WHILE it may be true to say that “We are all environmentalists now”, the great majority of Australians have little or no say in the environmental policies being put to governments – federal, state or local. These policies are almost exclusively the domain of a tight network of conservation groups ensuring one view, and one view only, is put forward.
I’m paraphrasing comments from Barry Cohen made to me a couple of years ago. Mr Cohen was Australia’s Minister for the Arts, Heritage and Environment in the Hawke Government from 1983 to 1987.
What are the key values and beliefs shared by this “tight network of conservation groups” often referred to as the Greens?
Some claim the Greens based their policies on sound science, but I’m yet to see the evidence to support this contention.
I’ve listened to some explain that the Greens essentially take a commonsense approach to environmental issues, but science, particularly physics, makes a mockery of commonsense.
Much has been written by those who scorn the Greens labelling them socialists, luddites and liars. But again, this is hardly the beginning or the end of their story.
It is generally accepted that the beliefs and values of the Greens have had a profound impact on western society over the last few decades.
But where do we go to better understand these values and determine whether or not they are really worth subscribing to?
Furthermore, if the Greens are never made to declare what they honestly stand for, they remain freer than most political movements to craft a potentially misleading, though perhaps politically savvy message.
*****************
Notes
In ‘Defining the Greens (Part 1)’, I commented that in Part 2, I would explore the idea that the Greens and some ‘scientific disciplines’ are based on Romanticism. But I am holding my thoughts on this, just for the moment.
Defining the Greens (Part 1) is here, http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/defining-%e2%80%98the-greens%e2%80%99-part-1/
The picture of Bob Brown, leader of the Australian Greens, is from Perth Independent Media.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“I’ve listened to some explain that the Greens essentially take a commonsense approach to environmental issues, but science, particularly physics, makes a mockery of commonsense. ”
You publish any rubbish here, even “Socratic Irony”, and take the moral high ground on science?
Jennifer,
You admitted in Greens Part 1 that you analyse things from an ideological perspective so why not just be honest and say you hate the Greens, think they smell and look funny and would hate to have them living in the same street ,that you are annoyed that people keep voting them in and that you grind your teeth at Bob Brown’s political savvy. Wouldn’t that be better than an argument that a very ordinary person like me can back my Mack truck through.
“Furthermore, if the Greens are never made to declare what they honestly stand for”
What a load of paranoid unsubstantiated strawman tosh!
Teh Greens have any number of websites and publications just like any other political party. And heaven forbid that any political party or writers of blogs such as this one should “craft a potentially misleading, though perhaps politically savvy message.”
“[T]he great majority of Australians have little or no say in the environmental policies being put to governments – federal, state or local.” This does not surprise me.
My local State MP has told me that she is continually approached by lobbying activists with all the time in the world. Sincere young things; they often sit completing assignments, etc while wating to see her. They do not like it when told that what they are advocating would harm her constituents.
It would seem the game is to continually lobby and brainwash MP’s to isolate them from their constituents. The practice is approaching harassment. She notes that the costs for her constituents to personally lobby her is much greater – in travel costs and foregone income.
Jeremy C wrote:
“Jennifer,
You admitted in Greens Part 1 that you analyse things from an ideological perspective so why not just be honest and say you hate the Greens, think they smell and look funny and would hate to have them living in the same street ,that you are annoyed that people keep voting them in and that you grind your teeth at Bob Brown’s political savvy. Wouldn’t that be better than an argument that a very ordinary person like me can back my Mack truck through.”
One of the things that I appreciate about this blog is that Jennifer takes a nuanced view of environmental issues, and that she does analyze them, using the available facts. She describes this approach is evidence-based environmental policy. I realize that some view politics, environmental or otherwise, as a no-holds-barred sporting event, in which the truth isn’t nearly as interesting as the various jabs, uppercuts, and kidney punches employed by the contestants.
Although I do have a full measure of testosterone, and I do have a penchant for sarcasm, I also try–with varying degrees of success–to keep the analytical and Neanderthal aspects of my psyche in separate compartments.
“Furthermore, if the Greens are never made to declare what they honestly stand for”
Let me give you an example. I live in California. When the Sierra Club first started I was supportive and contributed. Over the years I dropped support. Why??
