IF the saying ‘it takes one to know one’ has any truth then the extraordinary attack by Cardinal George Pell on the science of anthropogenic global warming in a recent lecture given in Westminster Cathedral Hall, London, has special significance. Not because the Cardinal is a scientist, but because he apparently recognizes a competing belief system when he sees one. Indeed the Cardinal is so blunt as to liken the language used by AGW proponents with that used in “primitive religious controversy” and compares the costs “true-believers” would impose on economies with “the sacrifices offered traditionally in religion, and the sale of carbon credits with the pre-Reformation practice of selling indulgences”.
Early in the lecture the Cardinal acknowledges that the Church doesn’t have a great record on matters of science with mention of the church being on the wrong side of “forward progress” when it came to the Copernicus theory and Darwin’s theory of evolution.
The Cardinal goes on to show a deep knowledge of issues of argument, evidence and European history as they relate to the science of climate change.
Appeals to the consensus and the science being settled are dismissed as “a category error, scientifically and philosophically”.
Comment is also made in the lecture that:
“During the years 2008-09 it was dangerous for an Australian politician to voice dissent unless he was from a country electorate. Opponents were silenced. As I was not up for re-election and I suspected the Emperor had few if any clothes, I made a few small public statements, never from the pulpit, never at a large public meeting.”
But the Cardinal must have judged that the mood has significantly changed to now being accepting an invitation to give such a high profile and damning lecture on the subject and to have the same posted on the Catholic Churches’ official website…
http://www.sydney.catholic.org.au/people/archbishop/addresses/2011//20111026_1463.shtml
******
One Christian perspective on climate change, by Cardinal George Pell. The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 2011 Annual GWPF Lecture, Westminister Cathedral Hall, October 26, 2011.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
OH!
Can’t wait to see the comments from this one.
A religious leader commenting that AGW uses the same language as primitive religious controversy and sees the same behaviour in sacrifices and selling indulgencies?
A religious leader recognising that he is competing with a new religious type belief system?
This will set the cat amongst the pigeons 🙂
I guess it does take one to know one? 🙂
BTW Jen…excellent article in the Land.
Yea saw that – nicely written. But just more of the same old same old. However I liked it.
The fact that he’s a Cardinal of some religious cult doesn’t augur well for being a representative of logic and reason does it?
You could spend a lot of time doing the rebuttal but as they say – treasure your outliers…..
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/the-moscow-warming-hole/
(and it’s been so long since I cited RC too – sigh!)
Luke, The Catholic Church is no “religious cult” and most leaders of that significant tradition are schooled in philosophy including logic and reason. Indeed, a problem for many 21st century scientists is that they are have no understanding of deductive logic and so they make many basic errors of in their relatively primitive reasoning.
“The Catholic Church is no “religious cult” ” – hmmmmmmmmm – that probably explains their corporate position on many issues then ….. historical and ongoing ….
Luke
Judging by your comment re. the Catholic church and I assume any organised religion, you
did not spend too much time studying them did you?
Why do you think they evolved the way they did?
Power and greed comes into it I grant you that, can’t be helped where humans are involved, but without organising and maintaining the basic tenets of the religion, it all would have disintegrated into a thousand different cults and disappeared ages ago.
There is a sound reason why only the priests used to interpret the Bible, until it was translated
to common language and see what happened?
Every Tom Dick and fundamentalist asshole Harry can read into it whatever suits them.
Excellent speech – thanks for posting it Jennifer.
as Debbie said, it will put the cat amongst the pigeons.
“put the cat amongst the pigeons”
I think you misspelled “expose Pell for an irrational anti-science propagandist”. Oh hang on, much like Jennifer and her hangers on (still can’t get over her disgusting performance on Q&A a while back …)
‘During the years 2008-09 it was dangerous for an Australian politician to voice dissent unless he was from a country electorate.’
That’s an interesting statement, does it mean that only country people, value integrity, courage, and a willingness to stand by what you believe, in their politicians.
