sceptical of man-made climate change.

  3. Mr T August 10, 2009 at 10:02 pm #

    SJT “Heavy on empty rhetoric and polemic, threadbare on content.”

    Sounds like a valid description of the cr*p you write

  4. James Mayeau August 10, 2009 at 11:04 pm #

    speaking of knaves setting traps for fools, and there he is.

    Lets get empirical – how reliable are those thermometers? Give or take ten degrees, absolutely fine. Too bad that’s an order of magnitude outside of the crisis they’re supposed to detect.

  5. SJT August 10, 2009 at 11:27 pm #

    You haven’t read it either, have you? They refer to more than just thermometers. As for the accuracy of the temperature record, do you think it is the sun, and the record is accurate, or the record is in accurate, and it’s no the sun?

  6. hunter August 10, 2009 at 11:40 pm #

    yes, besides inaccurate thermometers, they have inaccurate models. Oh, and self-reviewed papers. and suppression of evidence. yes, the IPCC has lots and lots of stuff.
    And yes, I have read enough of the IPCC to know it is not a scientifice paper. It is a political document: a sales tool

  7. SJT August 10, 2009 at 11:55 pm #

    Glaciers

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/06/graph-jam/

  8. Luke August 11, 2009 at 12:54 am #

    Just another load of rhetoric from a denialist trying to dress up a movement of mostly retired bunch of right wing extremists into a “serious” group of people. How utterly pretentious.

    One example of why the author needs some peer review “They believe that just about any recently detected change to land, ocean or atmospheric activity is the result of accumulating, human-caused carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere. Anything that is changing in this world is being caused by irresponsible humans, not Sister Moon or Brother Sun.”

    Just more predictable denialist scum verballing. So sickly sugar sweet – so deliciously imperceptibly suggestible – but nevertheless corrupt and evil in intent.

  9. Anne August 11, 2009 at 1:36 am #

    Look at all those “Natural Climate Change Deniers” come out of the woodwork.

    Religious believers who want us to take the blame for natural climate variations and pay penance by returning to stone age living standards, although their high priests, like Al Gore and Prince Charles, can flit about the world in jets to spread the High Truth .

    Luke –
    “….but nevertheless corrupt and evil in intent” did the Big Bad Wolf scare you again? Maybe your mommy can find the pacifier.

  10. Schiller Thurkettle August 11, 2009 at 2:06 am #

    This is a fine, perceptive essay on the uses of rhetoric in “discussions” (using the term advisedly) about AGW.

    The term ‘skeptic’ is appropriately contrasted with the term ‘agnostic’ — the religious overtones in the “discussions” are so obvious that in this context, calling someone a ‘skeptic’ is equivalent to a Christian fundamentalist calling someone an atheist.

    If you wonder about the religious aspects of AGW, pay close attention to the words they use to introduce the topic into a “discussion”. Almost invariably, they introduce the topic by asking a question that begins with the phrase, “Do you believe in …”.

    The term ‘denialist’ was, until the popular emergence of the AGW “discussion”, primarily reserved for Holocaust deniers. Such deniers are perfidious, or worse.

    But when the course of the entire “discussion” revolves around whether the participants are virtuous, and why, the first casualty is the topic itself — AGW. Whether AGW is a true and accurate depiction of the physical world quickly becomes irrelevant.

    Accordingly, I submit that anyone who insists in staying *on topic*, in “discussions” about AGW, rather than delving into matters of virtue, will have to live with being called a ‘skeptic’ etc. until this is all over.

  11. ian middleton August 11, 2009 at 2:27 am #

    I don’t like the term skeptic because it suggests an element of doubt. As far as AGW goes, I have no doubts, It’s not happening!.
    Global warming comes and global warming goes, it’s a natural condition of this planet. I also don’t like being told that the Earth is warming faster than predicted, when clearly it is not.

    I see no evidence of global warming for the past 10 years yet the AGW’ers are trying to convince me otherwise. And when I don’t agree with them I am dubbed a denier, how rude.
    To date not one AGW’er has been able to present me with any evidence to prove catastrophic temperature rise or sea level for that matter, not one.

    I have read the IPCC report and see it as a political document and not a scientific one.
    And the one thing that erks me the most is the blatent display of ignorance by AGW’ers who call Carbon Dioxide a pollutant.

  12. hunter August 11, 2009 at 4:40 am #

    What we have is a bunch of political Orwellians who have defined ‘climate science’ to = ‘AGW’, and ‘belief in greenhouse effect’ to = ‘belief in AGW’.
    And of course ‘climate scientist’ to = ‘anyone with or without a degree in science who agrees with AGW’.
    And, most importantly, ‘evil person’ to = ‘anyone who disputes AGW’.
    Notice however, time and again, AGW believers here and elsewhere, when confronted with the over-the-top apocalyptic clap trap used by Hansen, the IPCC, etc., etc., etc., often slink away, and blame the one asking about the apocalyptic clap trap for having the bad manners to bring the issue up at all.

  13. Jeremy C August 11, 2009 at 5:52 am #

    Johnny Boy,

    We don’t call you sceptics, we call you denialists, because thats what you are. Keep up!

  14. Jeremy C August 11, 2009 at 5:55 am #

    Hey Schiller Thurkettle,

    Read Johnny’s piece. Now how many times does he use the word belief and who is it about……..?

    Answer on one side of a piece of white card please.

  15. Michael August 11, 2009 at 6:48 am #

    “We don’t call you sceptics, we call you denialists, because thats what you are. Keep up!”

    Having said that does it make you feel better Jeremy. Does any of your name calling or personal insults move the debate on or is it just the warm glow of self satisfaction you crave?

  16. Luke August 11, 2009 at 8:42 am #

    Hunter – don’t try to weasel out that you’re fabricating lying denialist scum – can’t be trusted on any point. Spinning every day.

