“An alliance of pro-carbon sceptics and fundamentalists is retarding 11th hour attempts at mitigation of dangerous climate change,” according to Andrew Glikson from the Australian National University.
Dr Glikson’s latest article is entitled ‘Noah’s Ark Revisited’ and decries all the mainstream media attention recently heaped on Ian Plimer from the University of Adelaide and Steve Fielding from the Australian parliament – both now suggesting the earth is not about to flood.
Of course Al Gore and Bono have been preaching something else for a long time as Blunt by Knutz explains in his latest cartoon.
**************
Notes and Links
NOAH’S ARK REVISITED, By Andrew Glikson http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/06/08/noah-s-ark-revisited
Blunt’s Cartoon Revisited, by Knutz
Al’s face in biblical-beard and wearing a wrap around with all its cataclysmically, religio-climate metaphors – Bono fetching the water for Noah while he pours over the Ark’s charts (nee hockey stick graph) and extracts cash from gullible passengers –
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Of course Noah’s Ark is about a mythical event.
How appropriate that an AGW promoter would use that metaphor.
Now it is the heroic *lowering* of CO2 that made life as we know it possible?
And now, the enlightened message of AGW is at risk because of an evil conspiracy.
Glikson is a kook.
AGW is imploding, even as its believers think it is on the verge winning.
Glikko goes for the record!!
How many sandwich boards can a man wear at the one time?
How many ways can you scream, “THE END IS NIGH!! REPENT NOW!!
When this ol’ earth has survived for a few billion years in spite of forcings and feedbacks, he is really stretching his public cred with this crap.
Andrew, I think you’ll find there is time to chill out for a while and consider PLAN B.
If not I’m happy to lend you a boat.
“Of course Noah’s Ark is about a mythical event.”
Nope! It was a real event and Al Gore’s mission ably assisted by his faithful accolyte Andrew Glickson is just history repeating itself.
What seems to be at stake is “funding”, hence the hyperbolic reactions to scientific scepticism by the warmenists.
I’d strongly recommend to Dr Glikson to have a butcher’s hook at this.
It’s time to get back to the proper process.
http://climatesci.org/2009/06/04/short-circuiting-the-scientific-process-a-serious-problem-in-the-climate-science-community/
Freeman Dyson’s take on “experts” like Dr Glikson:
“But I have seen that happen in many fields. You sit in front of a computer screen for 10 years and you start to think of your model as being real. It is also true that the whole livelihood of all these people depends on people being scared. Really, just psychologically, it would be very difficult for them to come out and say, “Don’t worry, there isn’t a problem.” It’s sort of natural, since their whole life depends on it being a problem. I don’t say that they’re dishonest. But I think it’s just a normal human reaction. It’s true of the military also. They always magnify the threat. Not because they are dishonest; they really believe that there is a threat and it is their job to take care of it.”
On the strength of this one can only assume that Glikson has severe and ongoing issues with other people;
http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2699
Strange and angry gear.
I have posted Tommy Gold’s prescient article published some years ago in the Journal of Scientific Exploration as lead article of AIG News and also on my blog. (http://geoplasma.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C00F2616F39D0B2B!717.entry). His opinions go to the heart of the matter here.
AIG News Issue 96 has also caused a bit of a stir in academia, initially from colleagues supportive of my editorial position. (Not yet downloadable).
Seems I can expect, as editor, to be sacked, assassinated or shot at dawn for infelicities involving skeptical propoganda. I wonder if that happens whether Dick Smith or other Ozzie-Luminaries will open the wallet for my legal defense.
REPENT, FOR THE CARBON IS AT HAND
“An alliance of pro-carbon sceptics and fundamentalists is retarding 11th hour attempts at mitigation of dangerous climate change,” according to Andrew Glikson from the Australian National University.
If like me your training was in biology, it’s pretty hard to avoid being ‘pro-carbon’. The esteemed Mr Glikson is full of it as is any life-form on the planet. Perhaps he meant ‘anti-greenhouse-alarmists’.
What has me baffled is how we can simultaneously be ‘sceptics’ and ‘fundamentalists’.
I am protestant (Bad Thing) but not creationist (Good Thing) or particularly ‘fundamentalist’ (another brownie point towards admission to the human race), but am sceptical (Bad Thing) of greenhouse fundamentalism (Good Thing) . . . Gosh. It sure gets confusing. I thought this stuff was supposed to be settled.
I guess I must be a hireling of Big Oil, only I can’t remember getting a cent from them. Well, maybe I’m in the pay of the cigarette companies (Bad Thing) and that’s why I’m leaving carbon everywhere (Bad Thing) – only I’ve never smoked in my life, and hate the d****d things – ah! a wowser! (Bad Thing) and therefore a fundamentalist! (Bad Thing.) All is explained! . . .
All we needed from Mr Glikson’s anti-carbon voice in the wilderness was an attempt to prove that Catholics stop all sex while overbreeding at the same time.
David Elder,
Not a Knox Grammarian by chance?
Louis, when that link is up and running do you mind posting it again?
David Elder:
“Mr Glikson is full of it”
So true.
“On Tchaikovsky’s appreciation of Brahms, “I played over the music of that scoundrel Brahms. What a giftless bastard.”
Louis, where have we heard that before?
Peer review, anyone?
Cohenite,
Mr Glikson dredges up Drake’s equation????????
I guess it is appropriate as the Climate models have certain similarities!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I am certainly pro-carbon, in the form of charcoal (sorry, biochar). The more mild, prescribed burning we do, the better our soils will be. Oddly, I have not heard Penny Wong mention this simple, and rather obvious option for massive carbon sequestration. Might upset the carbon trading applecart?
Cohenite – I have to rattle AIG council to get the news up otherwise just check http://www.aig.org.au. I could also send it as pdf to those interested.
Actually we need to come up with a bumper sticker as well – anything to counter that inane “This vehcile is Carbon Neutral” nonsense, but I can’t think of a catchy one liner to capture it succinctly.
Louis,
Shoehorn Science???
Excellent!! Lemme see, Big Bang, Evolution, AGW, any others??
I would add that even in fields where the basis is relatively solid this is even a worse problem!!
“Might upset the carbon trading applecart?”
Davey, if she did it this way, all our trials lord, soon be over.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charcoal-burning_suicide
“An alliance of pro-carbon sceptics and fundamentalists is retarding 11th hour attempts at mitigation of dangerous climate change,” according to Andrew Glikson from the Australian National University.”
What dangerous climate change are you talking about?
Oh that’s right the cooling trend we have observed for years along with a cooling ocean.That “dangerous climate change!
LOL
You can take a safe bet that Big Al will not be arriving in Australia by ark for the breakfast opening of Safe Climate Australia in Melbourne on Monday 13/07/09 – 6:30am – 7:30am
And because the weather forecast is for very cool by the weekend, it looks like the ‘Gore Effect’ is preceding him – at least 10 degrees C cooler, rain, hail, sleet, snow or hurricane (any of the above).
As he will be arriving in his private jet, chauffeured in an air-conditioned limo, put up in high class accommodation with heating/aircon, and appearing at a venue which will be airconditioned, well lit and comfortable, maybe he can donate his “carbon offsets” to the homeless and starving in the city, trying to stay alive in freezing conditions.
Dream on.
Ian Plimer metioned last night that he feels like a bomber pilot sometimes, when you drop bombs on target you have to put up with the flak.
And in last night’s debate the Gore Faction totally ignored the science – which surprised most of us.