Or does it mean that urban society has degenerated to a point that these qualities, are now only found amongst people who are geographically isolated from mainstream society.
You have distinguish between the power of the Vatican and the well meaning hard workers within the system.This is all about power politics.Why did it take so long for them to utter such words of support?
The Vatican also has come out supporting the sentiments of the “Occupy Movement” but offers a solution of a world central authority to Govern this mess.Isn’t this the responsibility of the IMF and BIS who have created it this mess? We do not need a central authority.Nature is based on diversity. Since when did the masters of religion get involved in money?Jesus flogged the money changers with whip,but the Vatican embraces them.
The Royals support the Green Fascists along with the Rothschilds.The Vatican is trying to play both sides of the fence.Their power has been based on banning contraception to expand their influence but now sympathise with Green Fascist movement of population reduction.They now are supporting the notion of a Global Currency control in conjunction with the imperialist banksters.
Binny,
I think that country people are well aware of large flocks following a Judas to their slaughter.
Kdkd seems nice, hope he comes back with something to say.
Debbie picked it, the leftard blogs are pushing comrade Luke’s lines.
Whenever I’m engaged in a conversation with someone who has never thought much on the subject of AGW, I point out the hateful religious bigotry inherent in the Green movement. Scratch a True Believer of Algore and you will almost always find an angry atheist. Since this is a political struggle, I prefer to have all the religious believers on my side.
Notice the Cardinal starts paying attention in the 90’s due to the Green’s “anti-human” views. I agree completely and find it the most compelling reason to become actively skeptical in the first place.
My favorite part of the paper was about how people with the facts on their side don’t need to talk like Luke.
That rule of thumb works well for all sorts of issues.
I counted about 30 errors in Pell’s piece. The absolute hilarity of citing Plimer’s book as source including the volcano crap. And and and – most of his cites are what Bob Carter reckons – pullease.
Any science reviewer would just laugh.
And so why don these old religious coots think they have anything to contribute – the guy represents an anti-science anti-reason cult. He should get back to his Latin chants and wearing a dress.
I don’t think you are in a position to criticise anyone for wearing a dress.
Anyway AGW is a religion and this has been judicially confirmed:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/mired-in-climateof-confusion/story-e6frg6zo-1225797096948
What exactly is wrong with Plimer’s volcano science Luke?
here’s a summation of it:
http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/
and please don’t attack the messenger, just address the science and point out where you believe it is wrong.
He mentions Bob Carter 3 times. Which reference do you disagree with and why?
Let’s not waste time John ! You obviously don’t get away from denialist central much do you?
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/plimer_busted_by_media_watch.php
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php
http://tbp.mattandrews.id.au/2009/06/06/debunking-plimer-heaven-and-earth/
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ian_Plimer
Pell presumably has faith in miracles.
And the AGW extremist crowd are not a new religious cult?????? hmmmmmmmm that probably explains their corporate and government funding position on many issues then…. historical and ongoing.
As has been pointed out in this post….it takes one to know one 🙂
Noting the similarities of language and behaviour is a very telling argument.
So is the reactive behaviour.
“If you don’t believe then you’re going straight to hell!”
“We will be struck down by flood or fire or lightning or pestilence or drought!”
Sound a bit familiar?
Instead of a diety it will be ‘the climate’ or ‘the environment’ that punishes evil mankind 🙂
Be guilty, be guilty….confess your sins and pay a tithe (tax) 🙂
You need your church and your clergy (govt and pseudo scientists) to explain why you are guilty and you must pay. You must follow us to the end of the earth otherwise you will lose your way and be stoned (publicly smeared) at the stocks (media) with the rest of the sinners (sceptics) who don’t believe:-)
Be afraid….be very very afraid. DO AS WE SAY WE HAVE RIGHT ON OUR SIDE!!!!! We can prove it by interpreting the bible (computer models) in at least 10 different ways and they all say you’re guilty and you must pay!!!!
Have faith we can save you from eternity in hell (AGW) 🙂
HEY!…notice how they’re both hot?
