Prime Minister Tony Abbott

Now remember, fellow lefties, when somebody becomes PM they deserve respect and for the other parties to support their legislation even if they told their voters they’d oppose it.

It’s time to show the conservatives the respect for their electoral victory they showed us over the last six years when the situation was reversed.

Just like conservatism was banished from the land in 2007, now they get to enjoy a land free of lefties, and we must respect that a few percent of voters, those most disengaged from politics, temporarily switched to the Coalition, which means we must give up on everything we believe and be silent henceforth.

About these ads

66 responses to “Prime Minister Tony Abbott

  1. How did it ever come to this? The Struggle goes on. Once those with any conscience at all are enlightened you just don’t retire. Such a divided state of affairs created by the 1% to keep us 99% in our place. If only we could have real choice beyond the parties of capital.

  2. “How did it ever come to this?”

    Compulsory voting coupled with an uninformed electorate. Or maybe a self-centred electorate.

  3. bobbyboyakarobj, I agree completely about the uninformed electorate (drives me CRAZY!!), but I’m not sure that compulsory voting was a partial cause. Even if it was, it’s still a very important feature that we need to keep. If everyone has to vote, then the government HAS to make it possible for people to vote. They have to provide options like postal votes, pre-polling, assistance for disabled people (visually impaired, those with no manual dexterity), and it has to be simple for people to sign up to the electoral roll (young people, who will vote left!). Without compulsory voting, the government would find it easier to get away with removing any options that it thinks might support the Opposition’s voters (“But you don’t HAVE to vote so it doesn’t matter if you can’t”).

    Not that our lovely government would EVER do anything so manipulative. :-/

  4. So civics education needs to be compulsory for all eligible voters that way voters are less likely to confuse LDP with LNP. Also software needs to be developed and distributed so voters can see the flow of preferences because lets face it hardly anyone could be bothered to vote below the line, I did but I can understand why others can’t be bothered.

  5. Splatterbottom

    The lesson from the last election is that the minor parties can coerce the government into breaking their promises as the Greens did with the Carbon Tax. But this time around there are some other loonies sharing the Senatorial zoo. I am sure the Greens will smile with approval as these other parties extract their price.

    The power of the minor party has worked a treat in NSW. Now we can go a-hunting in the national parks.

  6. Also software needs to be developed and distributed so voters can see the flow of preferences because lets face it hardly anyone could be bothered to vote below the line, I did but I can understand why others can’t be bothered.

    Such software exists. Of course the people who make mistakes or vote above the line in ignorance are unlikely to know of it let alone use it.

    http://belowtheline.org.au/
    http://preferences.theglobalmail.org/
    etc.

    But this time around there are some other loonies sharing the Senatorial zoo.

    I’d have thought you’d not be too averse to the Liberal Dems, SB?

    Anyway there’s word some of the centrist, small “l” liberal parties may consider forming a coalition or even merging. Hopefully any reforms don’t rule out the capacity of groups outside Greens/ALP/Liberal/National/Palmer from competing altogether.

  7. Jordan I do like the Lib Dems and am pleased they won a seat. How do you think the Future Party went in their first election?

    This election has been interesting:

    1. Rudd could have won it if he wasn’t such an unhinged prima donna. All he had to do was reinforce the positives of the last six years and focus on prudent economic management to ensure they are viable in the long term.

    2. The party that so recently embraced Rudd now just wants him to shut up and piss off.

    3. Voters have deserted Labor and the Greens in droves for other minor parties. This might result in a circus in the Senate, but it also might be a refreshing change from the obstructionist po-faced puritans now controlling the balance of power. At least the Libs should not need to call a DD election now.

    4. Abbott now has a chance to “grow” into the job. Hope springs eternal, I suppose. I mistakenly believed that Rudd had learned his lessons when he came back as PM.

    5. I wonder how Abbott’s critics who complained so loudly about his “negativity” will behave now they are in opposition.

    6. It looks like the faction bosses want Shorten as leader whereas the ALP rank and file membership would prefer that sputtering loon Albo. The faction bosses will try ensure that Shorten is the only candidate to avert having to go through the more democratic procedure Caucus recently adopted.

    7. Gillard behaved with considerable dignity, not lowering herself to undermine Rudd as he had undermined her. She is probably better of quietly enjoying her retirement for a little while. There are moments in this video which are much more than mere comedy:

  8. So one assumes when the we elected Rudd in 2007 by such a margin then we were the informed electorate? Don’t learn much do we? Treating the electorate with contempt will gain you almost nothing refering to them as fools even less.

    It is indeed a confused bunch of musings here, concerned about Abbotts call for the Senate to behave because everyone knows he was so negative. But wait, was not the last mob so great they got record numbers of legisation through? The 1% dictating to the 99%? Yet I could have sworn the ALP only received 33% of the vote (Do we mean the 99% of the 33% laugh).

    Of course, the most amusing thing is the ALP turn on the man who was to be the saviour of the nation only a week ago (although the only amazing thing was the twits who actually still believed Rudd was anything but an over qaulified bullyboy).

    Meanwhile, despite the overwhelming opinion here that the ALP was/is Australia’s ecomomic saviour apparently the rest of the world outside the public service disagrees according to the latest polls.