  17. hunter August 11, 2009 at 9:22 am #

    Luke,
    You guys are just going through the motions, lately.
    What’s wrong? Is the member with wit out on vacation or leave? Maybe facing a budget cut or dodging an audit evaluation?
    I am going to take a leap and guess that you are trying to respond to my last post.
    Perhaps you can consult with each other and try to actually make a coherent answer? No time limit, and you can utilize a dictionary. Even a Thesaurus. You would find it wonderfully helpful, while you are stuck with only the witless Luke members.
    Good luck and cheers,

    Michael,
    AGW is, like any incoherent belief system, easily capable of lowering the intelligence of its extremists. Jeremy C, and others here, demonstrate this with multiple examples daily.

  18. Graeme Bird August 11, 2009 at 9:24 am #

    We’ve got to get beyond skepticism. Everyone now knows that if there is any warming it would be a great and good thing and something extra to add onto the known and proven benefits of extra-CO2. Looking at the Paleo record it seems to me that the very long-term NATURAL CO2-future is all downhill. Maybe thats just my memory playing tricks with me. But its at least possible that without human life we could wind up with a planet so CO2-deprived that life itself would have been on its last legs. After all there is no doubt that the atmosphere is
    CO2-deprived right now. No doubt about that whatsoever.

    Perhaps we ought to call ourselves CARBON-BOOSTERS. And malign all our opponents as being transmuted racists. After all look at the advertisements that Penny Wong lies to the children with. Black balloons. They say CARBON when they mean CO2. Is it a black thing? I think its a black thing. I’m sure its a black thing. I think we’ve alway known that this is a black thing.

    I think the warmers are all racists and barely reconstructed eugenicists. How many black intellectuals do you know of who are desperate to deprive us all of CO2? Anyone? No one? There are none!

    Now way right? Its all the same lilly-white geeks, busy-body’s and bigshots that stop us from getting cheap DDT by the tank-load to sort any problems around the farm.

    I am a Carbon-Booster. I’m not a skeptic since I know the other side is wrong. This is not a matter of doubt. I think we ought to call ourselves by another name. Carbon-enthusiasts.

    That way we can smuggle in the marvels of this most magnificent of molecules. Imagine one day the giant superhard structures that may be made of carbon if we preserve civilisation. All the carbon-fibre vehicles and machinery. If we are carbon-enthusiasts, or carbon-boosters or carbon-spruikers, or carbon-advocates we can side with our black brothers against these whitey eugenicists, advocate the marvels of higher-CO2 levels, and bring in great inspirational teachings to the small children about the wondrous possibilities of carbon materials in the wider scheme of things.

  19. Graeme Bird August 11, 2009 at 9:35 am #

    Joanne Nova really did us Australian Carbon-Spruikers proud a couple of weeks ago. Because she showed up on this American investment radio show called “Financial Sense.” I listen to this radio show all the time and I happen to know that Jim has never had on any Carbon-Booster one tenth as strident as Joanne was on this show. So its a very righteous radio moment.

    http://www.financialsense.com/fsn/main.html

    Second week. Fourth hour. Like me without the swearing but here I flatter myself.

  20. Ayrdale August 11, 2009 at 9:38 am #

    Note the forthcoming debate between Prof. Ian Plimer and George Monbiot.

    A chance to see some light perhaps ?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/aug/05/climate-change-scepticism

  21. Graeme Bird August 11, 2009 at 9:45 am #

    You ought to go into the show about 34 minutes to get Joanne’s performance. You’ll know you are on the right track if you hear the Beatles. Its terrific. She doesn’t hold back or pull any punches at all.

  22. Patrick B August 11, 2009 at 9:46 am #

    I note that the author of this post regularly contributes to the discredited journal “Quadrant”. Wasn’t this publiction rather badly hoaxed last year? I also note that the opposition yesterday announced the results of a study intended to produce a CPRS policy of its own. This would seem to make the kind of bleating we see in this post irrelevent to the point of being farcial.
    Let’s talk about Denialism for a moment. Denialism assumes that the real world is is out to get it because it speaks the truth, that the majority have been brainwashed, that scientific methods that haven’t changed for decades are now corrupt because they reveal some truths that upset the majority of the denialists’ world view. That’s a cult.

  23. Ayrdale August 11, 2009 at 9:58 am #

    Patrick B you could be right, but I don’t think so. Neither do I think that we are in for climate armageddon if we don’t wean ourselves off fossil fuels. Neither do I think that the green/left wealth redistribution wish list will be delivered via this attempt to frighten the populace. What I do think however, is that green credibility has been totally bet on this issue, and when it is clear that we are all not going to fry, drown or be dehydrated to death the green political movement will be over.

    I refer to the forthcoming debate (above) and hope for continued debate, and of course continued science re our ever-changing climate; particularly the CLOUD and Argos experiments.

    Truth will win out.

  24. Patrick B August 11, 2009 at 10:05 am #

    “the green political movement will be over.”

    A bold prediction. I would disagree however. The Green, or environmental, movement has a significant amount of history, much of which shows some success in advocating positions that were eventually passed into law. T
    he complexity of issues in the AGW/CPRS debate not to mention the number of parties involved wonlt lead to a major collapse of either side. What will happen is a series of compromise arrangments that probably won’t leave anyone happy. There will be no Waterloo.

  25. Schiller Thurkettle August 11, 2009 at 10:52 am #

    PatrickB makes an interesting observation:

    “Denialism assumes that the real world is is out to get it because it speaks the truth, that the majority have been brainwashed, that scientific methods that haven’t changed for decades are now corrupt because they reveal some truths that upset the majority of the denialists’ world view.”

    His observation is interesting, because he very nearly describes, with some unfortunate and obviously untutored glitches, the scientific process which has guided humanity out of the Dark Ages.

    This leads him to conclude: “That’s a cult.”

    Booshwah.

    Scientific methods haven’t changed for ages because they work, and work independently (persecutions aside) of political processes.

    Patrick’s protestations aside, the fact is, the real world *does* speak the truth for those willing to learn, and the majority *have* been brainwashed, the majority being veteran faddists with no notion of the scientific method.