In California we have an issue with growth. Our water supply can not match our growth. A large part of this growth is immigration from Mexico. Need I say mostly “undocumented?” A couple of years ago one of the original founders of the Sierra Club tried to launch a take back of the club. Part of his foundation was supporting policies to reduce immigration, especially the “undocumented” type as they are less educated and have larger families… He and his supporters lost to the extremists who have overtaken most, if not all, environmental groups in this country. They are fully behind other radical groups like La Raza and MEChA.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=13863
Please explain to me how supporting importing more people into a state that already has issues with land use is GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT??????? How will it help Gaia or whatever the other interesting beliefs and theories are?
“if the Greens are never made to declare what they honestly stand for”.
This is just incorrect. The Greens have detailed policy positions stated on their website under clear and easy to browse subsections and subheadings. I note that there are no sections dedicated specifically to policy on either the Labor or Liberal Party websites.
Al,
A policy at a website can be easily changed and quickly forgotten.
If you want to know what a Christian stands for, you read the bible. Adam Smith is the bible for classic liberal, I think.
If you are a Green and are looking for inspiration, what do you read? Rachel Carson? Surely not the policy at the website?
Nonsense Dennis – which Bible – which edition – edited by whom leaving which bits out?
Should we take Catholicism or Seventh-day Adventist – Russian Orthodox perhaps?
How about some Pentecostal for a bit more voom voom ?
But Jen – what about the inverse of the “greens” … the AEF
Indeed – furthermore, if the AEF are never made to declare what they honestly stand for, they remain freer than most political movements to craft a potentially misleading, though perhaps politically savvy message.
And Dennis – would you take an experience of someone willing to murder their first-born child as “God told them to do it” as a religious experience – or the experience of some nutcase in need of both medical help and incarceration.
Perhaps the seas parting – an easier physics than sea level rise?
Although perhaps an excellent reference for those studying the interactions mutli-decadal drought and land degradation in the Middle East.
As for walking on water – well I guess Bob Carter or Plimer surely must be trying …
‘Environment’ simply means ‘surroundings’. As Ludwig Wittgenstein said, we must beware of attempts to bewitch with words.
We are all ‘environmentalists’ now, and always have been, otherwise we would not have survived our changing natural AND social surroundings over the millennia. I think Charles Darwin had a few ideas on that matter.
Somebody (Ross McKitrick?) has pointed out that the ‘environment’ is anything between the end of your nose and outer space. I would add that it also includes the ‘World Mind’ (H.G.Wells 1938) which is growing fast, largely due to the internet. Wiki offers useful information on this for those interested.
We must beware of attempts to capture and bewitch the World Mind. Those who consider themselves ‘The Greens’ seem to be interested in that sort of hegemony. They won’t have much luck with me – I am an old sceptic, and was ‘green’ before most of them were born. Whatever her views, Jennifer has done well to raise this deeply important matter of philosophy.
The Greens constantly ask that we establish a zero emissions society using “alternative” energy. This means no oil, coal or gas usage. It also means no coal exports. Do that and killing your first-born is minor.
The aims of the Green mentality are not possible. To believe they are signals a mental derangement in the believerof the first order.
“otherwise we would not have survived our changing natural AND social surroundings over the millennia”
– surely fine sentiments when population was relatively low and resource buffer in abundance?
Perhaps by good luck and benign conditions more than skill?
Face it Davey – there is no possibility of the AGW debate now being advanced by the Internet.
For every point there will be a counter-point coming along in 24 hours time. Either correct or incorrect. Doesn’t matter anymore. Everyone thinks they’re Galileo these days.
So the big institutional science simply ignores 95% of fracas.
Babies and bath-water both passing our collective noses.
“The Greens constantly ask that we establish a zero emissions society using “alternative” energy. ”
DO THEY ?
“This means no oil, coal or gas usage”
IT DOES?
Yes and the South couldn’t run without slavery either…
Hi Jennifer,
When I first heard about the green movement (many years ago!) I was hopefull that the movement would rise above traditional political movements. My obvious assumption was that this movement would be based upon the findings of the natural science “ecology” as pioneered by the late Eugene Odum and his school of thought. Later, I lost hope about this movement when I discovered that it had just become another “political” party, playing alongside other political parties and going into a sort of “intra-specific” competition with them.