Better stop….having too much fun 🙂
I am not at all religious having been raised without any religious teaching and I went to a public school. Despite my lack of religion I find Pell’s views are worth reading. I recently read what he had to say about a bill of rights. It very much clarified the issue for me. Unfortunately he is a very good example of cognitive dissonance but he has many fellow travellers. Name a geologist who believes in AGW and I think you have a fellow traveller for Pell. Realising this means that there is the dilemma of how do you separate the ones who suffer from cognitive dissonance from the conniving scoundrel?
rephrase…sorry
Be afraid….be very very afraid. DO AS WE SAY WE HAVE RIGHT ON OUR SIDE!!!!! We can prove it by interpreting the bible (computer models and thousands upon thousands of links) in at least 100 different ways and they all say you’re guilty and you must pay US (church, clergy government, bureaucrats or pseudo scientists…take your pick) for your sins!!!!
Also have to say….none of what the religious prohets of old from any of the ancient scriptures said any of this. They mostly asked everyone to be kind to each other and to live a good and profitable life. They mostly asked everyone to mind their own business and take care of their family and friends.
Luke – Deltoid just attacks and attacks and all the zealots cheer him on, yet most of what he writes is utter crap and you know it. He doesn’t debunk the book, he just nitpicks at bits of it like the Durkin chart – Do you believe the temperature increased from 1940 – 1975 like Deltoid infers in his pointless attack? Please show me the chart demonstrating that.
The link I gave you is from a fellow geologist who analyses Plimers work and adds support to it. As Debbie says, name one geologist who supports AGW! Gina Reinhart employs a whole team of them yet none believe in AGW.
The only believers are computer modellers like Deltoid and Real Climate and their lapdogs like you.
sorry – It was MikeO who mentioned the geologists.
Hi John I would be surprised if there are not some geologists who support AGW but it is interesting that you say there are not. I do not how one can achieve such mental gymnastics but if there are paleontologists who argue there were no dinosaurs then maybe likewise there are geologists who argue AGW! I have noted that Australias renowned geologist Ian Plimer became a dunce once he argued against AGW.
I am not a geologist but the way I see it is that we are trying to make prediction using a pin prick of time. We have to go back about 290 million years to get global temperatures and CO2 levels similar to the present. The rest of geological history shows more CO2 and warmer times. I would rather increase the temperature and CO2 levels. Perhaps you could comment on this idea, do you think it is way of base?
“I would rather increase the temperature and CO2 levels. Perhaps you could comment on this idea, do you think it is way of base?”
show me one era in our history where increased temperatures have been detrimental to life. All the plants on this planet evolved in a period where CO2 levels were higher. All the plants we consume evolved from a period of higher CO2.
Perhaps, in a hippy sort of way, we could conclude that mother earth , bless her soul, created man to return the Co2 levels back to their natural levels by releasing the stored CO2 back into the atmosphere.
The similarities between religious dogma and hard green dogma has been evident for a few decades, so the discussion holds nothing new for me, but this is an interesting article:
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/10/25/1
Pielke Sr comments on it here:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/candid-comments-from-global-warming-climate-scientists/
Most (>90%) geologists I know (over 30 years now) think the evidence of CO2 warming about 0.8C in the last 160 years is reasonably tight. Feedbacks to multiply this to 3-4C are much less certain. As the linked EE article above shows, the “heavyweights” of the AGW world are now openly looking for reasons why their postulated warming has flat-lined for the last decade
Trenberth looks for the “missing heat”in the deep oceans; Hansen insists there IS no missing heat; Solomon finds the flat-lining an “exciting” opportunity to learn something … etc etc
Little Lukey expounds,
“The fact that he’s a Cardinal of some religious cult doesn’t augur well for being a representative of logic and reason does it?”
Pot meet Kettle!!!
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Little Lukey,
Nice duck an cover. When you were attacked for being a member of a religion that bad mouths others instead of dealing with the Science you began ad homs against another sceptic. I guess that is better than continuing to present incorrect facts and theories to support your religion and having how wrong you are pointed out yet again.