    His notion that “scientific methods that haven’t changed for decades are now corrupt because they reveal some truths that upset the majority of the denialists’ world view” is hopelessly insensible to anyone familiar with the last six centuries’ developments in science and philosophy.

    The scary thing is that Patrick thinks he makes sense — and that he likely has cohorts willing to enforce this bizarre creed with “direct action” against those with benevolent tendencies.

  26. Graeme Bird August 11, 2009 at 11:04 am #

    “What will happen is a series of compromise ”

    No no. We are not going to have any compromise arrangements with you filth. We are just going to do the right thing as the cause of justice, science, reason and the defense of humane civilisation, will help us to see what is right. In the long run your crowd is irrelevant. Your ten million lies don’t add up to one truth. Your attempts to be Edmund from King Lear will neither be here nor there. We shall NOT compromise with vermin like you. We shall rather do the right thing and reject your atavistic ass outright.

  27. Neil Fisher August 11, 2009 at 11:09 am #

    This is quite an interesting take on it:
    http://www.tech-know.eu/NISubmission/pdf/Politics_and_the_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf

  28. SJT August 11, 2009 at 12:25 pm #

    “What I do think however, is that green credibility has been totally bet on this issue, and when it is clear that we are all not going to fry, drown or be dehydrated to death the green political movement will be over.”

    Have you considered the alternative? The trends are clear, and by associating free markets with denialism, it will be a big boost to collectivism and the death knell for radical free market theories, which will have been proven to be incapable of dealing with large scale issues.

  29. Ian Mott August 11, 2009 at 12:29 pm #

    John Izzard has it dead wrong on the utility of the word sceptic. True, most sceptics are not really sceptics at all. We know bull$hit when we see it, smell it or hear it and need no second opinions as to the volume of bull$hit in climate cretinism. But he is having a conversation with the converted, not the target audience.

    The key feature of the marketing landscape is a vast middle ground of ordinary folk who do not fully understand the science and know even less of what should constitute due process. And the overwhelming message being fed to these people is that it is all settled, there is no room for doubt and the output of assumption laden “climate muddles” is synonymous with proven fact.

    This is no accident. Some time ago the WWF employed a London based marketing spiv to advise them on how they can win the scientific debate and convince the public of the need for urgent action. The spiv told them to forget about contesting the science altogether and simply run with the line that they had already won the debate, the contest was over and only weirdos and fools can’t see the obvious truth. It was out of this meeting that the so-called global consensus was born and doubters became deniers and oil lackeys.

    So our key strategy must continue to express doubt, entirely reasonable doubt, so the middle ground will know that the consensus is bunkum, the science is not settled and there are a great many questions left unanswered. The name “sceptic” remains easily identified as a doubter and it is a timely reminder that the key demand of our legal system is the requirement to establish a case “beyond reasonable doubt”.

    This will then draw the climate cretins into the core community expectations of governments duty of care, risk assessment and proper exercise of power. None of which have been met by them to date.

  30. toby August 11, 2009 at 12:32 pm #

    Thanks for that link Neil, it seems to be supporting what i recall gordon robertson and green davey stressing a few blogs ago.

    Everyday we see more sceptical scientists, and yet every day we are told of the consensus.

    But heh, lets stuff up our economy anyway with an ETS, its the moral thing to do!

  31. hunter August 11, 2009 at 12:49 pm #

    One thing cult believers do is to rewrite history, and to control communications.
    Sort of like what the AMS has had happen to it recently, by an AGW extremist:
    http://climatesci.org/2009/08/10/comment-on-the-ams-policy-statement-on-geoengineering-the-climate-system-an-example-of-conflict-of-interest/

  32. Graeme Bird August 11, 2009 at 1:39 pm #

    “So our key strategy must continue to express doubt, entirely reasonable doubt, so the middle ground will know that the consensus is bunkum, the science is not settled and there are a great many questions left unanswered.”

    But why? Where is this coming from?

    You have no RIGHT to DOUBTS!!!! that there is no scientific evidence for.

    Mott……….. mott mott mott mott mott. Pull yourself together. We must put forward a high carbon future of palaces of diamond and jewelled cities where the plants grow in abundance even right up to the wall of ice. And light super-hard carbon-fibres are the main building material and in this world there is endless nuclear power and solar towers just for kicks.

    Where is this dishonest doubt coming from? If you cannot find the evidence for it then send it to the fires.

  33. SJT August 11, 2009 at 1:59 pm #

    “Basic scientific principles
    demonstrate that the overall GE phenomenon is not a result of human emissions of
    “greenhouse gases”.”

    What is interesting about that statement is that someone with a title that he carries could make such a statement of ignorance.

    No one has ever claimed that the overall GE phenomenon is a result of human emissions. If he can’t get something as fundamental to the debate correct in the introduction, he has no hope of making sense at all.

    The issue is the ‘forcing’ due to human emissions that is causing the current energy balance to change.

  34. Luke August 11, 2009 at 2:03 pm #

    Bored bored bored – ETS isn’t gonna get up so what are you all worried about. Settle the f down. We could spend our analytical skills admiring the fact that a Mottsa or a Birdie could have evolved and survived childhood.

  35. spangled drongo August 11, 2009 at 2:13 pm #

    “Glaciers”

    http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/008200908090931.htm

    It pays to be sceptical AND realistic!

  36. SJT August 11, 2009 at 2:13 pm #

    You know that rain that Roy Spencer says will fall from the sky due to the increase in water vapour due to AGW and act as a negative feedback?

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25913309-2703,00.html

    “Specially trained rescuers and soldiers were due to be flown in by helicopter but the heavy rain and nightfall delayed their departure. Morakot – which means emerald in Thai – has dumped an astonishing 2.5 metres of rain on the island; a record amount.”

    2.5 metres of rain is unimaginable.

  37. Graeme Bird August 11, 2009 at 2:36 pm #

    Luke. SJT. Patrick. You guys going to come up with some evidence?