I am glad that a lot of people (like myself) are fedup with “romantic environmentalisim” and would like to support realistic movements aiming for (and showing how!) sustainability of the human race at acceptable standards of living.
Certainly mental derangement and ignorance of the first order applies to particularly to some here. Listened to Bob brown lately Luke? Your responses are pathetic.
If think some thing that defines the greens is the constant BS. A while back a thread here was discussing the Wilkins ice shelf. I persisted with it until I realised it was connected with the study by Steig et al which claimed that despite opinions to the contrary from many quarters Antartica was really getter warmer. The method used to determine this had already be thoroughly discredited. Then conveniently along comes Wilkins, my BS meter went into overdrive and I dropped it. On this blog who are opposed to AGW are in fact gullible enough to be sucked into the BS arguments. So what am I driving at look here http://wattsupwiththat.com/. They are to be congratulated to have realised the story for what it was a scam.
Please those with a deep scientific knowledge on this blog think before you leap. There may be no scientific explanation, very likely it has just be made up to entertain readers.
One idiot in the thread I refer to reckoned the 3 degree rise was evidenced by the 150 year record of a weather station several hundred k away.
We needed to determine if it had risen there by 3 degrees first. Look at the premises skeptically don’t just accept them as true very often they are not.
Wilkins is not connect to Steig. Wattsup is just a bullshit factory. The warming of the Antarctic Peninsula is well established. DHMO – you’re having your chain pulled. There’s heaps of literature on the subject.
kuke,
” surely fine sentiments when population was relatively low and resource buffer in abundance?”
Sorry, I have to disagree with this statement .
People starved to death en mass, throughout the ages, despite their relatively small numbers.
It was the lack of technological resources, that prevented them to utilise that “resource buffer”.
The proof is, that given the willingness of the rich nations, nobody should starve today, despite the inordinately huge numbers of people alive.
“kuke” should be LUKE sorry
You are right Marcus. The ‘resource buffer’ was much lower when our ancestors were hunter-gatherers. That’s why the human population stayed low. It is only due to the increase in ‘resource buffers’, and reduction of a few other trivial items, such as disease and tribal warfare, that human population has increased. Is this a good or a bad thing? Now there’s a philosophical question.
I wonder what exactly ‘The Greens’ policy is on human population? Fewer native born and more migrants? Any offers? Careful now, His Holiness might be reading this. What’s that Luke? Gosh, I’m sorry Your Holiness – I should have recognised the pontifical style.
Kiss the ring pseudo-green Davey 🙂
And so now you have most arable land and freshwater resources exploited. Do you not have most photosynthetic capacity that could be diverted from food production allocated? Anyone worried about soil sustainability – of course not.
Is not food security back as an issue?
Luke what you say is a heap of silly nonsense. Your arguments are obviously connected to BS. There is heaps of literature that shows that and I am sure we have consensus. To use your technique I know this because.
Luke,
So you are an intellectual Redneck!
One attracted to irrational theories for whatever bias you are excited by.
Green Davey
I suspect the Green agenda is to eliminate the hoi-polloi, and what’s left, to tend the various WWF funded parks littered over the planet for their betters, (AKA Patrons of WWF and other sundry NGO’s) to visit when they need amusement.
Hayek described it as the descent to serfdom – we are partly there with lowlife llike Luke and SJT, (public servants) pilloring us for daring to criticise their edicts.
Luke:
“As for walking on water – well I guess Bob Carter or Plimer surely must be trying …”
You have been but as a scientific ignoramus you haven’t worked out its called ice.
Green Davey
You write: That’s why the human population stayed low. It is only due to the increase in ‘resource buffers’, and reduction of a few other trivial items, such as disease and tribal warfare, that human population has increased. Is this a good or a bad thing? Now there’s a philosophical question.
Rather how about the established fact that increased environmental temperature results in an increase in life activity. We freeze food to stop it from decaying, and to preserve it for future use.
This is, actually, the purest example of capitalism.
No Sinkers – just to eliminate rednecks.
And we cook meat to denature the proteins too. Trying warming your brain in the microwave Sinkers and report back. And Sinkers why are Antarctic waters so rich in liofe – nah don’t answer…
Hey didn’t you tell us that water wasn’t ice the other day?