John Sayers – if you think Plimer’s work is scholarly you’re a bigger dope than I thought you were. And yes you wouldn’t work for Gina if you believed in AGW – not allowed old son.
No Debs – not models plenty of paleo evidence too – but hey I forgot you get told what to think by denialist central. Heaven help us if you started to actually read widely. As for all that about indulgences and guilt – what utter bullshit. Just more sceptic framing – but keep repeating the memes you’ve been given. Don’t think. Join the shonks conga line.
Idso, Carter, Heartland etc? C’mon fellas; nothing new here, why bother with the same old arguments?
A mere mention of the LIA has me wishing somebody else could realize the oil mongers cart has run out of ammo
Gavin, what is your problem with the LIA?
I knew I was going to find the comments from this particular post very amusing.
Luke, I was commenting on the language and the behaviour; admittedly with rather heavy sarcasm; you have to be honest and admit there are rather startling similarities.
It is one of the major points of this post.
Not picking on the guys in either camp who actually use sound logic and reason. Just having a shot at religious zealots no matter their chosen religion.
Stay cool. ( oh there I go again!)
I can’t help it, this post and its focus is just amusing me no end 🙂
John Sayers – if you think Plimer’s work is scholarly you’re a bigger dope than I thought you were. And yes you wouldn’t work for Gina if you believed in AGW – not allowed old son.
so all the scientists who work for Gina are stupid hacks who hang onto her because she has money to bribe them?
You’ve gotta be kidding.
And Ian Plimer, one of our best and smartest geologists is a faux scientist.
give me a break Luke!!
Well John you guys have always talked about following the money and gravy trains ! Have you changed your mind?
No you give me a break a John – http://www.monbiot.com/2009/09/14/correspondence-with-ian-plimer/
And just for you Debs http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/plimers-homework-assignment/
eg re LIA; it’s another product of book seller’s inc
Luke,
of course people follow the gravy train and the money.
You do yourself no favours by pretending that one side has purer motives than the other in this respect.
As Jen pointed out earlier, ‘deductive logic’ is sadly missing.
No one who claims that corporate or govt funding is not an influencing factor in behaviour or focus has their feet on the ground.
The ‘holier than thou’ attitude and the insistence of pretending that climate science somehow possesses some type of prophetic power that is far more superior to and more reliable than geology or any other branch of science is where the logic goes missing and turns proponents into something like religious zealots.
The ‘real climate’ link you gave me is doing the same thing.
‘We’re your best bet because we have interpreted the data correctly and the geologists have missed the point’
That looks remarkably similar to one religion trying to prove their interpretation of the bible is superior to another.
No one has all the answers and as soon as anyone starts claiming they have prophetic powers we’re probably in trouble if history is anything to go by.
Its the zealots you have collected that is the problem.
I think Pell has nailed a lot of the religious believers of CAGW and there is no doubt his work and experience enables him to understand where a lot of this nonsense is coming from.
Luke at least belatedly knows that there is nothing we can do to mitigate AGW ( even if true) while China, India etc continue to increase co2 emissions at such an incredible pace.
Gav just doesn’t seem to understand simple first grade maths and couldn’t care less about OZ introducing the world’s biggest co2 tax that must lead to a loss of jobs and industry overseas. We know for sure that it can’t change the climate or temp ever ,so why do it?
We can all believe or disbelieve CAGW until the end of days but there is no excuse for any of us supporting this bi-polar belief in mitigating AGW by the introduction of this moronic,stupid tax.
Don’t forget that the Labor party really does BELIEVE they can change the climate and temp by the introduction of this idiot tax. Just look at the maniacs celebrating on the floor of parliament, plus all the high fives, hugs and kisses.
We are paying these people millions of dollars plus incredibly generous retirement/super/gold card travel packages and they can’t even calculate the difference between 3 to 1 and 20 to 1.