    Or are you just going to hang around here with egg dripping off your face?

  38. SJT August 11, 2009 at 2:49 pm #

    Read the IPCC report.

  39. SJT August 11, 2009 at 2:50 pm #

    If you want more, read the online textbook

    http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.html

  40. spangled drongo August 11, 2009 at 3:08 pm #

    “2.5 metres of rain is unimaginable.”

    That is par for the course in a typhoon or cyclone. Just check even Australia’s history in this regard.

    “TYPHOONS have wreaked mass destruction across east Asia, with dozens of people confirmed dead in what has been described as some of the area’s worst weather in half a century.”

    IOW they were worse 50 years ago before ACO2!

    What a cotton pickin’, weather pickin’, cherry plucker.

  41. Graeme Bird August 11, 2009 at 3:19 pm #

    So what you are telling me is that you are NOT going to come up with any evidence. And that you ARE going to just sit around with egg dripping of your face.

    I lack the gift of leftist second sight. So tell me. How did I know you weren’t coming up with squat?

    You people could die and be born again and then get a brain transplant and you would never have still have any notion of what science is about.

    This is what I hate most about global warming. Suddenly every blockhead is a scientist.

  42. SJT August 11, 2009 at 3:24 pm #

    Did you read the report? Did you read the climate book?

  43. spangled drongo August 11, 2009 at 3:30 pm #

    “You know that rain that Roy Spencer says will fall from the sky due to the increase in water vapour due to AGW and act as a negative feedback?”

    I think this is more like the real story.

    http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

  44. dribble August 11, 2009 at 3:46 pm #

    Motty: “So our key strategy must continue to express doubt, entirely reasonable doubt, so the middle ground will know that the consensus is bunkum, the science is not settled and there are a great many questions left unanswered. The name “sceptic” remains easily identified as a doubter and it is a timely reminder that the key demand of our legal system is the requirement to establish a case “beyond reasonable doubt”.”

    Hear hear. Good stuff. So you have discovered doubt at last Motty. Perhaps you might be able to break out of your case of arrested development after all. We might make a useful officer out of you yet.

  45. Larry Fields August 11, 2009 at 4:19 pm #

    I think that the expression “climate skeptic” is too namby-pamby. More of us should come out of the carbon closet, as Graeme has. Carbon Booster? Not bad.

    Me? I’m an unrepentant bah-humbug.

  46. spangled drongo August 11, 2009 at 4:21 pm #

    Luke, SJT, and all you heavily menstruating, non-sceptical true believers, how do you go on stories like this?

    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25808233-23109,00.html

  47. toby August 11, 2009 at 4:32 pm #

    SJT and others often defer to the IPCC to find the “science”.
    I have always believed it was prudent to doubt/ distrust governments and their motives. I think only a fool does not do this.
    The IPCC was established by governments with the agenda of proving AGW…alarm bells should have rung with everyone capable of independent thought. It doesnt take much reading to verify the need to be sceptical of any findings stated by the IPCC.
    It is abundantly clear that there is no consensus among scientists on AGW, and even if there were it wouldnt make it fact, just more likely.

    I can understand and respect the need to defer to authority in areas where you are not an expert. AGW would seem like an excellent example of this need to defer to authority. We have been told the science is settled for so many years, we have seen shows “proving” warming and discussing the impending doom. I too believed in the perils of burning co2. But a wise man suggested i do some broader reading and see what “sceptics” had to say and also look at the politics behind the science. It did not take me long to become sceptical. I believe in the green house effect per se, but its logarthmic effect means without positive feedback we dont have any thing to worry about. Positive feedback is unlikely when we look at nature and history. The positive feedback relies on clouds/ water vapour and models. Both of which the IPCC even says are poorly understood and not for making predictions. But of course they rely on both to create a sense of urgency anyway!..more alarm bells?
    Then of course I looked at all the gross exagerations and lies we are fed to create a sense of urgency…this increased my sceptism.
    Then I wondered why we would use per capita emissions to set carbon levels, rather than the capacity for our country to absorb our emissions. Why shouldnt we get credit for having only 20 million people in a land mass the size of the USA?
    Then I thought about who was driving this AGW bus…the Europeans. If that didnt set of alarm bells for you I m not sure what would.
    Then I looked at possible solutions and potential actions by governments….without new technology or the use of nuclear there is no solution given so many people in the world are striving to get out of poverty.
    We wont even start a debate in this country about nuclear.
    We are lied to about wind power and solar power and their capacity to produce base load power at a reasonable cost ( In fact they can t even produce base load power , let alone worrying about the cost!)…create a storage device for the energy when it is produced and wind maybe we are on to something.
    Then I looked at the introduction of desal plants which will produce high cost water with huge co2 emissions and listened as politicians preached they would use green energy.
    Why not build a dam? Oh they say it doesnt rain anymore…yes but when it does wouldnt 2 dams catch more than 1?m Are there still areas where we know we could build one? Yes in victoria we have the mitchell river which generally floods each year and would fill quickly and solve melbournes water needs for many many years..all for 1.3 billion….no co2 once built…….
    Clearly the government doesnt actually believe what it says.
    Then I hear how its crucial we set an example because its the “moral” thing to do…when governments preach morals at you , you should be even more scared..don t you agree?
    Beware….big brother is coming to you soon. I reckon orwell is rolling in his grave.

    Yes Luke, the ETS will be voted down this time, buts it quite clear the liberals also support an ETS , so it will happen. At least if it happens to the same extent as it happens elsewhere the damage should leave us on a level playing field.
    But given the impending “peak oil” wouldn t we perhaps be better of ensuring we have as much wealth as possible to adapt and create new technologies and not let the government try and pick winners with its subsidies and legislation?

  48. dribble August 11, 2009 at 4:42 pm #

    Given the scale of the obesity epidemic, perhaps the missing mass from the shrinking fish is somehow being transmuted directly into human lard. Are we being fattened up for consumption by the alien overlords?