  9. Jordan I do like the Lib Dems and am pleased they won a seat. How do you think the Future Party went in their first election?

    I’m also happy to see the Lib Dems in parliament (although I wouldn’t want an LDP government).

    We’re quite happy with how we went – around 0.1% of the NSW Senate vote (which puts us a little below the middle of the pack in the State, although funnily enough its more votes than elected the Sports Party), and 1% of the primary in the lower house seats where we ran. Respectable although not amazing. There’s a large amount of work to before the party can become a serious contender in any election.

    The party that so recently embraced Rudd now just wants him to shut up and piss off.

    Actually its more like the pro-Rudd faction was at peak volume just before and immediately after the election, and everyone else fell into line for the sake of trying to salvage the election; now that there’s nothing less to lose the anti-Rudd faction are determined to have the final word.

    Abbott now has a chance to “grow” into the job. Hope springs eternal, I suppose.

    Agreed. I think Abbott will a better PM than he was opposition leader and than many on the left fear; of course he will have to be quite a lot better indeed to be remotely decent.

  10. So one assumes when the we elected Rudd in 2007 by such a margin then we were the informed electorate?

    Comparatively.

    Yet I could have sworn the ALP only received 33% of the vote (Do we mean the 99% of the 33% laugh).

    55% of the electorate voted against the LNP, too. Without the Nats, the Lib vote was down at the ALP level. The ALP will have to get used to the Greens taking a constant chunk of its vote because progressives have given up on it – but voters on each side having choices is a good thing, not a bad. Certainly doesn’t mean a majority of Australians are enthusiastic supporters of the new government.

  11. SB – re your fifth comment. Now the ALP are in opposition whats wrong with them following the example Abbott set for the last 4 years?

    After all Abbott leads the country now. All leaders set an example.

    Why shouldn’t they follow his?

  12. Jules, I think the role of an opposition is to be critical of government measures and to oppose them where they think they are bad. I have no problem with any opposition opposing the government of the day. However, there were a bunch of idiot whingers who complained every time Abbott did this. My question was whether these people will apply the same standard to themselves now they are in opposition. What do you think they will do?

  13. “Jules, I think the role of an opposition is to be critical of government measures and to oppose them where they think they are bad.”

    Like when Gonski was a Conski until Pyne did a monumental backflip. I expect the opposition, for better or worse will be negative and i fully expect Abbott to criticise them for it, ie he’ll demonstrate his own hypocrisy.

    Having said that, since the ALP do support a price on carbon I believe they should oppose the abolition of the carbon tax if there is no transition to an ETS, I’m not saying they will but if they cave in what little credibility they have will evaporate, they will truly be a party that stands for nothing and represents nobody.

  14. Splatterbottom

    I agree, BobbyBoy. Both parties will likely behave hypocritically on the negativity/mandate issue.

    If Labor really believes in Carbon Pricing, of course it should oppose the abolition of that scheme. Their decision will be based on the perceived political advantages of either opposing the abolition or abstaining and letting the Libs own the consequences.

  15. Jeremy, can you change the title of the post? It’s kinda depressing …

  16. SB the trouble is we’re all gonna own the consequences. Especially people under 40, and the younger you are the worse it’ll be.

    Its not just carbon pricing. The Abbott govt has turned its back on dealing with climate change. The trouble is they will never be held to account for their decisions by the people they will hurt cos by the time the world is fubar they’ll be senile or dead.

    We really do need a DD election on the carbon tax, cos that will end up being an actual referendum on climate change.

    Abbott won’t do that tho, if he can’t get it thru this senate he will wait till the new one next year but I think by then events will have overtaken him.

  17. The Abbott govt has turned its back on dealing with climate change.”

    This would be a very good thing indeed. Climate “science” is pretty much discredited now. Even the IPCC is winding back its alarmist predictions. Sadly the fucker will probably push on with his direct action plan.

  18. Anyone who thinks climate science is discredited is discrediting their own ability to assess anything SB.

  19. Splatterbottom

    I am stuck with my poor little brain Jules and that is the best I can make of the situation.

  20. Then you’re not using it properly or being willfully ignorant, tho the second thing is one of the ways people do the first thing.

  21. I don’t know if I’ve asked this before, but are you a betting man, SB?

  22. Jules, I readily admit that my first reaction to any cause pushed by the fringe left is scepticism. This is a product of long experience listening to them, arguing with them and occasionally taking them seriously.

    In the case of global warming, early on I was sucked in by the scam. But then I realised the hockey stick graph was scientifically flawed. And I learned that the climate “scientists” would not release their data and calculations for checking, yet they expected governments to pony up hundreds of billions of dollars on their say so.

    Jordan, I rarely bet. If had to apply the “precautionary principle” I’d be slowly preparing for a coming ice age. If I had money to burn I would address some of the more pressing problems of the world rather than waste it on the cause du jour of the overweening moral exhibitionists who strut about under the “progressive” banner.

  23. Anyone who claims climate change originated with, or belongs to the “fringe left” is simply taking the piss – there’s obviously no point talking with you.

    But for the sake of argument alone – what specifically is flawed about the “hockey stick” graph?