Well Larry,
In Greens Part 1 Jennifer posted in reply to me:
“you accuse me of approaching the issue from an “ideological/power perspective” and complain that I use “categories” and quote scholars on this issues. Can you suggest an alternative approach from which to examine environmentalism and in particular the beliefs of the Australian Greens?”
Using labels and cherry picking to support an ideological stance is just propaganda and propaganda is always crude hence my use of inverted allusions in my above post. The only nuance here is not stating, or being aware of the agenda you are faced with.
I have seen the insidious relationship that has developed between these greens & governments of the left persuasion.
I was attending the community consultative meetings to develop the water management plan, for our district, on behalf of my local irrigation committee. There were a number of farming & irrigation organisations, along with local government, Brisbane water, Brisbane council, fishing organisations, tourist operators, a couple of dozen public servants, & many local green groups.
Some of us were getting hard to get on with as it became evident that the objective was not the better distribution of our water resource, but to pinch it for use in Brisbane.
After about the tenth meeting the head government honcho anounced the group was too big, & was going to be reduced to local government, & “stakeholders’ for future meetings. Although we asked just what that meant, we were ignored, that is, until 3 of us walked out to the lectern, & demanded an explination.
We then discovered that the stakeholders would be the aboriginal council, Sunfish, [the amature fishing clubs], & 6 green groupes. The bloke did not answer, when asked, if he knew that 3 of those green groups had the same 6, & only those 6 members.
There was not to be a single representative of ripirain land holders, farmers, irrigators, tourist operators, or anyone who depended on the river for their livelihood.
This was how it was to be, until the editor of the local paper, after a call, turned up, asking questions. It then transpired we had misunderstood what the bloke had said. Strange isn’t it.
Has anyone else noticed that Bast4rd, Brisbane, Beattie, Bligh, & Brown all start weit a capital B.
There’s nothing particularly philosophical about it. It’s the outcome of a voting system whereby minor parties can obtain excessive influence. Most politicians are whorish in their march to self preservation and self glorification.
Barry Cohen was a persisten liar about our emergent uranium industry. He was influential in blocking expansion of uranium mining, often using the emotive phrase that “Mining would Swiss-cheese Kakadu”. He was so naughty that we took him to the High Court. Just as we were winning, they changed the legislation to make it impossible for us to win.
The other baddie was Gareth Evans as foreign affairs minister. At one stage he was endorsing about 2 international treaties a week, often with scant reference to colleagues, let alone the public. It is such treaties that bind us to actions with the United Nations and helped entrench silly bodies like the IPCC. I remember the shock on the face of Sir Harry Gibbs, just retired from heading the Bench at the High Court, when I told him that the Australian Treaty List had passed 1300 treaties. That was about 1992.
2 Bob Brown took gratefully from the public purse for his medical training. He has yet to pay back that debt. He has worked in strange ways to alter laws about homosexuality and might currently be working so ensure that his parliamentary pension is transferrable to another, should a voluntary lifestyle disease like AIDS consume him, rather than an accident or natural causes.
This is not the place to continue, but the economic and social damage about to be done to Australia under the artificiality of climate change can be traced to a few twisted people who were entrusted with offices to serve the people. Instead, they served themselves. Handsomely.
That is about the long and the short of it. I was there.
Geoff, Hasbeen et al
Yes, lots of politics. But that politics is responding to something.
IF you want to wrap your head around a real rebuttal of AGW hysteria read this:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/markey_and_barton_letter.pdf
Luke,
I see you still croak merrily away – with an accompaniment of half-truths, non seqiturs, and plain disengenuousness.
luke’s comment about firstborns can be trumped by the actions of those at the cutting edge of green ideology;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-495495/Meet-women-wont-babies–theyre-eco-friendly.html
“He has worked in strange ways to alter laws about homosexuality and might currently be working so ensure that his parliamentary pension is transferrable to another, should a voluntary lifestyle disease like AIDS consume him, rather than an accident or natural causes.”
Ya know they’re desperate when they bring on the ol’ homophobia. Why did you bring that up Geoff? Fancy a bit yourself. Or have you been peeking through Bob’s bedroom window?