  49. SJT August 11, 2009 at 5:05 pm #

    A lot of words Toby, but no content.

  50. Larry Fields August 11, 2009 at 5:19 pm #

    SJT,
    You’re just envious, because toby has the capacity for independent thought, and you do not.

  51. SJT August 11, 2009 at 5:22 pm #

    “You’re just envious, because toby has the capacity for independent thought, and you do not.”

    He thought a lot, I didn’t see any evidence, just a few opinions. The hallmark of a skeptic is evidence.

  52. toby August 11, 2009 at 6:13 pm #

    So SJT, if you found ntg I said of note, I think it says more about your closed mind than anything else?! Thats if you even bothered to read it, or took the time to understand, or even had the capacity to understand? Not surprising considering you worship at the shrine of the IPCC !
    Thx for the support Larry.

  53. dribble August 11, 2009 at 7:01 pm #

    “So our key strategy must continue to express doubt, entirely reasonable doubt, so the middle ground will know that the consensus is bunkum, the science is not settled and there are a great many questions left unanswered. The name “sceptic” remains easily identified as a doubter and it is a timely reminder that the key demand of our legal system is the requirement to establish a case “beyond reasonable doubt”.

    Yep, make these pathetic squawking gutless AGW carpetbaggers prove their case before spending any money on their fairy tale schemes and tabloid New Age fantasies. What’s that sir? That shiny new model AGW2000 power station we sold you for $10b doesn’t seem to work? Doesn’t have an engine you say? I’m sorry sir we didn’t think it needed one, according to the manual the driver is supposed to get out and push. Have you considered our horse and cart model with optional bolt-on windmill and natural color scheme. Its a great favorite with the ladies and at $15b its a bargain. You won’t regret buying one we can tell you that for sure. That’s all we’ve got in the car yard at the moment sir. The factory says that there’s a 50 year delay on the newer models, so you’d better get in quick while we’ve still got product in stock.

  54. Ian Thomson August 11, 2009 at 7:56 pm #

    SJT,
    This is the biggest Free Market grab ever .Why do you think that ‘big business ‘ is pushing the thing? They will get the welfare money, paid by the least well off , in taxes.
    As I have remarked before everyone should read “This Other Eden” , by Ben Elton.
    Premise- when something big happens in the world ,someone will make a lot of money out of it.
    Nothing is bigger than the end of the world.

  55. Luke August 11, 2009 at 9:26 pm #

    “Yep, make these pathetic squawking gutless AGW carpetbaggers prove their case ”

    blah blah blah – yet another denialsit scum ranter to keep Hunter, Neville and Birdie happy.

    rant rant rant …

    The sooner we declare scepticism illegal and put you lot in the gulag the better.

  56. dribble August 11, 2009 at 9:51 pm #

    Gee Lukey you’re about as interesting as spam and half as intelligent as your woolly girlfriend. Have you considered going into business as a full-time spammer? I’m sure plenty of people would pay you money just to stop boring them shitless.

  57. dribble August 11, 2009 at 10:20 pm #

    Oops sorry I forgot, you already are a full-time spammer.

  58. Mack August 11, 2009 at 10:48 pm #

    Ian Thomson
    I notice that SJT is not in a hurry to rebuke your last comments
    To realise that big business is pushing and looking to make a killing from us little folk over this scam must be extremely befuddling and vexatious for his small hammer and sickle brain.

  59. Dave August 11, 2009 at 11:09 pm #

    @ Ian Middleton

    > I don’t like the term skeptic because it suggests an element of doubt. As far as AGW goes, I have no doubts, It’s not happening!.

    This is just about the most revealing comment I’ve read. Gave me a good chuckle anyway…

  60. SJT August 11, 2009 at 11:50 pm #

    “I notice that SJT is not in a hurry to rebuke your last comments
    To realise that big business is pushing and looking to make a killing from us little folk over this scam must be extremely befuddling and vexatious for his small hammer and sickle brain.”

    WTF? I do have a real life. I note that every explanation as to motives for any action on AGW never the ones given, but are part of a secret conspiracy.

  61. Ayrdale August 12, 2009 at 7:32 am #

    Here’s the driving sentiment behind AGW…

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

  62. Marcus August 12, 2009 at 7:53 am #

    sjt

    “but are part of a secret conspiracy.”

    There is NO conspiracy, it’s a widely known fact that financial speculators, and spivs are salivating at the prospect of carbon trading.

    It is a new way for them to make money without producing anything worth while.

    The fact that in the process they may again cause a financial collapse doesn’t bother them in the least.

    This happens every time when a great deal of money is changing hands without producing a tangible product.

  63. Graeme Bird August 12, 2009 at 9:07 am #

    “WTF? I do have a real life. I note that every explanation as to motives for any action on AGW never the ones given, but are part of a secret conspiracy.”

    Well yes you have a life sure. So does a leach. A tick. A Mosquito. A blood-gorged flea. And even various alleged “undead” bloodsuckers.

  64. Graeme Bird August 12, 2009 at 9:16 am #

    “SJT,
    This is the biggest Free Market grab ever .Why do you think that ‘big business ‘ is pushing the thing? They will get the welfare money, paid by the least well off , in taxes.”

    Of course you are right in every respect. But no need to malign free enterprise with your sound observations. Its crony-socialism that we are talking here. Its rent-seeker filth like Goldman Sachs and Al Gore and I would not be able to get these people to practice free enterprise with a blow torch as a persuader.

  65. SJT August 12, 2009 at 9:41 am #

    ““Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme”

    Maurice strong has nothing to do with the science or the scientists doing the research. You are just using guilt by association, something Big Brother would be proud of. As for the quote itself, it seems to be all over the lunatic fringe of blogs, but I see nothing of the real source for it.

  66. Graeme Bird August 12, 2009 at 10:33 am #

    No Maurice is a big booster. There is no science behind this racket. None whatsoever. Its all media hype. And Maurice is a big booster going decades back.