    How is it scientifically flawed?

    Can you explain your realisation to us?

    As for the data – statistics and data on the last 30 or 40 years weather, on the range of thermal energy being emitted by earth, and a variety of other things are actually available to the public. perhaps you should track them down and do the maths yourself. If you do it’d make your case more relevant/trustworthy.

  24. Splatterbottom

    Jules, the hockey Stick graph (which was central to the early attempts to promote the global warming scare) is statistically flawed due to the adoption of principle component analysis, which, in this case inappropriately weighted “helpful” proxies.

    Michael Mann and his merry men who did the original paper would not let any critics see the data relied on or the models he used to get his results. Eventually the US Congress had two inquiries into it. Mann still wouldn’t release his data and eventually it was extracted under subpoena. The conclusion of both the Wegman Report and the North Report was that Mann’s work was statistically flawed.

    The response from the alarmists was to argue that although the method was flawed, the conclusion was correct. Eventually the other studies relied on to make those claims were also flawed – see spaghetti graphs, sons of hockey stick, hide the decline, Yamal – the most important tree in the world, and upside down Tjander.

    The bottom line is that the models have failed utterly to predict the lack of recent warming given the increasing CO2 levels.

    Also, the alarmists have a long history of making scary predictions which end up being discredited. Now even the IPCC looks set to revise its estimates downwards in its next report.

  25. Splatterbottom

    “Mmmm … link to Daily Mail. Mmmmm ….”

    Must be wrong then! No need to argue the substance, eh? The Arctic must be completely ice free now. Or maybe the BBC misquoted the scientists in its news item (assuming the evil Daily Mail isn’t making the whole thing up):

    “The BBC’s 2007 report quoted scientist Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, who based his views on super-computer models and the fact that ‘we use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice’. He was confident his results were ‘much more realistic’ than other projections, which ‘underestimate the amount of heat delivered to the sea ice’. Also quoted was Cambridge University expert Professor Peter Wadhams. He backed Professor Maslowski, saying his model was ‘more efficient’ than others because it ‘takes account of processes that happen internally in the ice’. He added: ‘This is not a cycle; not just a fluctuation. In the end, it will all just melt away quite suddenly.’

  26. Jordan, I rarely bet. If had to apply the “precautionary principle” I’d be slowly preparing for a coming ice age. If I had money to burn I would address some of the more pressing problems of the world rather than waste it on the cause du jour of the overweening moral exhibitionists who strut about under the “progressive” banner

    My proposed bet is not along the lines of us choosing how to spend civilisation’s resources but rather our own. Namely as I concur with the likes of Alex Tabarrok that a bet is a tax on bullshit

    If climate change is a fraud perpetuated by an international conspiracy, changes in well known proxies should just be random, natural variation that we would expect to regress to the mean. Whereas if climate change is real we can assume ongoing trends roughly in accordance with the predictions of climate scientists.

    Arctic sea ice minimums are probably the most obvious and incontrovertible example. I’d suggest a term deposit or some such, to pay out after a decade – to me if the 2023 minimum is lower than already record 2012 low, and to you otherwise.

  27. “This would be a very good thing indeed. Climate “science” is pretty much discredited now. Even the IPCC is winding back its alarmist predictions” – SB

    Opines SB, spouting talking points from some discredited blog or routinely wrong ‘churnalist’.

    I love how ‘skeptics’ are so utterly gullible.

  28. “But then I realised the hockey stick graph was scientifically flawed. ” – SB

    Oh, did you!

    You clever thing, you.

    Tell us more about PCA, I’m fascinated.

  29. The Hockey stick “…is statistically flawed due to the adoption of principle component analysis, which, in this case inappropriately weighted “helpful” proxies.”

    How?

    I mean what else would you use to make that sort of analysis?

    Also what particular “Proxies” and why were they inappropriately weighted?

    BTW the recent lack of warming has shown that every decade for the last 3 is hotter, that every year has consistently higher average temps than would be expected and that record temps and averages are continually being broken.

  30. ‘Gadj, as i noted above, both the North Report and the Wegman Report concluded that the Hockey Stick was flawed see here:

    The Wegman report, which was submitted to the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee in July, stated that our published criticisms of Mann’s methodology were “valid and compelling” and stated that “Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.”

    This comes on the heels of an earlier report in June by a National Academy of Sciences panel chaired by Gerald North of Texas A&M, which also endorsed specific criticisms of Mann’s methodology and which concluded that no statistical confidence could be placed in his claims that temperatures in the 1990s exceeded those in the medieval warm period.”

    Jules, here is an article on the Hockey Stick debate. It deals, inter alia with the inappropriate weighting of Californian bristlecone pine proxies. The article is worth reading as it is by one of the crtics of the Hockey Stick who was vindicated by the Wegman and North Reports.

  31. Oh, SB!!

    The Wegman Report!

    A poltical hit-job, conceived, arranged and promoted by US republican politicians.

    They had to rope in a confirmed serial plagiarist to write that shody piece of crap, which was, not surprisingly, full of plagiarism of the most stupid kind, and didn’t do their own stats analysis, but just copied the work of a blogger.

    And then SB gives Jules a link to an article by….. an economist…. on paleo-reconstructions.

