- The Politics and Environment Blog

Main menu:


October 2009
« Sep   Nov »




Site search

Please visit


Nature Photographs


Disclaimer: The inclusion of a blog or website in this list should not be taken as an endorsement of its contents by me.


Update August 1, 2010 - There will be a federal election in Australian on August 21, 2010.  Neither of the major parties has a serious climate change policy.   ‘Least-worst climate policy?’ by Jennifer Marohasy at Quadrant Online.

Update June 21, 2010 - I am back publishing in the peer-reviewed literature.  First article for a while:  ‘Accessing environmental information relating to climate change: a case study under UK freedom of information legislation’, by John Abbot and Jennifer Marohasy, Environmental Law and Management, Issue 1, Volume 22 [2010]. 

Update December 12th, 2009 -  Jennifer Marohasy is no longer regularly posting at this weblog.   But occasionally posts information from friends at the community thread [ ].   Dr Marohasy is still writing for The Land and some of her columns for this and other newspapers can be read at her website [ ].

Dr Marohasy was publically documenting discrepancies – including incomplete data sets being used by top UK climate scientists that spuriously support the case for global warming – before the now infamous emails from the Climate Research Centre in the UK were leaked.  She gives informative and entertaining talks on global warming and other environmental issues [ ].

Update December 1st, 2009 -  What a momentous week in Australian federal politics!  And this morning, against considerable odds, a so-called climate change sceptics, Tony Abbot, took over as leader of the Opposition.   It is now likely that the National and Liberal parties will unite behind Mr Abbot, and those passionate on this issue will fight very hard on the issue of emissions trading and the science of climate change.   The mainstream media have always been dismissive of Tony Abbot.  They are now going to have to at least report him on these issues and it may be in the context of an early federal election.  

It is a great day for democracy in Australia. 

The mainstream media has been offensively biased on the issue of man-made global warming.  A journalist and friend recently described them as acting as “attack dogs”.   Most journalists and editors never thought there was any real opposition in the Liberal party to the ETS, they should reflect on how wrong they were and  now try and honestly understand Tony Abbot’s position and give other so-called sceptics a fair hearing.

Update November 24th, 2009 – Today the Australian Parliament is likely to vote for an emissions trading scheme in effect introducing very costly and unnecessary new legislation and regulation on the basis carbon dioxide is a pollutant and the Earth’s climate in crisis.

I recently received a postcard by snail mail with comment that this blog is a “little island of sanity in a mad world”.

I have certainly found it reassuring at times to read some of the comments in support of my blog posts explaining why there is no climate crisis. 

But alas it seems the Australian government is going to ignore rational debate and discuss in favour of politics.

And recently I received a copy of a new book by Christopher Booker entitled ‘The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the obsession with climate change turning out to be the mostly costly scientific blunder in history?’ (Continuum 2009) and it begins:

“This book tells the story of what has been, scientifically and politically, one of the strangest episodes of our time. Indeed, as a case study in collective human psychology, it is turning out to have been one of the most extraordinary chapters in the history of our species.”

Feel free to continue to post at this increasingly long thread, though I feel I have probably contributed as much as I can by way of new blog posts to rational discussion on environmental issues including global warming/the climate crisis. 

Much thanks and cheers.

Narrabri Sunrise Wheat 011 cutOctober 20th, 2009 -  Thanks for the many emails and submissions assuming I will be back soon.   But alas I am still wandering.   Those wanting to be useful could, instead of sending me something to post, make a financial donation to this blog.   There is a little orange button at the right-hand side of this page.   It asks for A$50.  

PS I am making progress with my book – the dystopian fiction.   And the picture of the truck was taken a few days ago in northwestern New South Wales.    

Wakool River 004-1 cutOctober 7th, 2009 – “Walkabout” is a word we use here in Australia to let others in our community know we are going away for a period of time – perhaps to take more time to reflect on life.  

I’m off for a bit – going walkabout.  

PS I attended a lecture by Professor Bob Carter last night and was reminded that not so long ago the English speaking world believed all Swans to be white.   The photograph of the black swans was taken by Jennifer Marohasy in western Victoria, Australia, in October 2007.


6,857 Responses to “Postscript”

Pages: « 152 53 54 55 56 [57] 58 59 60 61 62138 » Show All

  1. Comment from: Ron Pike

    You are absolutely correct regarding the last 100 years of weather in western NSW.
    However you should be aware by now that trying to reason with a Galah is impossible.
    Somebody give him a biscuit to shut him up for a while.
    I am presently in USA where it is freezing cold and most people are awake to the IPCC fraud and are starting to get annoyed at the Obarma admin. and its support of AGW.
    However Congress is not going to have a bar of any legislation to tax CO2.