Where the heck are they coming from to call Plimer’s work non-science? Lambert is a computer programmer and Monbiot is a lefty journalist with a couple of honorary degrees.
Monbiot’s attack on Plimer, supported by Tony Jones , another journalist, was disgraceful. Neither had read his book and they attacked him because he disputed the religious dogma of AGW.
As I pointed out in this link – http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/ – all Plimers science is supported by other geologists so you’d better get used to it.
You don’t win the Eureka Prize twice by being an idiot.
Woeful John – just woeful. (John carefully omits the actual climate scientists who commented and Realclimate’s slaughter of his questions). In that case you’d better stop commenting on expert climate scientists too – we can’ have feral ex-musicians wandering around expressing science opinions.
Poor John – he’s gone to lalalalalalalalala – I’m not listening. You see John that’s the difference – I can easily admit Gore, Williams and Flannery have got quite a number of points wrong. But not a whole book full. In any case – crap is crap wherever it comes from.
John Plimer is NOT supported by ALL the other geologists. US Geological Survey has him wrong by a country mile on volcanic emissions. And tell us John would sort of phenomenon would generate these data
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png
Does it look like periodic volcanic eruptions to you?
So here’s the point – Pell is using Plimer as SOURCE
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA – good one !
And just for Auntie Debs who thinks climate is all models
droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/climate_sensitivity.pdf
Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years
Thanks John for you answer and comments about Plimer.
I have read Plimer’s Heaven + Earth on the face of it his argument makes sense but I am not a geologist. What is far more convincing is the method of argument from those who oppose.
Plimer is an interesting example of the technique. He was a worthwhile respected geologist by all and who had some notoriety for opposing creationism. A notable inclusion in Australia’s best of the best scientific minds.
Then in 2009 he was the author of a book (Heaven + Earth) at that time he was described as Professor of Mining Geology at The University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at The University of Melbourne where he was Professor and Head (1991-2005). He was previously Professor and Head of Geology at The University of Newcastle (1985-1991). His previous book, A Short History of Planet Earth, won the Eureka Prize. But now a faux scientist, marvellous what a change in so short a time!
A rational human sees that if someone such as this has a contrary view then it is worth considering why. Those who oppose such views seek to denigrate by ad hominem attacks. The general use of political and religious methods of argument by environmental activists convincingly shows they can not counter the argument. The raising here of the Monbiot’s (a journalist) skirmish with Plimer is amazing since it and RealClimate’s Gavin response is utterly convincing that Plimer is on very strong ground. If I were promoting the AGW line I would keep very quite since Gavin and Monbiot shot themselves in the foot. But I am thankful for the reminder and that they had no understanding of Plimer’s argument.
BTW thanks for http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/ it is excellent and Casey’s view that the anthropogenic footprint is very uncertain.
‘eg re LIA; it’s another product of book seller’s inc’
Gavin, would you clarify that comment?
Just looked again at the Enting critique of Plimer; most of Enting’s criticisms are alleged misrepresentations by Plimer of the IPCC. The RC summary asserts that Plimer intended his book to be a scholarly article; that is not right, it was meant for mass consumption; that doesn’t justify sloppiness and there are some broad sweeps in the book but it should not be judged at a peer-review standard; obviously it is better than that flawed criteria.
As for the Royer and Berner effort about a HUGE climate sensitivity being indicated by the full geologic record; some alternative views:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/searching-the-paleoclimate-record-for-estimated-correlations-temperature-co2-and-sea-level/#more-11753
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1644060/posts
http://www.sciencebits.com/NothingNewUnderTheSun-I
Hmmm 439 million years ago was at the end of the ordovician then CO2 was about 2240 ppm and global temperature much lower than currently. Mass extinctions occurred then possibly because of all the ice.
“I can easily admit Gore, Williams and Flannery have got quite a number of points wrong. But not a whole book full. In any case – crap is crap wherever it comes from.”