    You gotta love it when the deniers pretend to be interested in science.

    One word for you SB – consilience.

  32. “A poltical hit-job, conceived, arranged and promoted by US republican politicians.”

    ‘Gadj, don’t you anything better than ad hominem bullshit? Are you saying that the conclusion was wrong? Didn’t think so.

    As to the plagiarism allegations, that is par for the course. Anyone who sticks their head up to challenge the outrageous bullshit “science” of the alarmists can expect to have their reputation trashed. Now, if you think the plagiarism allegations are material, explain (a) what the alleged plagiarism consisted of; and (b) how on earth that is material to the findings of the report?

    “And then SB gives Jules a link to an article by….. an economist…. on paleo-reconstructions.”

    More ad hominem bullshit – again the issue is whether McKitrick is right – and both North and Wegman said he was.

  33. “‘Gadj, don’t you anything better than ad hominem bullshit? Are you saying that the conclusion was wrong? Didn’t think so.”

    Yes, it was wrong.

    But if you don’t think that rampant plagiarism in such a ‘report’ is a red flag, well that’s very interesting in itself.

    This is the core ‘non-issue’ in Wegman – there is a ‘hockey-stick’ tendancy in the statistical analysis of MBH98, ie the HS is not in the data (reality), but in the methodology. A legion of silly-sheep ad otherwise clueless dolts across the intertubes,take this to mean that the HS is a ‘fraud’. Utter BS. Even adopting the suggested non-HS producing analysis produces…a HS. It’s in the data. It’s real. As confiurmed by numerous other studies attempting long-term paleo-reconstructions,using different proxies, different stats techniqus – all getting ‘hockey-sticks’.

    That’s consilience SB. Independent, mutliple lines of confirmation of a result.

    ‘Skeptics’ will keep blabbling on stupidly about Wegman. Nevermind the stats analysis copied in Wegman was itself a fraud, selecting out the 1% of HS-like results and then presenting them as the actual output of the MBH98 method, and so proclaiming the HS-bias.

  34. Splatterbottom

    ‘Gadj: “But if you don’t think that rampant plagiarism in such a ‘report’ is a red flag, well that’s very interesting in itself.”

    The alleged plagiarism wasn’t rampant, it was confected. If you think it was important, explain what it was and why it matters to the conclusions. (Hint: it doesn’t.) The only conclusion that can be drawn from the plagiarism claims is that the proponents are vindictive fools trying to intimidate their critics.

    The subsequent studies were all flawed either by cherry-picking of proxies (Yamal), hide the decline (the divergence problem) or a simple inability to get a graph the right way up (upside down Tjander).

    The IPCC originally accepted that the MWP was warmer than the present. There is still no compelling reason to believe current temperatures are higher than the MWP.

  35. ‘Confected’? So Wegman didn’t cut and paste vast swaths of material from other source,s without using quotation marks and references to show that they were quotes and not their own words?
    Shoddy, shoddy stuff.
    And hilarious that ‘skeptics’ give such a flagrant violation of acceptable standards a free pass, or make excuses, but obsess over minor statistical quibbles in a ground-breaking original scientific work.

    “subsequent studies”??

    Which ones??

    You have no idea do you? Thre are dozens of other proxy reconstructions (different sites, different proxies, different stats approaches) that have been conducted in the 15 years since MBH98, showing ‘hockey-sticks’.

  36. Splatterbottom

    You don’t want to answer this, do you?

    The alleged plagiarism wasn’t rampant, it was confected. If you think it was important, explain what it was and why it matters to the conclusions. (Hint: it doesn’t.)

  37. The ‘conclusions’ were nothing; a minor statistical quibble which changed the MBH98 hardly at all – even applying the ‘better’ method, MBH98 data gives a ‘hockey-stick’.

    The Wegman process – a polticial hit-job, employing the services of a serial plagiarist (articles now retracted, and kicked off the editorialborad of a stats journal) to concoct a crappy ‘report’ full of plagiarsm.

    The process- a fraud; the conclusion – nothing. All in the service of anti-science political rhetoric.

  38. Splatterbottom

    Get back to me on the plagiarism point and then I’ll explain to you:

    (a) the conclusions (which I quoted above):

    ““Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.”

    (b) why Wall and Amman and the subsequent attempts to resuscitate the dead Hockey Stick failed.

  39. Get back to you? You approve of it?

    SB – consilience. Multiple independent studies confirming the ‘hockey-stick’.

    The point of the obsession over MBH98 is to ignore this.

  40. If you can’t explain what the alleged plagiarism was or why it matters (which you have consistently failed to do after glibly raising the point) then there is little point continuing.

  41. Really, why does plagiarism matter?

    Really?????

    It confirms the ‘political hit-job’ nature of the Wegman Report.

    Take a step back and we can see the overall context of the hit-job. Congressional concerns raised over MBH98 – Congress suggests NAS look into it (highest scientific authority – the usual process for this kind of thing). The Repub’s said, no, we’ll arrnage our own. Ran off and recruited the serial plagiarist Wegman, who had zero experience in the highly specialised area of paleo-reconstructions. Heck , as far as I can see he had no experience in the area of the physical sciences.