  2. Comment from: el gordo

    A recent paper by Solomon et al. offers a convincing argument that too much water vapor in the stratosphere caused the warming of the 1990′s and the dry spell over the past decade has seen temperatures go flat.’s-happened-to-global-warming/

  3. Comment from: Schiller Thurkettle


    You are being too hard on Luke.

    He’s a poet, so gentle, tender and perceptive as to notice that ‘Jimmock rhymes with pillock’.

    Next thing we know, he’ll discover rhymes for f**k and s**t, which will be similarly gentle, tender and perceptive.

    As properly befits a p**t such as he.

  4. Comment from: Luke

    I just kacked – Bolt & Wattsup utter horseshit beatup with Lockart et al will be rebutted into the Stone Age in an upcoming GRL. They have stuffed their analysis.


    You scum will NEVER live this down. Oh happy day.


  5. Comment from: Luke

    Neville – whatever – but study this

    Maybe one day you might ask an intelligent question.

    And as I said at Wattzy

    “What denialist twaddle. All the usual nonsense.

    Issue should be what causes or prolongs droughts – not drought severity. SO deceptively Bolt in his usual bulldusting style fogs an entire issue.

    (1) Not on the pace – and as usual it’s what denialists don’t tell you – not what they tell you as they fail miserably in their duty of care

    What is not told is that there is very good research (Indian Ocean Climate Initiative (IOCI -CSIRO & BoM) and the South East Australian Climate Initiative (SEACI – CSIRO & BoM)) that documents changes in the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) and the intensification of the subtropical ridge (STR) which adds to, reinforces, prolongs drought caused by natural factors ENSO and Indian Ocean Dipole. Perhaps even AGW changes in the IOD itself. Maybe even Walker circulation.

    The SEACI research shows that circulation changes in the south-east region are likely to have been influenced by AGW. (greenhouse and stratospheric ozone decline forcings). This work is very detailed and very specific.

    (2) It’s about agri-business risk management which those sitting in air conditioned offices know little about – is it your agribusiness dollars, your investment or your family property

    (3) confounding the ETS with the climate science i.e. if you don’t like the ETS – therefore the climate science MUST be wrong – illogical

    (4) that suddenly AGW theory demands all natural drought influences must disappear – who said ?

    (5) fail to quote the last line of the Lockart et al GRL paper which says “It is stressed that the results of the analyses presented here in no way negate genuine concerns over anthropogenic climate change” – as they says in Aussie – this is having two bob each way? pretty weak … as they know what they’ve left out

    (6) nothing on the changes in wind run which reflect in changes in pan evaporation – more atmospheric AGW circulation changes

    (7) and yawn Lockart et al have missed

    But of course who would come to Wattsup to get a serious education?

    P.S. Usual ruses here – (1) present rainfall stats for the whole Murray Darling Basin (MDB) – issue is lower MDB – i.e. Murray itself. Better still present rainfall stats for the whole of Australia. (NW has become wetter – while east, SE, and SW drier – average that and learn nothing !!)

    Ruse 2 – “there have been droughts before” – duh !

    Ruse 3 – pretend AGW science doesn’t know/care about natural variability”

  6. Comment from: Malcolm Hill

    Hah I see that the bloggers over at WUWT are onto the village idiot as well,rebutting the same crappy and desparate arguments he raises here..yet again

    Like the man said ” Get a life”.

    May be one day you will gvie an intelligent answer instead of this faux bristling because some one has called the shonkademics out..


    Found another piece of unacceptable behaviour by the UN heavies starting with the SG

    Is there no end ..and all the while the shonka demics remained silent

  7. Comment from: cohenite

    luke, that McIlpine paper deals with changing vegetation cover through land-use and that impact on climate; as a concept that may have some legs whereas AGW has the legs of a dead snake; of course if you are going to deal with clearing of vegetation as a contributor to changing climate than you had better read what your mate Flannels has to say;

    And perhaps some reading up on ‘firestick farming’ would be useful.

  8. Comment from: el gordo

    Just a little off topic, take a look at this negative AO. The UK will get another blizzard very soon.

  9. Comment from: spangled drongo

    “there have been droughts before” – duh !

    This argument of land cover change is well accepted and combined with NV is more than capable of being responsible for what’s happening.
    But you should stop kidding yourself that you are “across” it any more than anyone else.