  67. Green Davey August 12, 2009 at 11:19 am #

    I am sceptical about the fish argument. From my travels, it appears that humans in the warmer parts of the world are generally smaller than those in temperate parts, which agrees with the fish argument.

    However, those small people in warmer parts of the world are far more fecund than those in temperate parts, which contradicts the fish argument. Any scientists got an explanation? Do we need some extra Duhemian hypotheses? Nutrition, religion? SJT?

    P.S. I know the Watutsi tend to be tall, but the Pygmies are small, so they cancel each other out – height neutral so to speak.

  68. Ian Mott August 12, 2009 at 11:19 am #

    Bird, your lack of marketing nuance has already been noted. So your contribution above needs no further comment. If, however, you would like to participate in a mass “mooning” of Wong, Rudd or Gore then please get in touch. The market place is capable of retaining numerous messages and even YOUR ass can become useful media space.

    Dribble has been drinking the bong water, again. And even Luke has lifted his head out of the DG’s groin. Saints be praised.

  69. Graeme Bird August 12, 2009 at 11:47 am #

    Mott there is simply no need for skepticism since the evidence is unambiguous. Nonetheless we are not soothsayers. And the conclusions that the evidence points to may not turn out in some sort of crystal ball exactitude. But the fact is the evidence is there. And it gives us a range of CO2 effects all of them good, and a range of future temperatures all of them cold.

    Where is the skepticism in this message? Any such skepticism will be dishonest. So we need to be honest. The science tells us to be carbon boosters. It doesn’t tell us anything else. The message it tells us hasn’t got a damn thing to do with being skeptical about anything. Certainly I’m not skeptical about scientific evidence. I think its just the cats pajamas.

  70. Mack August 12, 2009 at 11:57 am #

    Incidently SJT the reason you have a small brain is because unlike most of us skeptics it is confined and cramped by ideology.

  71. Graeme Bird August 12, 2009 at 12:13 pm #

    “Incidently SJT the reason you have a small brain is because unlike most of us skeptics it is confined and cramped by ideology.”

    Skeptics? “Carbon-boosters” sounds a bit more like the phrase you might be looking for.

  72. dribble August 12, 2009 at 12:33 pm #

    Birdie: We must put forward a high carbon future of palaces of diamond and jewelled cities where the plants grow in abundance even right up to the wall of ice. And light super-hard carbon-fibres are the main building material and in this world there is endless nuclear power and solar towers just for kicks.”

    I was impressed by this unexpected visionary lyricism from Birdie. His seed supply seems to have been contaminated with a species of hallucinogenic fungus. I really liked the solar chimney idea but I believe it was killed off by the venal Kruddie and his dimwitted cohorts. Can any of the AGW parasites here, who have so far proved themselves about as collectively useful as a dead pinball machine, provide any more information on this? I’ve looked on the net but couldn’t find much.

  73. Graeme Bird August 12, 2009 at 12:37 pm #

    We wouldn’t want to go in for any solar luxuries until our current energy problems are solved. We need the hydrocarbons and nuclear to get by or even to build the solar towers and roads if we decided on the above luxuries. We don’t have the capital to be too precious about that stuff now. But of course I could be wrong. And so that therefore you just arrange the tax exemptions and let people put their money where their mouth is. Reasonable people can differ somewhat on these matters.

  74. Graeme Bird August 12, 2009 at 12:44 pm #

    Actually you could go to David Archibalds site and look at his future of Australian Energy pdf. And then you might figure a link from that. In the general I’ve been against solar. But then once we had a couple of nuclear plants on the fly it is the case that there are parts of Australia for which if solar didn’t work there its not working anywhere. I mean you’d have to say that Australia would have a bit of an advantage if it is ever the case that solar is worthwhile. Just on the basis of having cheap land where there are clear skies and a hot overhead sun. But usually solar is just silly. I mean the bloody Germans seem to be going after it. And they are just not cut out for it. Maybe thats one way to stop them from getting it together to be goose-stepping seven abreast down other peoples streets so I don’t want to discourage them any.

  75. Mack August 12, 2009 at 1:55 pm #

    Disagree with you Bird, Solar panals should be mandatory in all new Aussie houses.
    All that hot Aussie sun going to waste.

  76. Mack August 12, 2009 at 2:27 pm #

    Sorry cancel that last order , We’ll have to wait until the photovoltaic efficiency improves.
    Also the costs involved are prohibitive. Sorry. went off without thinking .

  77. SJT August 12, 2009 at 2:44 pm #

    “Incidently SJT the reason you have a small brain is because unlike most of us skeptics it is confined and cramped by ideology.”

    The irony is thick in here you could cut it with a knife. I am not saying why you think what you do, but as far as most people here are concerned, it is all about ideology. I’m just going on the science.

  78. Luke August 12, 2009 at 3:01 pm #

    Some many denialist scum – so little time.

    I’m working on a V16 Mad Maxian type vehicle (running on a double Roots-blower bio-diesel – eco-methanol of course) where one can run them down, points for more intelligent younger ones, – so you’d get a 10 for a Cohenite – slippery younger legal eagle person, only 2 for a Motty – too easy to run-down – unless he’s all misted up saluting a centotaph somewhere, Gordon – zero – too many holes already, Birdy – – probably negative points as you’d need to run over back and forth 3 times to get him to STFU, Spanglers – 5 – he might have some tricky bush craft evasiveness. Hunter – 5 points for sheer annoyance value. A whole denialist family – 12. And for Schiller – 15 for just the name exotica. Toby we’d let off for being a pleasant chap.

    Jen has immunity – as unlike the rest of you she’s hot. Sigh …

  79. toby August 12, 2009 at 4:05 pm #

    hahahahahahahaha, very witty

  80. cohenite August 12, 2009 at 4:37 pm #

    Here you are dribble, a solar tower/chimney; if you look closely you can see luke’s office on the shady side;

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/08/my-favorite-renewable-energy-concept-the-solar-updraft-tower/

  81. toby August 12, 2009 at 5:18 pm #

    great link cohenite, it has to be difficult to construct, but if the technology is available what a great idea. I wonder if we can invest in it or not? Its wont be cheap or easy to build a tower that tall, but since any new energy generator is expensive it sure is worth further research you would think. It would be a shame if the government picking winners with its subsidies, did kill this off.