    So he madly cut and pasted from wikipedia, climate texts (one assumes to fabricate the impression of knowledge of the area) and reproduced the stats analysis of a blogger. We might also assume that he did as he was told by his political masters, and they got exactly the ‘report’ they asked for.

    That’s why rampant plagiarism ‘matters’.

    And any chance of you responding to question or two?

    1. Do you understand that even using the ‘Wegman’ analysis,you still get a HS from the MBH98 data.

    2. and do you realise that there have been many many studies that have since replcated the MBH98 results with different proxies, from different sites. This is consilience – multiple indpedent lines of enquiry arriving at the same result.

    MBH98 found a real effect.

    The deniers focus on quibbles with MBH98 to better ignore all the confrming evidence that has followed since.

  42. Splatterbottom

    You still haven’t answered the two questions have you?

    Your defamation of Wegman says more about you than him and the fact that you don’t understand why an eminent statistician would be an appropriate person to investigate statistical incompetence speaks even more to your preference for invective over reason. And funnily enough you don’t mention the North Report which came to the same conclusion as the Wegman report.

  43. “Defamation”?????

    Since the Wegman Report got dissected,Wegman has;
    - had published journal articles retracted for PLAGIARISM!!
    - got kicked off the editorial board of his own stats journal
    - been banned by his Uni from having students
    - got a slap on the wrist from said Uni.

    North
    - agreed with MBH findings, only disagreed on the level of certainty.

    “eminent statitician”

    You are truly clueless.

    Here’s a hint; the ASA clearly states in it’s professional guidelines that statisticians embarking on work in a specialised area, should become familiar with that work area, and preferably, work in conjunction with the scientists in that feild to develop appropriate approaches.
    Wegman – FAIL.

    Don’t be so gullible SB.

    Now answer the questions.

  44. “Since the Wegman Report got dissected,Wegman has;
    - had published journal articles retracted for PLAGIARISM!!
    - got kicked off the editorial board of his own stats journal
    - been banned by his Uni from having students
    - got a slap on the wrist from said Uni.”

    See?!?!? Global warming is a lefty conspiracy that punishes dissenters.

  45. Splatterbottom

    “Since the Wegman Report got dissected

    Here is the result of the “dissection” of the Wegman Report:

    “George Mason University provost Peter Stearns announced on 22 February 2012 that charges of scientific misconduct had been investigated by two separate faculty committees: the one investigating the Wegman Report gave a unanimous finding that “no misconduct was involved” in the 2006 report to Congress. Stearns stated that “Extensive paraphrasing of another work did occur, in a background section, but the work was repeatedly referenced and the committee found that the paraphrasing did not constitute misconduct”.

    I asked you to explain what the plagiarism was and how it affected the report. The finding was that there was no plagiarism in the report. Your crapping on about plagiarism is irrelevant to the discussion of the Wegman Report.

  46. I’m not sure his own Uni gave it a ‘dissection’; as i said, it was a ‘slap on the wrist’ from them.

    Of course, the journals were not so happy about being taken for fools and retracted articles by Wegman. Ouch.

    But I can see why you want to focus on the plagiarism aspect. The primary issue is that Wegman changes the results of MBH98 hardly at all – the HS is still there.

    What realy kills the Wegman/hockey-stick nutters, is that mutliple studies over the subsequent years have confirmed MBH98 – and not a single ‘Wegman Report’ to cling to.

  47. Splatterbottom

    I asked you to explain what the plagiarism was and how it affected the report. The finding was that there was no plagiarism in the report.

    The sooner you admit that the allegations of plagiarism have no bearing on Wegman’s report (which was found to contain no plagiarism) the sooner we can move on.

  48. “‘The finding…”

    So gullible!

    Though I am happy to go futher into the weird world of Wegmans plagiarism.

    The strangest part is that Wegman plagiarised one of the authors of MBH98, Ray Bradley. In trying to demonstrate some understadning of the topic, he just cut and paste whole paragraphs from Bradley’s text book. “The finding” that is was paraphrasing, rests on the fact that Wegman changed a word or two, or swaps a sentance around.
    That is plagiarism, and any undergrad caught doing this kind of stupid stuff gets a big fat zero, and possibly a note on their academic record.

    But of course his Uni’s findings do bear on the Wegman ‘Report’ – there was the seperate inquiry into Wegmans’ plagiarism in published papers. They found him quilty of plagiarism in regards to this matter (but called it “research misconduct”) – what choice did they have, the Journal had already published a formal retraction on the articles.
    This very same material appeared in the Wegman Report (the Social Network Analysis crap that they cut and pasted from Wikipedia, amongst other places) – my guess is that they skirted around this via technicality; Bradely’s complaint was about the plagiarism of his work in the Wegman report, and nothing esle. The journal article was seperate and they considered them seperately, nevermind the obvious overlap.

    Keep avoiding the real issues SB;
    - the critiqe of MBH98 does not change the HS result in MBH98
    - mutliple subsequent studies confirmed the reality of the HS.

    But keep on clutching onto the Wegman ‘Report’ like a drowning man grasping at a straw.

  49. narcoticmusing

    [sigh]

    Is it just me or does this remind everyone of the carbon “tax” discussion.