Louis – how can anyone such as yourself who advertised that he would randomly throw stuff as grenades into the blogosphere ever ever lecture anyone about being disengenuousness.
“This blog is the kamikaze version of some more mundane climate sceptical views. I get fed some ideas to then throw them as intellectual hand grenades into the blogosphere.”
So who feeds you the ideas? Do you get paid for being a chucker?
Try to lay straight in bed eh?
“Ya know they’re desperate when they bring on the ol’ homophobia. Why did you bring that up Geoff? Fancy a bit yourself. Or have you been peeking through Bob’s bedroom window?”
“Clearly, therefore, in any dealings with me, you should remember that you are not treating with a simple mind, but an eccentric one, which has shown great moments of unsolicited human kindness, compassion and relief”
http://members.ebay.com/
“Yes, lots of politics. But that politics is responding to something”
The first thing to know is there is a difference between that party and all the rest “responding to something”
.
Evidence is produced, idle words and opinions flow back. Good blogs don’t work that way.
Luke,
Good heavens, is tha all you can come up with, extremely dated material, taken out of context as your only retort? That you have to recycle your copmments here causes great mirth, especially when the blog in question was interned years ago. But it had you and your fellow croakers up in arms, didn’t it, which was it’s intention.
Oh yes I can call you disengenuous – since my intellectual hand grenades were thrown with utmost sincerity and purpose. You, on the other had, no, we had better not go there, had we.
An no, I am not paid to write provocations, and I do lie straight in bed, so your perjorations are short of their mark, again.
Luke,
I forgot to mention this and can’t work out where you posted your snide remark about water and ice and me, but please do inform all of us here when someone drowns in ice? Drowning in water most of us can relate to, but drowning in ice? Nick Stokes might be a suitable companion for you on this task.
“utmost sincerity and purpose” hahahahahahahaha – oooo – that was a good ‘un
And now they “provocations” are they – just try on’s for a stir. Content = 0.0
I can only assume that any Uni Student would fail if this two part series was their summary of the Australian Greens history, ideology and policy. I’m not going to launch in to a defence of the Greens political movement – I’m sure it is flawed just as any other movement, made up of many many different viewpoints, with resulting policy positions not always appearing coherent or consistent. Ahh well.
I know what I’m like, and I know the greens is a great fit for me. Mind you the Libs without pandering to racists and moral conservatives and the ALP without pandering to unions could be a pretty good fit too.
All political parties advocate policies to improve the physical conditions of their members, usually by stealing from those whom they percieve, rightly or wrongly, to have more than they.
What other polices could possibly exist, then.
Well, Matty, if you’re really reasonable here is a better fit;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/introducting-the-climate-sceptics-a-new-political-party/
The problem with the greens is that they pretend their extremism has no currency or imput into their declared policies; some examples of that extremism;
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22945744-25717,00.html
Luke: ‘As for walking on water – well I guess Bob Carter or Plimer surely must be trying …’
Surely you are wasting your evidently abundant vital fluids on a denialist site like this one. You really should put your enormous energies into a book refuting Plimer’s denialism.
‘Wattsup is just a bullshit factory.’ A forthright but tantalisingly brief observation. Please tell us why it should be seen as a bullshit factory?
‘The warming of the Antarctic Peninsula is well established. DHMO – you’re having your chain pulled. There’s heaps of literature on the subject.’
Yes, less than 5% of the Antarctic. What about the other 95% Luke – there’s heaps of literature on the subject?
Lazlo – so what’s the issue with the rest of the Antarctic?
As for Plimer – it’s already been reviewed – same old same old – boring.
As for Wattsupdoc – well it’s been said before.
tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/whats-up-with-that/
tamino.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/exclamation-points/
tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/how-not-to-analyze-data-part-1/
tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/how-not-to-analyze-data-part-deux/
tamino.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/how-not-to-analyze-data-part-3/
tamino.wordpress.com/2008/04/07/how-not-to-analyze-data-part-4-lies-damned-lies-and-anthony-watts/
Also Luke, and your fellow travelling evidence denialists, should visit Watts today to review the recycled lies about Wilkins that are being served up in the media. See if you can wriggle out of that one, but you won’t try – just splutter and adhom as usual. But the games up on Antarctica isn’t it..