I’ll remember you made that admission regarding the leading climate commentators. It speaks for the whole argument doesn’t it. So we are supposed to accept the number of wrong points? I don’t think so. Maybe you should re-assess where the crap is coming from.
BTW Luke – I did attend university before becoming a record producer and the area of study was science. I just spent more time on music than on science.
Good to see NOAA is re assessing the hurricane history of the USA and it doesn’t help the CAGW extreme weather events argument at all.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/29/hurricanes-worse-than-we-thought-100-years-ago/#more-50212
SPPI has a similar post Neville.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/gross_errors_ipcc_ar4.html
Gotta agree with Luke and John here:
1) Crap is crap wherever it comes from and
2)Maybe you (we?) should re assess where the crap is coming from?
I just love the way you ‘project’ thoughts onto people Luke. Also find your dismissive and highly snobbish comments just as amusing. Especially in relation to this post.
They involve putting anyone who does not just blindly accept your conclusions in a ‘deluded, unintelligent or totally misled’ basket.
They also place ‘peer reviewed’ scientists on a pedastal that sees you claiming we should take what they say ‘on faith’ because they have so much information to prove it (we’ll just forget that it is often contradictory depending on which branch of science it comes from 🙂 )
Sound a bit familiar to the subject of this post?
Takes one to know one?
It basically prompts me to say:
‘I rest my case’ 🙂
Please understand that I respect genuine scientists and the work they do just as much as I respect genuine politicians, genuine bureaucrats and genuine environmentalists etc…
It is the narrow minded ‘holier than though’ zealots from all disciplines and all positions on this particular debate that I actively dislike.
Remarkably similar language and behaviour to religious zealots, and capable of doing a similar amount of damage.
At the moment….and the recently introduced carbon tax is proof ….the ‘Climate Change AGW’ zealots are wreaking their version of that damage.
You also know that a tax on Australian CO2 has no hope of mitigating any climate here or anywhere else.
I know that we don’t have all the answers yet and we are not likely to anytime soon.
As smart as we all think we are….we have not cracked that climate puzzle yet.
The science is most definitely NOT settled. Even though ‘the faithful’ keep loudly proclaiming it.
Since when could genuine scientists ever claim that?
Also…It is NOT the greatest moral challenge of our time….that is just more zealot mumbo jumbo .
Doesn’t change the fact that there has been some good work done and we now have better information and some useful measuring and monitoring tools.
It is not prophetic however and I am completely tired of listening to the religious like AGW zealots who loudly claim that it is….AKA Brown, Gillard, Turnbull, Gore, Rudd etc etc etc etc..
I am also very disappointed in the genuine scientists who are not pointing this out.
This stupid attitude is also wreaking havoc in my patch re water and water management.
It is not the right place to discuss here but you would not believe the damage it caused recently even in a short term management decision. The offered excuses were simply insane but definitely offered by ‘the faithful’.
Hello Luke,
So how is it that the very eminent scientist, Plimer can be ridiculed by you lot willy nilly and called all sorts of silly names, while Al Gore ( an entertainer and politician ), and Tim Flannery ( a tree kangaroo expert ), are sacred experts on planetary science ? Yup shes a cult alright.
Gavin,
LIA and book sellers- You are talking about the iced in victims who held a little writing comp and came up with ” Frankenstein ” and ” Count Dracula ” , I presume ? Or is it all the literature on cycling developing from the velocipede’s invention ’cause all the horses were starved or eaten ?
On religiosity ,it is poor Tim Costello who is torn between two gods . Or does he have an overriding belief in Mammon ?
Ian – “very eminent” scientist – mate you’re only as good as your last gig.
Do you find me quoting Gore, Flannery, Robyn Williams, Bob Brown – nuh – they’re all simply AGW groupies/personalities not the scientists.
And sceptics continue to use them as wedge tactics, diverting from the core science.
Pell is also an AGW personality. an anti-AGW personality/VIP
But crap science is crap. The sooner we all acknowledge that the better.
But hey isn’t any old iron OK for sceptics? Anything for the cause.