    Deniers: we want to focus on a completely irrelevant point, like plagarism was not in Wegman’s report.

    Advocates: Well, it was but fine, lets ignore the plagarism aspect for a moment and look at the substance of the issue. The whole thing was over a decade ago – surely even if it was unsound or the certainty level was in doubt, we are still allowed to investigate the issue? Over the 15 years there have been significant, repeated, confirming evidence from studies all over the world that agree with the hockey stick outcome.

    Deniers: So you agree plagarism was not there? [smug grin]

    Advocates: No we do not agree. But who cares? The substance of the issue is some guy employed by people with a clear conflict of interest cannot surely be used to deny 15 years of confirmed evidence NOT based on the report you guys don’t like.

    Deniers: So how did the plagarism impact Wegman?

    Advocates: Really? You don’t think it goes to his credibility? Regardless, why are you choosing to focus on plagarism rather than your own claim that there is no evidence of climate change when we are showing you 15 years worth.

    Deniers: Because plagarism wasn’t found. BAM!

    Advocates: Again, who cares? The issue is about is there evidence of man-caused climate change. Even if, for your benefit, we remove that hockey-stick you hate so much (and thus we can now all happily ignore Wegman’s rebuttal too) – the last 15 years have provided evidence to confrim the hockey stick independent of it.

    Deniers: The hockey stick Wegman refuted.

    Advocates: No god dammit. Just for your sake, let’s remove Mann’s report and with it, the Wegman reply. Now we are both at a zero point. From here ALL EVIDENCE HAS REPEATEDLY POINTED TO MAN CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE.

    Deniers: So you admit Mann’s report was wrong?

    Adcocates: Are you a freaking moron? NO ONE SAID THAT. So this is why Julia gave up arguing it wasn’t a tax. [sigh]

  50. “Are you a freaking moron?”

    Yes, he is.

  51. Splatterbottom

    ‘Gadj: “The strangest part is that Wegman plagiarised one of the authors of MBH98, Ray Bradley.”

    First, there was no plagiarism in the Wegman Report.

    The Wegman Report (correctly) found that Mann (and his co-authors including Bradely) only got their Hockey Stick by using a statistical method that gave undue weight to particular proxies which supported their case. Doesn’t that say something about the competence of Mann, Bradley and their co-authors and the peer review process? Clearly they were incompetent.

    Given that there was no plagiarism in the Wegman Report, the spat between Bradley and Wegman is irrelevant. Even if there was plagiarism in the report, the real question would be whether it was material to the finding that Mann’s paper is deeply flawed an incapable of supporting the Hockey Stick.

    The bottom line is that no one seriously believes that Wegman was wrong. All the invective directed at him and his report is nothing more than spite and bile.

    Narcotic: “Deniers: we want to focus on a completely irrelevant point, like plagarism was not in Wegman’s report.”

    You are right that the point is irrelevant. And that is precisely my point. I didn’t raise plagiarism as an issue. ‘Gadj did that. I just want him to admit that it is irrelevant and then move on to correcting his subsequent errors. There was no plagiarism in the Wegman Report!

    The big lesson for ‘Gadj here is that in an argument if you use irrelevant or very weak points your opponent will attack them rather than focus on the main point you wanted to make. In ‘Gadj’s case his other point is not much better, but I’m not going to let him off the hook on this one, mainly because I dislike arguments where people throw all kinds of BS at you without even understanding that it is BS.

    “ALL EVIDENCE HAS REPEATEDLY POINTED TO MAN CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE.”

    This is ridiculously, hilariously wrong. A better way of putting it would be that since Mann has been discredited the Hockey Team has rallied around producing flawed papers trying to argue that he was in fact correct even if he was incompetent with statistics.

    The fact is, on this particular issue – which is really about the extent of the Medieval Warm Period, there are many papers suggesting it was hotter than today. There are also papers (not independent papers but papers authored and peer reviewed by and large by members of the Hockey Team) which are flawed either because they rely on “helpful” proxies which produce the Hockey Stick or because they are infected by the divergence problem (hide the decline).

    In a sense this is the least of the problems the alarmists have. They have advanced their theory and it has utterly failed to explain what actually happened in the last 15 years when we have had little, if any, warming and a large increase in CO2.

    The alarmists need to open up their work to criticism. They can’t expect the world to spend hundreds of billions of dollars if they will not allow their work to be scrutinised. They also need to be a bit more scientific about the way they choose their proxies and about the way they look at other issues like the effect of feedback and whether it is positive or negative. Without that the whole alarmist paradigm falls down.

  52. zaratoothbrush

    One of the bitterly small consolations for the horrible times ahead will be the sight of the mass denialist head-asplodings that take place when these sad stubborn little critters can longer deny the undeniable. Maybe some enterprising bookie can open betting on the date of this tragicomedy.

  53. SB is back for more!

    “only got their Hockey Stick by using a statistical method that gave undue weight to particular proxies which supported their case.” – SB

    Not even close.

    Using the ‘Wegman’ method, the MBH 98 data gives…..a HS! Their argument, was that the method in MBH98 enhanced the HS – and it does, a tiny bit. The results of MBH98 are unchanged – “only got their HS” is not even wrong.