    PS: you know we love your opinions but that’s all they are.

    Probably one of the few times when Flummers was anywhere near the truth. But it would not take too much working out. The same thing is happening here now on a smaller scale. The feral wildlife are killing much bigger native fauna by killing the young and preventing breeding and it would be easy for feral man to have done this back then as he did it everywhere at some stage.

    Do you know if native man in Africa ever wiped out any megafauna or has it only happened with ferals?

  10. Comment from: Luke

    Outstanding rebuttals guys. Don’t think I can recover from that intellectual onslaught.

    Sound of crickets …

  11. Comment from: spangled drongo

    I just received a reply from the principal scientist, coastal div. WRT to the HAT of the 31/1/10 and my obs that in spite of it being a HAT it did not reach within 20cms of the usual king tides for the past 47 years.

    “To assist, I have attached a plot of the tide information that I obtained from Queensland Transport’s tide gauge located at Southport for the period 29 January to 2 February. This plot clearly shows that the actual tide recorded by the tide gauge exceeded the HAT value for this region. It also indicates that the actual tide was higher than was predicted to occur.”

    To me this indicates that SLR is not only not occurring in my NOTW, it is considerably less than it was almost half a century ago.
    It’s hard to imagine that el nino is responsible for that much anomaly.
    I sent Dr Church from CSIRO an email as well as you suggested but no reply as yet.

  12. Comment from: spangled drongo

    I have been trying to make a point about possible doubt in SLR over at doltoid but those jokers are really in serious denial.

    I probably just don’t explain myself very well.

  13. Comment from: Louis Hissink


    Actually EL Nino isn’t a cause of anthing – it’s actually weather itself, and has an external cause.

    And don’t worry about Doltoid, they are impervious to reason and the blindingly obvious, so it’s not you but they who have the problem.

  14. Comment from: Derek Smith

    Louis, good to hear from you again, is it possible that El Ninos may be caused by submarine volcanic activity or at least hot spots in the sea crust?

  15. Comment from: cohenite

    El Nino; here is the latest paper re: El Nino, which is argued to be an expression of a subharmonic reasonant pattern, solar related, of climate. I’m still trying to wade through it after David Stockwell sent it, so you guys might as well suffer as well;

  16. Comment from: Luke

    Spangles note the figure – not all regions behave uniformly !

  17. Comment from: Schiller Thurkettle

    Here’s Luke with the old ‘failure to quote’ argument, this time turned the other way around:

    fail to quote the last line of the Lockart et al GRL paper which says “It is stressed that the results of the analyses presented here in no way negate genuine concerns over anthropogenic climate change”

    Is it really an important scientific datum to note that some people are truly hysterical and nothing will change their minds?

    Actually, it probably is.

  18. Comment from: Luke

    Schiller – Lockart et al will be soon rebutted into the Stone Age in an upcoming GRL. i.e. it’s rubbish a.k.a they’ve cocked it up. ROTFL

    So eat shit and die (as they say – rhetorically of course).

    Moving on to something much more interesting than denialist waffle …

    “It is important not to make the mistake made by Lord Kelvin and argue that there can be no influence of solar variability on climate: indeed, its study is of scientific interest and may well further our understanding of climate behaviour. However, the popular idea (at least on the Internet and in some parts of the media) that solar changes are some kind of alternative to GHG forcing in explaining the rise in surface temperatures has no credibility with almost all climate scientists.”

    LOLZ !

  19. Comment from: Schiller Thurkettle

    The Royal Society has become captive to the Greens, in both climatology and genetic engineering. They’re not the credible bunch they used to be.

    Meanwhile, in an announcement on Feb. 8, 2010, the US Department of Commerce and NOAA proposed establishing a NOAA Climate Service — and its website is already up and running!

    Here’s how NOAA ‘proves’ AGW:

    And here’s the Climate Service website:

    Obviously they haven’t heard of Glaciergate. And does NOAA actually need to fund another misinformation project? Of course. After Climategate, the need is greater than ever!

    Brace yourselves — the warmers have more money to spend than anyone else, and more money at stake as well. All those lovely tax dollars for windmills.

  20. Comment from: hunter

    The only interesting question left is whether those who claimed to be ‘scientific’ were duped, or were they willingly going along, with hyping AGW?
    Luke shrieking irrelevance leaves the question open in his case.
    The true sign a partisan is on the losing side of an issue is when, like NOAA, they kid themselves into believing that if they can just talk a little bit louder, everyone will finally understand.
    If anyone at all on the AGW believer side actually thinks they have not gotten their message out at this point, they are only kidding themselves.
    Their message, to their dismay, is becoming more and more well understood. That is why it is losing credibility by the day.
    Reflect on this: The AGW social movement has always been a perversion of science and government. Their answer to any challenge is to toss more money at the problem.