Luke,
while I find neither attractive, the difference between the radical AGW proponents and the radical sceptics is that one of them are wreaking damage and interefering in our social fabric in the name of their cause.
I believe that mankind does influence weather patterns and local climate especially in concentrated urban areas.
However I do not believe it is catastrophic or the greatest moral challenge of our time or manageable through a carbon tax or an ETS.
Using both deductive logic and historical evidence it is clear we have been here before and will most likely muddle our way through again. We don’t need all this severe social restructuring and social reform.
Therefore I reject the religious fundamentalist behaviour and religious zealot type claims from CAGW and the green team.
I am also disappointed that genuine climate scientists and genuine environmental scientists are not at least reigning them in.
I guess that causes you to label me as a sceptic. If it makes you feel better to call people names and look down your nose at them because they ask ‘doubting Thomas’ questions, then you continue.
It certainly doesn’t advance your argument though.
Eg & others who don’t know me, I take great delight in deprogramming lower orders in the pyramid. It’s something I’ve practiced for decades because I had a gut full of empire builders meddling in the community with the sole purpose of switching our endeavors their way.
Myth busting starts with my hunt for the exclusive nature of their doctrines and sources. I reckon it should be no surprise that a lot of powerful media emanates from tiny heads in the North Americas where FREEDOM is a camouflage for HARNESS as applied to cash flow.
A good author is rewarded this way despite the plot. We could begin with Smith, Hubbard, and Casey etc, all anti science in their own way with various revelations coloring their own stream of enlightenment for the masses.
Bolt was on the TV this arvo with another guru from Canada who has supposedly written about the number of real scientists on the IPPC. I say these syndicated critics (yarn spinners) have never done a useful measurement in their whole life. As with most geologists who are paid to go find stuff, there is plenty out there and so they get paid but it’s a long way before a whiff of hydrocarbon becomes a piece of plastic.
True climate scientists are playing with a lot of data, much of it from weather station records that have become separated from their instruments over time. Those early fixed thermometers are long lost and so are the folk tasked with recording routine temperatures, instrument changes and other impacts on current data. Also none of this relates directly to paleo info from ancient climate periods on earth when major shifts could be encountered. Remember though, “history” starts with our creation(s).
On another tack; with any bad news, we always blame our instruments then we shoot the messenger. In my case around web process drying and thin film evaporation, monitoring air in a closed environment required a good understanding of a sliding dew point besides spot checks for temp and humidity. All hell brakes loose when a hot damp ceiling rains. Past recordings aren’t much good in predicting an actual precipitation when running close to maximum air saturation.
Although there are other factors capable of disturbing each environment, in the short term some faith must be maintained in the raw instrument routine as it is or was.
Gavin, put the brakes on mate, be careful what you eat ,or swallow – anyway, after that. I have always been worried about my memories being false about the 70’s and the impending Ice Age.
Harness ( in capitals ) to cash flow . Does that relate to Kev 07 cancelling most of the CSIRO budget in his No 1 Federal budget ?
If you want a job with us , here is what we want to hear ,lol
gavin,
“Bolt was on the TV this arvo with another guru from Canada who has supposedly written about the number of real scientists on the IPPC.”
Well Gavin, if this is the level of understanding and attention you bring to the discussion I will stop reading anything you write.
The person you are referring to is most likely Donna LaFramboise who has never claimed to be technical at all much less a scientist!! She is a writer and researched the backgrounds of those involve in AR4 finding most of them didn’ have PHD’s when appointed to work with the IPCC. In fact, some of them didn’t even have their Masters!! The oft repeated mantra that the IPCC has the best from the Climate COmmunity is obviously pure propaganda.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/
She has also reasearched and pointed out that many of the IPCC individuals also are members of the WWF and similar organizations with NONE members of sceptic groups.
I would also point out that any number of technical people have been suckered into numerous fubars and ridiculous schemes over our history, so, that only is a small indicator as to who may be most gullible!!! You may be our personal example of this!!