Cohenite quotes Bolty as source. hahahahahahaha – oooooo – another good ‘un
and “if you’re reasonable” and he quotes Ashby and the TCS – LOLZ …. oh Cohers … maaaaaatttteeeee
What are you on about Lazlo – I was just enjoying my copy of
Science 13 March 2009:
Vol. 323. no. 5920, pp. 1470 – 1473
Recent Changes in Phytoplankton Communities Associated with Rapid Regional Climate Change Along the Western Antarctic Peninsula
Martin Montes-Hugo,1 Scott C. Doney,2 Hugh W. Ducklow,3 William Fraser,4 Douglas Martinson,5 Sharon E. Stammerjohn,6 Oscar Schofield1
The climate of the western shelf of the Antarctic Peninsula (WAP) is undergoing a transition from a cold-dry polar-type climate to a warm-humid sub-Antarctic–type climate. Using three decades of satellite and field data, we document that ocean biological productivity, inferred from chlorophyll a concentration (Chl a), has significantly changed along the WAP shelf. Summertime surface Chl a (summer integrated Chl a ~63% of annually integrated Chl a) declined by 12% along the WAP over the past 30 years, with the largest decreases equatorward of 63°S and with substantial increases in Chl a occurring farther south. The latitudinal variation in Chl a trends reflects shifting patterns of ice cover, cloud formation, and windiness affecting water-column mixing. Regional changes in phytoplankton coincide with observed changes in krill (Euphausia superba) and penguin populations.
1 Coastal Ocean Observation Lab, Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA.
2 Department of Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA.
3 The Ecosystems Center, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA.
4 Polar Oceans Research Group, Post Office Box 368, Sheridan, MT 59749, USA.
5 Lamont-Doherty Earth Institute, Palisades, NY 10964, USA.
6 Ocean Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA.
Mate are you some sort of denialist nutcase?
‘Lazlo – so what’s the issue with the rest of the Antarctic?’ The 95%? – no warming for the last 50 years and increasing ice extent.
‘As for Plimer – it’s already been reviewed – same old same old – boring.’ Pathetic – adhom only, as predicted.
‘As for Wattsupdoc – well it’s been said before.’ Brainless – are you capable of original thought?
‘What are you on about Lazlo – I was just enjoying my copy of
Science 13 March 2009:
Vol. 323. no. 5920, pp. 1470 – 1473
Recent Changes in Phytoplankton Communities Associated with Rapid Regional Climate Change Along the Western Antarctic Peninsula’
Yes, less than 5% of the Antarctic. The rest is not behaving like this at all. Didn’t you read the papers this weekend?
The game’s up, think about alternative career directions. Or I’ll help you write the next grant app. It should start with something like: ‘While the probablility of catastrophic climate change is now acknowledged to be low, it is prudent to still research the possiblity of…(you can write the rest)’
As for no warming for the last 95 years. Yep – just what you’d expect from the circulation patterns.
What on Plimer ? for ducks sake – what have we got – climate’s changed before, CO2 follows temperature, IPCC a fraud, computer models, mass delusion, it’s the sun, CO2’s not a pollutant – just another recycled denialist bilge-fest. What drivel.
Are you some sort of dweeb Lazlo – someone who’s just woken up from his nap at day care, – the modelling well predicts what the Peninsula is doing. Take a hike goober.
‘As for no warming for the last 95 years. Yep – just what you’d expect from the circulation patterns. ‘
‘the modelling well predicts what the Peninsula is doing. Take a hike goober.’
Oh I’m sorry. I was unaware of the models – I was foolishly focusing on measured evidence. I humbly ask that you provide this goober with a reference to the model predictions for the Peninsula.
Thanks also for acknowledging no general warming in the Antarctic. But as a public servant I think you have a duty to put this in writing urgently to Peter Garrett and Tony Jones so that they can stop seriously misleading the public. But also please point me to why (idiotically on my part) I should have missed expecting this result from circulation patterns (only peer reviewed papers please, and not the highly suspect Nature).
‘What on Plimer ? for ducks sake – what have we got – climate’s changed before, CO2 follows temperature, IPCC a fraud, computer models, mass delusion, it’s the sun, CO2’s not a pollutant – just another recycled denialist bilge-fest. What drivel.’