  21. Comment from: Neville

    When you look at AGW which is the biggest fraud of the last one hundred years, you must apply the proper questioning as to its cause and ongoing momentum.

    First of all you must follow the money whether the supporters come from the left or the right, whether green groups or business or wealthy businessmen/ women.

    Look at the vulnerable super funds invested by the BBC or ABC etc for example that require the setting up of a carbon economy with a price on carbon to bolster those same funds.

    Look at the merchant bankers and banking houses that have a vested interest in this PRICE ON CARBON mantra that they all require to make this the next trillion $ product.

  22. Comment from: Schiller Thurkettle


    By latest count, over $70 billion, with a ‘B’ has been funneled into ‘climate research’ as a result of the global warming scare.

    You would not fool yourself for that kind of money, but would you fool others for that kind of money, with the promise of more to come, if you fooled a few more?

    Untold riches beckon, and the lure of being a ‘rock star’ in the field of Saving The Planet… all you have to do is tell some clever lies.

    You could be like Bill Gates, except that people actually like you. Maybe even worship you.

    Imagine the corruptible turning aside such opportunities. No way.

  23. Comment from: Green Davey

    The other night I was doing the washing up, but half heard a climate expert (?) on TV. I think he said that low rain in southwestern Australia over the past few decades is due to more snow falling in Antarctica. Has more snow fallen in Antarctica? All over, or only in the peninsula?

    I remember a Belgian professor of climatology, who had worked in the antarctic, telling me, decades ago, that a slight rise in temperature there would lead to more snow. The models at that time were predicting a 12 degree rise at both poles, but, as he pointed out, even if that came true, the temperature would still be well below freezing. Also, would not more snow in the Antarctic lock up more water there, so leading, if anything, to a fall in sea level? I am looking for truth through consilience.

  24. Comment from: toby robertson

    Interesting link on the bolt site indicating that one of hansen’s colleagues is highly sceptical of the IPCC.

    While perusing some of the review comments to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, I came across the contributions of Andrew Lacis, a colleague of James Hansen’s at GISS. Lacis’s is not a name I’ve come across before but some of what he has to say about Chapter 9 of the IPCC’s report is simply breathtaking…

    Remember, this guy is mainstream, not a sceptic, and you may need to remind yourself of that fact several times as you read through his comment on the executive summary of the chapter:

    There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted.
    game set and match?

  25. Comment from: Luke

    Davey shows you never read anything I have ever said here. I have quoted a number of papers showing changes in the Antarctic vortex which keeps Antarctic colder. And modelling of stratospheric ozone depletion with greenhouse forcing reproduces these changes in the southern annular mode SAM). And the Indian Ocean Climate Initiative in your fair state attributed changes in SAM and natural variability to be causes of WA rainfall decline. i.e. rainfall bands miss SW WA …. Sigh … but why would believe that ? It’s just a bad patch Davey. She’ll be right mate.

    Toby in a world of 6 billion people many people will have issue with the IPCC report. This dude has probably had a falling out and now knows better. Or sour grapes? i.e. really who cares?

    Toby don’t you find it strange that 2009 is still warm despite the quiet Sun. We’re all amused. Indeed a “pulversing ice age” about to hit according to the pundits here. And why with all this cold going on has the satellite Jan temp almost spiked to record levels. I know it’s because we’re heading for an ice age. Wake up !

    Furthermore the Lockart et al paper will be shredded in next GRL.

    The guys here should be in the fencing business. They’re into “-Gate” manufacture.

  26. Comment from: Luke

    And reproduced from Deltoid. (what Bolt crap – more denialist utter bunkum)

    Andrew Bolt doesn’t know or care what a draft is
    Category: Bolt

    Andrew Bolt has written a post where he pretends that comments made by Andrew Lacis about the first order draft of the summary of chapter 9 of AR4 WG1 are actually aboout the published report.

    Andrew Revkin asked Lacis what he thought about the published report:

    “The revised chapter was much improved,” he said. “That’s different than saying everything in there is nailed down, but I think it’s a big improvement.”

    Overall, he said, “I commend the authors for doing as good a job as they did. That’s the way the science process ought to work. You get inputs from everybody, find any bugs, crank through and the science moves forward.”