    “The bottom line is that no one seriously believes that Wegman was wrong” – SB

    Amazing, no one!! So tell me SB, do you really think that stating your own personal delusion makes others share it?

    ” I just want him to admit that it is irrelevant and then move on to correcting his subsequent errors. There was no plagiarism in the Wegman Report!” – SB

    Acording to SB, cutting and pasting large segments of text, verbatim, from someone else’s work directy into your own, without using quotation marks, and not using an acompaniing reference, is not plagiarism.
    Sadly for SB, he’s wrong on every single point. Wegman is now a publicly outed,acknowledged, convicted, serial plagiarist. Journal article retracted for – PLAGIARISM. GMU investigation also looked at this and agreed it was plagiarism. The exact same material from the retracted journal article is in the Wegman ‘Report’. Oops.

    “The big lesson for ‘Gadj here is that in an argument if you use irrelevant or very weak points your opponent will attack them rather than focus on the main point you wanted to make. In ‘Gadj’s case his other point is not much better, but I’m not going to let him off the hook on this one, mainly because I dislike arguments where people throw all kinds of BS at you without even understanding that it is BS.” – SB

    Bravo! When you are hopelessly wrong, bluster is the only way to go.

    “They also need to be a bit more scientific about the way they choose their proxies and about the way they look at other issues like the effect of feedback and whether it is positive or negative. Without that the whole alarmist paradigm falls down.” – SB

    Comedy gold!!

    The worlds scientists await with bated breath for SB to tell them more about choosing proxies, or whether a feedback is, wait for it…. “positive or negative”!!!

    Were you drinking when you wrote this load of amazing bollocks?

  54. Maybe some enterprising bookie can open betting on the date of this tragicomedy.

    Ha! I lost a couple of comments to the vagaries of the moderation queue proposing terms of an actual bet to SB.

    Of course what I really can’t wait for is the day a long run Hansonian Prediction Market Scoring Rule pops up somewhere in the world, concerning the key variables in the climate change equation. Everyone can put their money where their mouths are! The best proxy I can hope for at the moment is to invest my super in companies developing technologies I think will be important to the ultimate solution of the problem, and that’s non-trivial to achieve.

  55. narcoticmusing

    The alarmists need to open up their work to criticism. They can’t expect the world to spend hundreds of billions of dollars if they will not allow their work to be scrutinise

    Hmm, well the most recent report was made available for the public (like every other report mind you). The report was overwhelmingly conclusive that there was indeed man-made climate change occurring. Yet, what did the deniers grip onto? That the science showed that the warming had slowed. Instead of this demonstrating that the climate science was not alarmist and was indeed open to correction and evidence; the deniers jump on this one point as if the rest of the entire report did not exist.

    What point is there in making these things open to sensationalists if they will exclude an entire report for one sentence that suits them? Meanwhile, they’ll still bag the source of the sentence that suited them because the rest of the report didn’t.

    SB, is it alarmist to tone down predictions? I don’t think so. However, I think one could consider it dishonest and biased to disregard an entire body of evidence just to suit your own agenda that was funded by fossil fuels?

  56. Splatterbottom

    ‘Gadj you still haven’t explained how the Wegman Report is wrong. Sure you have lots of ranting, but the essential point is that the Wegman report is not seriously contested. What is clear is that Mann and his co-authors are incompetent with statistics. No amount of frothing and ranting on your part will change that. It will make you look ridiculous but you are obviously cool with that.

    Jordan, my view is pretty similar to Judith Curry’s when it comes to assessing AGW arguments. I would add to that that things like the Carbon Tax are utterly pointless even if AGW turns out to be correct.

    What I would like to see is some honest and open analysis. The AGW “scientists” haven’t allowed that to happen. My view of what science is accords with Richard Feynman:

    “It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

    Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

    In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.
    ……
    We’ve learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven’t tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it’s this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science.

    At the moment AGW science, by and large, lacks that kind of integrity.

    Narcotic: “the most recent report was made available for the public (like every other report mind you)”

    You do realise that the report itself is not a scientific paper?

    “is it alarmist to tone down predictions? I don’t think so.”

    Obviously you have no idea what the report actually said! The confidence of the authors in AGW increased!

    “I think one could consider it dishonest and biased to disregard an entire body of evidence just to suit your own agenda that was funded by fossil fuels?”

    The first mistake with that statement is the first two words. Clearly you don’t. My agenda (whatever that is) is not funded by fossil fuels. The whole “funded by fossil fuels” argument is dishonest and stupid. If you wish to disregard evidence of scientists funded by “fossil fuels” then you had better disregard the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (having received funding from BP and Shell) for starters.

    The most effective critic of the Kliimatariat has been Steve McIntyre who is a self-funded retiree. So next time you want to throw around your dumb insults about “funded by fossil fuels”, do what you suggested in those first two words – think.

    If you want to understand the criticisms of the latest IPCC Report you could start with McIntyre here, here and <a href="http://climateaudit.org/2013/10/08/fixing-the-facts-2/&quot;. You might also follow the links to Judith Curry if you are really interested.

  57. narcoticmusing

    How is it ‘thinking’ to only visit sites that back up your own views on climate science? You disagree with it, so go to sites that disagree with it. That is you not thinking.