  82. Mack August 12, 2009 at 6:31 pm #

    SJT
    ” I’m just going on the science”.
    Hard to believe that by your last comments on August 11th 12.25pm
    You really nailed your colours to the mast then.
    “collectivism” What next….”reactionary”?

  83. dribble August 12, 2009 at 8:11 pm #

    Birdie: We must put forward a high carbon future of palaces of diamond and jewelled cities where the plants grow in abundance even right up to the wall of ice. And light super-hard carbon-fibres are the main building material and in this world there is endless nuclear power and solar towers just for kicks.”

    I think you should have included genetically enhanced women in the mix as well Birdie, although that’s probably more of an issue for future generations to grapple with.

  84. dribble August 12, 2009 at 8:31 pm #

    Perhaps that should have read ‘grople with’, anyway I’m sure you get the picture.

  85. dribble August 12, 2009 at 9:35 pm #

    As usual our resident teenage AGW parasites cannot even point the finger to a simple example of alternative energy technology when asked a simple question. All they can come up with if you prod them is ‘IPCC IPCC IPCC IPCC’ or ‘believe believe believe believe’ as if these mantras actually had any meaning outside of their evidently serious brainwashing issues. Perhaps Luke’s GameBoy has been surreptitiously programmed by the manufacturer to produce these subliminal messages while he is playing Donkey Kong or whatever.

    I thought the solar chimney concept had a lot going for it, particularly the idea that they can be built with thermal latency to keep them going for a reasonable length of time at night or during periods of short term cloud cover. I sort of imagined them as a string like pearls in the desert going from east to west to maximise the sun time available for the eastern seaboard where most of the power demand is. Although I suppose you would need pretty fat cables to transfer all the power for a very long distance, so perhaps it is not technically feasible to do this.

    The generators would need to be imported of course, but a big advantage is that the installation mainly consists of concrete and glass and so couldn’t be too hard for our technically backward nation to construct. Most of the cost would be in the concrete and glass materials which could be locally sourced. I believe however that the project was canned by the bureaucratic twats in favour of a smaller more high-tech solar plant now under construction somewhere or other.

    Quoting from Spencer’s web-page:

    “From what I’ve read, the Solar Tower is potentially cost-competitive with coal-fired power plants, but the investment in infrastructure is large, and there is still some uncertainty (and therefore investment risk) involved in just how efficient Solar Towers would be.”

    you can easily see why our risk-averse, rabbit-brained bureaucrats didn’t go for it, there was a slight risk involved. So instead they apparently spent the money on a much smaller, fully imported, already developed super wizzo high-tech system which is undoubtedly massively complicated, requires expensive maintenance and probably has no thermal latency advantage.

    I would think that even if a full size experimental solar tower had a few problems, it could never be a complete white elephant as it would keep producing power until it eventually crumbled to dust from old age. The installation could even keep some of the CSIRO dead-heads usefully occupied in research and improvements.

    I also thought it would have made a good ‘vision’ project, a sort of large-scale technological innovation project that would capture the public’s imagination. Instead, of course, all we have got is the usual ‘bureaucratic solution’, ie more taxes, the ETS and all that sort of crud.

  86. spangled drongo August 12, 2009 at 11:05 pm #

    It’s the niggling thought of this sort of thing that keeps a sceptic sceptical.

    http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/world/Last-Ice-Age-happened-in.4351045.jp

  87. SJT August 12, 2009 at 11:29 pm #

    “SJT
    ” I’m just going on the science”.
    Hard to believe that by your last comments on August 11th 12.25pm
    You really nailed your colours to the mast then.
    “collectivism” What next….”reactionary”?”

    I’m not making any statements for or against. I’m just saying, when we need to work together to solve a problem, the “free market” is not only not there, it’s completly against the whole notion. However, the ‘free market’ is going to make the adjust to AGW a breeze.

  88. hunter August 13, 2009 at 12:26 am #

    Luke,
    I am disappointed. I thought an enlightened bureaucratic sock puppet hack like you would realize I am worth at least 20 points.
    But, then you are a bureaucrat posing as a wit, which is oxymoronic by definition.

    SJT,
    The day you or any AGW true believer starts going by the science will be the first.

  89. dribble August 13, 2009 at 2:06 am #

    From David Archibald’s PDF “The Future of Energy In Australia” he prefers heliostats for solar power generation. It looks like I’ll have to give up on my solar chimney idea as being a second-rate New Age fantasy. Thats what you get from always putting too much bong water in your mushroom tea.

    The overall power generation figures are enormous. I’ll need to bone up on all the basic numbers before shooting my mouth off on the topic again. Meanwhile back to AGW skepticism…..

  90. SJT August 13, 2009 at 8:50 am #

    “The day you or any AGW true believer starts going by the science will be the first.”

    I’m telling you how I came to accept that the science of AGW is valid. Are you calling me a liar?

  91. dribble August 13, 2009 at 10:22 am #

    Of course I shouldn’t really be referring to all the CSIRO staff as deadheads, I’m sure some of them actually do good work now and then. The description was really meant as a reference to the climatology department.

    Raupach is so hysterical he needs to be relieved of command and given a few months off on mood stabilization pills. After that I think the best idea would be to set him up with some pack mules and equipment and send him off on a scientific investigation to the bottom of the garden to look for leprechauns. He should be told in no uncertain terms not to come back until he finds one.

    The duties would not be too onerous. All he would have to do is send in annual reports and the occasional requisition form for tea and biscuits. Who knows your luck, this could be Raupach’s chance to make an original contribution to science.