    And from Gabriele Hegerl, one of the lead authors:

    We felt Andrew Lacis’ comment reflected that he couldn’t clearly see where statements came from, which is why we strengthened the pointers from the technical sections to the executive summary.

    The heading ‘Human Induced warming ..widespread’ is exactly as strong as we felt the finding summarized under it reflects: ‘Anthropogenic warming of the climate system can be detected in temperature observations taken at the surface, in the troposphere and in the oceans.’ We felt that the term ‘widespread’ well reflected the fact that we have detection and attribution results that show that recent warming is inconsistent with internal climate variability and other external influences alone in surface temperature (see Section 9.4.2), tropospheric temperature (see section 9.4.4.), and in ocean temperature data (see section 9.5.1).

  27. Comment from: toby robertson

    Luke, given the world has been warming for a few hundrd years, wouldn t you expect temperatures to be high? Yes the sun has been less active, would you expect it to cause a sudden cooling given the additional heat in the system? That said I must say I was very surpised to see january being so warm. However, given that I am sceptical of global average temperatures I do not place much faith in the veracity of this data. The fact that we know how cold it has been in the northern hemisphere would suggest it must have been much hotter in the southern hemisphere. Has it been?

    Personally I think the science is irrelevant ( ie for or against) because without new technology, emissions can not be cut. Nothing we do here matters in any way unless we find the new technology. All we will get is more greenwashing and wasted money just like the 360,000 homes who have received greenhouse assessments and the 10,000 assessors who paid $1000-2000 for training on the basis they would have employment for at least 3 years…… all the funding will be gone within 9 mnths with little if anything to show for the 250 million spent. Look at the fraud with emissions trading in Europe and it is abundantly clear that the theory of global warming is being used to line peoples pockets. And there is no doubt many scientists are also guilty of this. It s human nature.
    When we can cut emissions effectively then maybe its worth trying to lower co2. However that said whilst I do believe in co2 being a green house gas, I am far from convinced that it will cause dramatic increases in temperature. I find the reliance on positive feedback highly suspect….but as i said the science of climate change actually does not matter because the world is kidding itself if it thinks emissions will be cut without a new cheap energy source. Dont you think?

  28. Comment from: Luke

    Well Toby how do you know the Earth is warming then? No confidence in the data you say?

    Whether a solution if difficult or political has nothing to do with the science.

    And I doubt many scientists are making their fortune from climate research. They should have done law, medicine or accounting if they wanted dollars. BTW if you do a research grant you do have to actually do some considerable work in return or you won’t get another.

    As for the northern hemisphere – how warm is the Olympics? Any snow yet?

  29. Comment from: toby robertson

    Yes Vancouver is unusually warm, the east coast unusually cold. I have no issues with believing the trend in temp has been up since the LIA. I am just sceptical of the veracity of any “global temperature average” and how it is created.
    The reason i say the science is irrelevant is because even if its right in its dramatic projections, there is nothing we can do about it without doing things that we all know will not happen ( ie culling people and making us stop burning fossil fuels).
    When we find a new technology, then we can have a debate about the science. Until then, right or wrong, humans can do ntg. This is not defeatist, just reality. Currently, adaptation not mitigation is the only way to reduce hardship if there is a problem.

    Its not a question of making a fortune, its a question of making a living. Yes some could have the skills and ability to be lawyers or bankers, but there are only so many of those jobs around. Science is relatively easy to do at Uni, Law is not. Once you become a trained scientist that is your career, so you rely on govt grants etc for your living to support yourself and your family. Im sure most believe they are acting in mankinds interests. Self interest has a funny way of distorting thinking.
    Given the obvious exagerations and distortions being disclosed on an almost daily basis surrounding teh IPCC, I have little doubt that it is the sceptics that have won the recent battles and the war will not be over for many years one way or the other.

    I would just like somebody to stand up and acknowledge the futility of trying to cut emissions and be honest that we are really discussing “moral” gestures given current technology. moral gestures are fine for the rich like al gore, but not for people struggling to pay their bills…myself included. I would also like acknowledgment that an ETS is incapable of changing australian or global temperatures and will cause large price increases year in year out. To me the science is far from settled and the politics is a complete wank.

  30. Comment from: Mack

    Heaps of snow for the Olympics Lukebaby,
    It ain’t that warm.

  31. Comment from: Luke

    ” Science is relatively easy to do at Uni” – Gee – yep those science PhDs just pop out no worries …

    “Once you become a trained scientist that is your career, so you rely on govt grants etc for your living to support yourself and your family” – gee mustn’t be any scientists in business. Must tell Monsanto, Shell, Bayer ….