    “is it alarmist to tone down predictions? I don’t think so.”

    Obviously you have no idea what the report actually said! The confidence of the authors in AGW increased!
    That was, of course, my point. They toned down the predictions which demonstrates that they are being objective and not merely alarmist. The fact that the report overwhelming supports AGW shows that there is more evidence for AGW that merely one set of stats. In the report, there is more about AGW than the one paragraph re slowed warming – of course, that is the only paragraph you and AGW-denialists seem to have latched onto. You use this as the basis for showing AGW as being false (meaning you give credit to the IPCC report) and in the same breath claim that everything else in the report (that you didn’t agree with prior to the report) is wrong. Then wonder why denialists lack credibility?

    I’ve read Judith Curry many times and much of what she has to say is both of interest and often quite influential to my views. However, she is not the only source I read. Thus, I think and form my own views rather than having a view and reading two people that agree with me (and suggesting everyone else read them). So please don’t insult me with the stupid ‘think for yourself’ bullshit while demonstrating not doing so.

  58. Splatterbottom

    Narcotic, what the report shows is the intellectual dishonesty of the authors. Previous reports stated opinions as to the future rise in temperatures as a result of increases in CO2. In fact, while the CO2 increased the temperature has not. Their model-based predictions failed. In spite of that the authors are more confident than ever of their predictions. How is that? How did their confidence increase from 90% to 95%? Basically they guessed! I kid you not.

    Is it any wonder that more and more people are losing faith in the IPCC?

    All your comments about me reading only sceptical blogs (and only two of them) are nonsense. Now I know for certain that you make stuff up on the basis of precisely no evidence whatsoever.

  59. narcoticmusing

    So, SB, by me making the same assertion to you that you made to me (eg thinking for oneself) that confirms for you that I make stuff up? Surely then, by your standard, you do too? Come on, I was merely turning your stupid, attack on me back at you. Neither of us know what the other knows or doesn’t know, what the other does or doesn’t do. Get a grip. Stop making up bullshit about anyone that doesn’t agree with you suddenly not thinking for themselves, and I”ll not put suggest you only read skeptic blogs (despite that that is all you referenced). Deal?

    As for intellectual dishonesty, I’d say pulling the one para to support what one already agrees with out of a report that overwhelming says otherwise is a better example of intellectual dishonesty. Or claiming that one criticized report undoes the outcomes of any research before and after the report. Even if it is accepted that the criticism was invalid (surely we can agree it is at least dispute), how does it undo any research after it?

    We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one; hopefully we can agree to stick to the issues :) We generally are able to keep our debates pretty civil :)

  60. Splatterbottom

    Narcotic here is an example of you making stuff up. You said:

    “I think one could consider it dishonest and biased to disregard an entire body of evidence just to suit your own agenda that was funded by fossil fuels?”

    Not only is that a gratuitous personal insult, not one word of it, starting with “I think” is true. If you actuality thought about it you would not make presumptions about my agenda, much less the utterly ridiculous assertion that I am funded by fossil fuels!!! And you wonder why I get a bit tetchy????

    And yo do know that “fossil Fuels”, including Shell and BP, fund AGW research, don’t you? And more to the point, Curry and McIntyre, who are two of the most effective critics of AGW research are NOT funded by “fossil fuel”. If you actually “thought” you would not make such cavalier use of discredited talking points. In fact AGW alarmists get the vast majority of research funding and they work assiduously to get scientists critical of their position dismissed. They also seek to stop them being published and to have them thrown of editorial boards because they might let critical papers be published.

    “Or claiming that one criticized report undoes the outcomes of any research before and after the report.”

    You are missing the point. My main concern is that the “science” on which AGW is built does not come close to matching the standards of science as enumerated by Feynman in my quote above. Until there is more openness and scientific integrity in place of the current politicised groupthink it is going to be very difficult to take what they say seriously.

  61. In fact AGW alarmists get the vast majority of research funding and they work assiduously to get scientists critical of their position dismissed. They also seek to stop them being published and to have them thrown of editorial boards because they might let critical papers be published.

    Guy whose position is that climate science is a massive left-wing conspiracy involving all Western governments and major scientific organisations and nearly all climate scientists worldwide in having-trouble-taking-something-seriously shock.

  62. Splatterbottom

    “We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one; hopefully we can agree to stick to the issues We generally are able to keep our debates pretty civil

    I think we do. We’ve had some good discussions and hopefully we’ll have a few more. I appreciate the fact that you actually make an argument rather than just sarcastically snipe from the sidelines.

  63. Either being far more than conspiracy theorists deserve.

  64. ” Previous reports stated opinions as to the future rise in temperatures as a result of increases in CO2. In fact, while the CO2 increased the temperature has not. Their model-based predictions failed.” -SB

    A clearer picture of the delusional stupidity of climate ‘skeptics’, than this, would be hard to invent.

  65. Look as though Abbott will be as bad a PM as I thought.

    A nice little by-invite-only party for the media – well, the News Ltd typing pool anyway – Bolt, Ackerman, Devine etc.

    All the partisan hacks are getting a little pat on the head.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s