  92. Graeme Bird August 13, 2009 at 11:50 am #

    “I think you should have included genetically enhanced women in the mix as well Birdie, although that’s probably more of an issue for future generations to grapple with.”

    But aren’t they already genetically enhanced? And isn’t the spectacle of what we see out there in public enough of a conundrum for a male living in the 21st century to deal with? I don’t know about you but a lot of them look pretty enhanced to me already. They look good. They smell good. Say nice things. Move well. Non-verbal communication about near the outer-limit of human achievement. In a lot of cases I don’t know where the science could be of assistance. I think we concentrate on the super-light carbon building materials, the impossibly spacious skyhouses, the nuclear desalination bringing water to the desert to set up deep tropical productivity in formerly desert land, the luxiouriously productive plant-life in a CO2-enriched atmosphere, and let the female situation take care of itself.

  93. Graeme Bird August 13, 2009 at 11:57 am #

    “Of course I shouldn’t really be referring to all the CSIRO staff as deadheads…”

    Yes you should. Not one of them escapes the taint. Even the competent scientists have to be considered to be pussy-whipped by leftist pussies. They have lost their sense of embarrassment.

    “Disagree with you Bird, Solar panals should be mandatory in all new Aussie houses.
    All that hot Aussie sun going to waste.”

    It may seem like that but it is scarce capital resources, and not joules, that are the item in short supply. So ultimately you have to set up tax-exemptions that are neutral, property rights that are sound, and a monetary system that works, and leave it up to people to reduce their costs and increase their earnings the best way they can.

  94. Graeme Bird August 13, 2009 at 12:31 pm #

    David Archibald thinks that nuclear is a little bit “lumpy” for the Australian population density, even on the East Coast. Here I am only going on what appears to be his presentation materials. But I look at it differently because I see the problem as needing enourmous government leg-work and effort. But not a dollar of government money. Only a broad spectrum tax exemption for all sources of energy production and distribution.

    So in my view there can be no worries about lumpiness of nuclear. Because you’d start off with so much supply that you can then sublimate the excess into liquifying carbon solids, and the industrial production needed to manufacture all these other alternatives (solar tiles, solar road sections, heliostats, wind power for intemittant ammonia production, wharves and ships for energy-efficient heavy cargo transport, most inland town-to-town rail et al).

    I’m by no means saying Archibald is wrong. I’ve been watching this fellow and he is always got the nose for the most important information. But I’m just taking a more ambitious tact so the strategic situation is probably different then the premises he’s working with.

  95. toby August 13, 2009 at 6:06 pm #

    GB, we can also use that excess energy to create desal water (although i d rather they just built a dam!), they can also use it to pump water and create stored hydro energy for when we need to meet peak periods. Or even for smelting alumium , a highly energy consuming process.
    Having too much energy won t be the problem…the way we are heading we won t be getting enough..I mean would you invest in coal or even bother to maintain at peak condition?

  96. dribble August 13, 2009 at 8:56 pm #

    “After that I think the best idea would be to set him up with some pack mules and equipment and send him off on a scientific investigation to the bottom of the garden to look for leprechauns.”

    I think Raupach’s superior officers should take this idea seriously, he is obviously in need of a lengthy rest cure from his AGW anxiety attacks. Sitting amongst the bluebells, magnifying glass in one hand, insect net in the other, long philosophical discussions with his assistants during tea breaks about anything in particular. Its the sort of job every public servant dreams about.

    If Raupach was mad enough not to take the offer, he should be threatened with hard labour in a Public Service Ethics Course, if they actually have that sort of thing these days.

  97. dribble August 13, 2009 at 9:05 pm #

    Birdie: “So in my view there can be no worries about lumpiness of nuclear. Because you’d start off with so much supply that you can then sublimate the excess into liquifying carbon solids, and the industrial production needed to manufacture all these other alternatives (solar tiles, solar road sections, heliostats, wind power for intemittant ammonia production, wharves and ships for energy-efficient heavy cargo transport, most inland town-to-town rail et al).”

    Gee I dunno, it all sounds pretty complicated. Maybe the green fruitbats are onto something with the return to the horse and cart idea after all.

  98. Mack August 13, 2009 at 9:34 pm #

    Thankyou Hunter for finishing him off.

  99. dribble August 13, 2009 at 11:36 pm #

    “…let the female situation take care of itself.”

    By all means, the female scientists should genetically enhance themselves in any way they want. If they run short of ideas I’d be always happy to pass on a list of my requests.

  100. hunter August 15, 2009 at 4:10 am #

    Mack,
    Thanks, zombie unting is a lot of fun: No guilt, and an endless supply.

  101. Mack August 15, 2009 at 10:27 pm #

    Hunter
    Yes and I particularly loved the way he just kept on repeating my comments about him.
    That cut and paste thing has its merits!

  102. SJT August 15, 2009 at 10:55 pm #

    “Thankyou Hunter for finishing him off.”

    I must have missed something.

  103. Mack August 16, 2009 at 2:30 am #

    We’ve established the fact that you have a small hammer and sickle brain SJT.
    Isn’t that enough for one day for a tired little fellow traveller?

  104. SJT August 16, 2009 at 2:00 pm #

    “We’ve established the fact that you have a small hammer and sickle brain SJT.
    Isn’t that enough for one day for a tired little fellow traveller?”

    Well, you haven’t. You have no idea what I think, unless you are a mindreader.

  105. Mack August 16, 2009 at 4:09 pm #

    Not able to read your mind SJT , but have read your agenda.
    Collectivism
    Don’t take it too hard though SJT.

  106. SJT August 17, 2009 at 2:46 pm #

    “Not able to read your mind SJT , but have read your agenda.
    Collectivism
    Don’t take it too hard though SJT.”

    That’s not my agenda. You confuse my agenda with my observations on what will happen. When free market libertarian theories crash, there will be the typical over reaction the other way.

  107. SJT August 17, 2009 at 11:02 pm #

    You also miss the fact that sometimes collective action is essential. WWII would never have been won if it had been left to the free market.

Website by 46digital