    Somehow Toby I think you haven’t got a clue about lowly funded competitive science ….

  32. Comment from: toby robertson

    Luke, just like you have no idea about the real world. The people you refer to as climate scientists are invariably attached to universities or environmental and lobby groups and do without doubt rely a huge way on the gravy train that has become “climate change”. The scientists that work for companies like shell, bayer, monsanto get paid better because they actually produce a “good or service” with a market value.
    As you usual you twist statements to support your own paradigm. I never said science degrees “just pop out” im sure they work hard for them, but once youve got one you need a job don t you??!! how many
    You also as usual ignore the majority of what i say and the questions because of their inconvenient truth.
    Do you actually think you need higher grades to do science than law/ business law??

    If you do a degree in science, how many jobs are there for you in the business world where you actually produce anything?
    the new gravy train is a way of securing your future. Would you want to be the scientist that blows up that train of money?

  33. Comment from: Luke

    Serious science is heaps harder than law. (not that law is trivial) Stream popularity is a social issue.

    And Toby – you’re the one making sweeping generalisations – not me !

    Indeed some scientists are disappointed and don’t get to use their skills. i.e. just no jobs.

    Your mere thought about gravy trains means you have no idea what most scientist endure….
    Mate making money is NOT why most people do it. Stop swallowing all the denialist bunk like the complete sucker you are..

    “Climate scientists are invariably attached to environmental lobby groups” – pullease !!!!

    Are you such a tosser that you think young people will do climate science – one of the hardest of hard disciplines (maths, physics galore) to “get on the gravy train”. Mate you have come down in the last shower.

    Admit it Toby – you have signed onto the denialist mantra which asserts in this one field of science there is a world-wide multi-institutional conspiracy to corrupt all science results to form a new world govt (that’s by the UN who can’t organise a chook raffle i.e. see Rwanda).

  34. Comment from: toby robertson

    Luke says; “Are you such a tosser that you think young people will do climate science – one of the hardest of hard disciplines (maths, physics galore) to “get on the gravy train”. Mate you have come down in the last shower.”
    Your naivety demonstrates that you are the tosser. You may set out to save the world by doing climate science. Once you have your degree do you need a job? Having found your job do you need to keep it? If your job relies on climate change, is there any self interest in producing science that cuts off that money.
    Whilst you may consider 70 billion dollars and rising an insignificant sum of money, those of us in the real world recognise it as a lot of money. Sure the scientists dont do climate science to get rich, but they do have needs that can only be met by having a job. No climate change equates to many fewer jobs and an incapacity to meet those needs. join the dots…….if you are smart enough…..

    As usual you have ignored my main point. The science is irrelevant until we find a new form of energy. Nothing humans do until then will help even if the science is correct.
    I would just like to see the truth being spoken rather than the never ending lies that we are fed.

    Your words over the last 5 years make it abundantly clear who the tosser is

  35. Comment from: Neville

    I see that lead authors from the Ipcc’s AR4 report think that it’s time there was a change to the basic structure and inputs into future reports.

    This of course is the direct result of all the GATES that have wrecked the so called science from the previous reports.

    The report in Nature even suggests a type of open wiki structure that any QUALIFIED scientist could contribute to may be a good idea.

    Scientists from Britain, USA, Swiss and Germany (all lead authors ) all agree with a fundamental change away from UN control, about bloody time.

    Even Barry Brook seems to agree, wonders will never cease.

  36. Comment from: Schiller Thurkettle


    You’re right to notice that ‘the trend in temp has been up since the LIA’. A beneficial trend, by all historical accounts.

    Then these people come and say it’s all due to ‘car-farts’ and ‘cattle-farts’ and ‘sheep-farts’ (haven’t heard anything about swine-farts, but that’s likely coming soon), and you wonder: when is Greenland going to be ‘green’ (with a small g) again?

    Those stinking Vikings were all such liars, of course, and the archaeological evidence of their presence as thriving communities was put there by The Devil, to lure The Faithful.


  37. Comment from: spangled drongo

    Comment from: Luke February 11th, 2010 at 8:51 am

    “Serious science is heaps harder than law. (not that law is trivial) Stream popularity is a social issue.

    And Toby – you’re the one making sweeping generalisations – not me !”