Mindless rant. The best you can do it seems.
Give it up Lazlo, luke is one of his moods; btw luke, chlorophyll is not a good proxy for AGW because of this;
http://landshape.org/enm/oceanic-cayanobacteria-in-the-modern-global-cycle/#more-2144
“I was there too” can’t even deliver an accurate quote. In reciting my eBay fun bio, he left off the three critical words at the end. The correct reading is –
“Clearly, therefore, in any dealings with me, you should remember that you are not treating with a simple mind, but an eccentric one, which has shown great moments of unsolicited human kindness, compassion and relief (in 1947, once).”
Sort of changes the meaning, eh?
BYW, does anyone disagree with what I wrote above? Am I inventing it? If you have learned how to do it, look up
(1987) 15 FCR 274 and
Peko-Wallsend Ltd v. Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (1986) 13 FCR 19.
I was one of the principals providing evidence against the Commonwealth and its politics. As Jennifer puts it, that politics was responding to something. After long analysis, I believe that it was responding to the politics of having no nuclear power in Australia as a cosy deal between Labor and the unions with dwingling membership propped up in the coal mining/electricity sector. It was clear from the 1960s that nuclear was the safe and low-cost way to go. It is to the Green’s shame that they were used to thwart this sensible approach. Lord knows how many deaths they have caused.
You’re a Doc, 2 Bob, why don’t you do an epidemiology type study to see the “health hazards of not going nuclear”? Petr Beckman wrote a book about it under that title when you were in short pants. (In imperial currency times, 2 Bob was not the full quid).
‘Give it up Lazlo, luke is one of his moods’ Almost sounds like an apology for a misbhaving but loved child.
I am happy for the world to witness the brainlessness of this AGW nonsense.
Luke,
” And Sinkers why are Antarctic waters so rich in liofe – nah don’t answer…
Hey didn’t you tell us that water wasn’t ice the other day?”
Lemme see, the Antarctic waters are so rich in life because they are not ICE and have a good supply of gases and other nutrients?!?!?!?! I notice that Antarctica itself, which is mostly covered with ice, is NOT rich in life. Was this your point? Trying to support Louis’ statement??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Luke,
please give us some links to those models that predict the actual conditions in the Antarctica. I have read a lot, but, haven’t run across those particular ones yet!!
No Lazlo, I’m not apologising for luke; one day soon he’ll have to stand in the hall of mirrors and take a long hard look at himself, just like all the other scientists [sic], experts [double sic] and all the people who you would assume would know better have to confront the fact that in promoting AGW they have crawled into bed with fanatics, spivs, fools, charlatans and assorted ratbags; in the meantime I always try to be polite because I’m sure he will see the light 🙂
Basically the Greens are the modern “Malthusian Marxist Hippie” rump of the Baby Boomer generation. Without the Marijuana fueled Uni’s of the 60’s & 70’s they would not have come into existence. They would have stayed within the marxist movements (of all colours) of their respective campuses.
They are not very trustworthy people as the end justifies the means.
regards.
Mindless comment KookyCat – the comment was about cold conditions not supporting abundant life. I guess you believe Antarctic waters are actually “warm” then.
Off you toddle – time for your meds – off you go – slowly now.
Tried to post 3 answers on modelling but blog rejected the post.
Interpretation of Recent Southern Hemisphere Climate Change
David W. J. Thompson and Susan Solomon (3 May 2002)
Science 296 (5569), 895. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1069270]
Simulation of Recent Southern Hemisphere Climate Change
Nathan P. Gillett and David W. J. Thompson (10 October 2003)
Science 302 (5643), 273. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1087440]
Shindell, D. T., and G. A. Schmidt (2004), Southern Hemisphere climate response to ozone changes and greenhouse gas increases, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L18209, doi:10.1029/2004GL020724.
Cohers – denialists too have been sleeping with ratbags, scam artists, liars and frauds. Try looking behind the miror.
Tell you what luke, you name the shonkiest pro-AGW supporter and I’ll name the worst denialist; and then we can reverse the choice.
Sorry Cohers, I don’t do single issue political parties. Untrustworthy opportunistic clap trap. Why would I trust a party that is just about AGW (either way) to make decisions on general pieces of legislation – especially if on the single issue I think they are wrong?