    Just had to put it up again

  38. Comment from: Green Davey

    Dear Luke,
    I must protest that I have, for many years, carefully read your stuff, with the exception of the obscene adolescent outbursts, which I rapidly scroll over. Too embarrassing. Plainly, you have not followed my prescription of more cucumber sandwiches. They have a brain cooling effect, and reduce pimples, especially when the crusts are cut off.

    The question is, do you read my questions? What I want to know is:

    1. Is it snowing more in Antarctica of late, as claimed by the alleged TV climate expert? If so, is this true all over the continent, or confined to the peninsular?

    2. If it is snowing more, isn’t that a sign of slight warming? My understanding is that over most of Antarctica it is currently too cold to snow, and getting colder. I believe the ice dome was laid down a long time ago, when it was warmer. The peninsula does appear to be warming, possibly due to volcanic activity, as happened around South Georgia some years ago. Unlike some AGM botanists, I intend to keep well away from Heard Island.

    3. Would not increased snow in Antarctica lead to lower sea levels? What does the Maldives president have to say on this? Has he published in Nature?

    4. If, on the other hand, most of Antarctica is getting colder, will south-western Australia be increasingly plagued by the smell of methane and ammonia laden penguin-poo, carried on the southerly breezes? What effect will this increased methane have on global warming? Will penguin culls be needed? Can the crew of the Sea Shepherd help? What is their methane and ammonia footprint? What do Peter Garrett, Penny Wong, WWF, and Greenpeace say? Have they published in Nature?

    Can you help me with these trifling matters? I trust you are already writing Fortran code to incorporate them in your GCM.

    Your affectionate uncle,

  39. Comment from: Green Davey

    P.S. Ahem … that’s AGW, not AGM (Annual General Meeting).

  40. Comment from: toby robertson

    Schiller, its funny isnt it how the hundreds of peer reviewed papers prior to the 1990′s supported the MWP, but now we are being told it was just local! And yes i doubt few would like the temperatures of the LIA! thnk goodness the trend has been up.
    Davey, i do enjoy your humour!

  41. Comment from: Green Davey

    What do you mean, ‘humour’? I am terribly serious about Anthropogenic Global Warming, just as I am about Annual General Meetings. Luke is the only one who can help us, and the penguins.

  42. Comment from: Luke

    Schiller being a farming type you must spend lotsa time inside. Cows and sheep belch the methane – something about a rumen – oh never mind.

    Vikings eh? How Eurocentric. And Vikings probably were liars – would go with all that raping and pillaging? Like denialist scum do daily with science. You forgot the MWP mega-droughts – would your little farm more interesting. And you’d be happy that the Darkies in Africa would also have been similarly affected.

    Can’t help you with trifling matters Davey – but perhaps you might need to do a thing called a mass balance – i.e. subtracting the accelerating Antarctic glaciers like PIG from any increased deposition. Oh that’s right we discussed all that. …. zzzz

    Undersea volcanoes causing Peninsula warming – yes dream on ….

    Neville – yes open Wiki is great. Let’s do medicine the same way. Everyone gets a turn. LOL

    And dear dear Toby – hmmm – ” You may set out to save the world by doing climate science. ” well now – alternatively you might have been interested in weather, aviation forecasting, instrumentation – you may end up on climate change if you show higher intelligence and research skills. Pullease Toby – use the other hand for a while ….

    And again Toby – wait till we have a new form of energy?? Don’t think so matey boy. There are investment decisions involving climate every day by individuals, business, and government (e.g. whether to invest or sell the family farm, whether to invest in a new industry like peanuts in the NT or domestic/irrigation water supply strategy that requires climate advice. We know what your advice would be – dunno … and let’s even try to find out.

  43. Comment from: Luke

    Q: How many climate sceptics does it take to change a light bulb?

    A: Seventeen to complain about how crummy and dangerous the swirly new lightbulbs are; forty-three to explain that lightbulbs have natural cycles so if we do nothing the light bulb will eventually get back into its warm light cycle; and three hundred and fourteen to blame Al Gore for inventing the science of lightbulbs to make money and to impose socialist government controls over life in general.

    How many climate skeptics does it take to change a light bulb?

    First off, the light bulb is not burned out, and even if it was, it is not MY fault so why should I change it? Besides, it is far too expensive for me to change a light blub. Why are light Nazis always trying to get me to change my bulb? Also, we are not taking into account all of the wonderful benefits of living in the dark! In fact, after I did all these really complicated calculations, I find that it would take half a million skeptics spending a billion dollars each to change that light bulb. Oh, and you don’t see the Chinese changing THEIR light bulbs do you? Well do you?

  44. Comment from: Derek Smith

    Green Davey, I didn’t realise that cutting the crust off pimples had a beneficial effect, thanks that’ll come in handy.

    Toby, not to agree with Luke but I tend to instinctively put greater trust in the impartiality and integrity of university scientists and even our own CSIRO than those working for BIG Corporations like monsanto or pharmaceutical companies.
    They probably get paid better because of the huge profits involved.
    Recently of course, my instincts have been betrayed by the shameful behaviour by SOME at CSIRO, plus the fact that some of our esteemed friends at this site have and do do work for mining and oil companies etc and I have no call to question their integrity, has moderated my thoughts on that issue.
    Just because Hansen is a fruit cake, doesn’t mean everyone that works with him is crook.

  45. Comment from: Derek Smith

    Luke, your last post about light bulbs was actually quite entertaining.
    On a serious note, a question with no traps or sneekiness intended. What is your position on the way the Greens ang Wong keep labelling the power companies as “the big polluters” as if they deliberately and maliciously set out decades ago to destroy the atmosphere? Do you agree with them or do you think as I do that the consumers are responsible and the power generators are simply providing a service?
    PS, this question does not imply anything about AGW or not.

  46. Comment from: toby robertson

    so you luke my little naive friend would rather lie to the farmers that we can fix the climate and cut emissions. So how exactly do you expect to reduce emissions without a new source of energy?
    so how many jobs rely on climate change for their funding little luke?
    the only scientists you and your ilk consider to be “qualified” to hold an opinion on climate are “climate scientists”. The thousands of others who dispute the science get swept under the carpet as being in the pay of big oil etc

    Derek, i never said i place greater trust in scientists working for corporations ( i don t trust them much at all and certainly less than many in the csiro). I am merely trying to point out to our naive little friend that without climate change most of them would be without a job. Having chosen to study science at uni, they need a job eventually. Even the smart ones run out of masters and phd funding and need to get a real job one day. Without climate change many would struggle. Of course scientists in corporations who are producing a product rather than a service get paid better…if they are any good. If they arent they get sacked….and probably look for a uni job……..

    The point i have also tried to make is with a world with a growing population and more than half living in poverty and striving for higher living standards, ntg anybody does is actually going to lower global emissions levels. It may slow the growth marginally but that is it. No new technology ( or improvements to currently available, including a means of storing this energy) means we are merely wasting money. better to save it and spend it on adaptation if the world does keep warming, and maybe ensure their are enough insentives for research and development of new technology, or innovation of old technology, including a massive prize for an invention or innovation of significance….that might get old codgers like gavin to have a go as well. I ve got a lot of faith in human ingenuity, but not in their lack of gullibility and certainly not in the IPCC or politicians!
    But dear luke would apparently rather lie to people. If i was a farmer i would of course be trying to look at trends and predictions, and i d be bloody cross with the exagerations and lies being pushed by many. I would also not be stupid enough to think the models can predict what will happen long term….would you?
    By the way luke , how is the snow at the olympics? East coast? mmmmlovely and warm, not. ( yes i know its weather, but you brought it up)

  47. Comment from: toby robertson

    “and maybe ensure their are enough insentives for research and development of new technology”, apologies their should obviously be there.

    I know a number of people who have dealt with the IPCC and United nations, and none of them hold them in high esteem…infact they have mentioned how fraudulent they often are……anyone that places any faith in them is a fool.

  48. Comment from: el gordo

    Ken Stewart believes GISS have manipulated climate data in Mackay, a very good appraisal.

    This is the thin edge of the wedge and may prove to be James Hansen’s crime against humanity.

  49. Comment from: Luke

    “What is your position on the way the Greens ang Wong keep labelling the power companies as “the big polluters” as if they deliberately and maliciously set out decades ago to destroy the atmosphere?” Derek – pretty stupid by them. Doesn’t help. It’s nobody’s “fault”. Simply our energy generation has a side effect despite our best intentions. We should aim for better technology. How to do that and maintain living standards is a major challenge.

  50. Comment from: Luke

    OK Toby – this piece of work do you think the author did it for political reasons? Did he do it to “get rich”. Do you think the work tells you anything about his political views? If you lived on the south-east eastern Australia should you be interested in the findings?

    Toby do you actually think as El Gordo writes above that Hansen wants to “commit crimes against humanity”? “James Hansen’s crime against humanity.” rants El Gordo !

Pages: « 152 53 54 55 56 [57] 58 59 60 61 62138 » Show All