The new scapegoat

Good news for conservatives – the lady at the supermarket last night, seeing my raised eyebrow at some overpriced item, suspected I was wondering at how quickly the prices of basic consumer goods are rising. And, she was more than willing to tell me what was to blame for them.

“That Copenhagen thing.”

She’s heard – you can guess where – that Copenhagen will make Australians’ lot unbearable. And that even before it’s signed, it’s already doing so. And she fervently believes it.


Copenhagen made my hair fall out!

Which is fantastic news for the powers that be. Because from December onwards, it’s the handy scapegoat for everything that goes wrong. Corporate Australia will screw the hell out of ordinary Australians, as they have been – and their advocates in the media will be shameless and relentless in using Copenhagen to blame it on “the left”.

It’s basically just a variation on the classic “keep public funding to schools and hospitals low so the rich can minimise tax – blame the resulting problems on the immigrants” sort of scheme.

A beautiful era of being ripped off and attacked for it at the same time approaches.

Advertisements

112 responses to “The new scapegoat

  1. So we’re going to get more and more Greens and greenie bashing. I wonder what / when will the penny drop for the average joe denialists? Will it take Bolt et al admitting they were wrong? And how many more members of the public will be swayed to that point of view over the coming years- there does seem to be an increase in climate change denial among the public.

  2. Conspiracy theories are “join-the-dots” for lazy minds.

  3. But conspiracy theories about conspiracy theories are awesome.

  4. I’m sure you pointed out to her that, having not occured yet, Copenhagen could not be responsible for the price of anything in the supermarket.

    Sort of like Devine’s rant about electricity price increases over the past decade being a result of things which havn’t even happened yet.

    Maybe these people have just seen “Back to the Future” a few too many times

  5. The proponents of the indefensible ETS should be held accountable for the consequences. Clearly it will have no effect on climate, but it will undoubtedly result in more poverty and death in the

    The fact is that greenie bullshit has been practiced for some time now, and is no doubt having its effect. The fact that a shop assistant has used Copenhagen as a catchall for all things hopenchangin’ is hardly a surprise.

    Now that the government has big business and the banks on board, we are all screwed. It certainly won’t be any of the those three interest groups that will pay the price.

    There will be winners and losers in all of this, like Fat Albert Gore who has grown from merely wealthy buffoon to filthy rich energy hog since he ran for president in 2000, or like Tim Flannery being a shareholder in Geodynamics, that fortunate company which recently received a $90m government subsidy, not to mention scientists who have a pipeline of research grant riches provided they deliver Thescience to enable the government powergrab.

    As usual Mencken explains the motive of the government:

    The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

    The motive of the carpetbaggers who exploit these benighted policies is self-evident.

  6. Wow SB – you’re a full-on denier now eh?

    AGW is all “greenie bullshit” and a gigantic conspiracy to allow our government to grab some sort of undefined “power” that presumably they previously lacked.

    I hope you’re right. It will mean that we’re not facing the level of threat that most experts around the world apparently believe we are.

    The reputation of scientists might take a bit of a hit though . . .

  7. “The motive of the carpetbaggers who exploit these benighted policies is self-evident.”

    As are the motives of those in the denialist camp, stuffing their faces at the BigOil ™ pig trough, and smearing themselves with “brown lipstick” to ingratiate themselves to the Global Rightist Anti Human Agenda (or the G.R.A.H.A) and thus get a place for them and their families in the cold fusion powered dome city on Mars, which of course will be neccisary to protect the precious “seed of man” from “Green Madness” induced global cooling that is in fact currently being engineered by Gore (he’s fat) , Obama (he’s a Mooslim) and K ‘rudd (Our Dear Leader) to tighten the cold dead grip of socialism and plunge the world into the eternal wintery darkness of Ragnarok.

    I could get used to this “deranged polemnic” style of writing! Do you give lessons SB, or should i just keep learning from your regular example’s?

  8. Mondo, you fail to distinguish between denialism and thinking that an ETS is bad policy. An elementary mistake, old chap.

  9. Duncan, in matters of style, you should look to my new favourite superhero, Glenn Beck! Or Ann Coulter, or from your lefty point of view, the equally rabid Keith Olbermann.

  10. Why should Tim Flannery and Al Gore be criticised for putting money where their mouths are? If they weren’t investing in alternative energy, they would be criticised for not being prepared to invest money in areas they are talking about.

  11. Topher, its more a case of putting their mouths where their money is.

  12. Cheers SB , i’ll take a look! 😉

  13. Ah! So the price of food is going up, so who do we blame? Well! doesn’t it make a change from the usual scapegoats, the union movement, unemployed, single mothers, Aboriginals, social welfare cheats, and the boat people?

    Especially the boat people cos we do special deals with them, and that costs heaps.

    Yes folks now it’s all down to those greeny socialist bastards. It used to be the hippies but we’ve moved on from them, although we still occasionally blame them for losing the Vietnam war don’t we?

    I reckon we should do F.A. about global warming, yep let the sea levels rise six feet.Because you see I got if figured, the first bastards that are going to be affected by G.W. are the bastards who live in mansions on the shores of Sydney Harbour, and when they float out the door into the shipping lanes in their leather upholstered chairs, the penny just may, just may I said , drop that G.W. is a reality. Anyway their properties will be the first to go. Oh the irony, that they caused it all..

  14. Mondo, you fail to distinguish between denialism and thinking that an ETS is bad policy.

    Nice try SB – but your comment above goes well beyond simple opposition to the ETS.

    According to you the AGW scientists have been bought off by government research grants and have now been corrupted into paving the way for a Labor power grab. This leaves the realms of intelligent discussion and firmly puts you into crackpot conspiracy land.

    Although I do agree with you about Gore and Flannery. Their objectivity is entirely compromised by their clear financial stake in promoting AGW.

  15. i thought conspiracy theories were meant to be on the fringe of accepted knowledge… blaming “warministas” for taxes is the accepted dogma nowdays

  16. The ETS is a piece of shyte, I certainly wouldn’t deny that. It gives massive, taxpayer-funded free kicks to vested interests and only has a passing interest in actual reduction of Australia’s emissions of greenhouse gasses.

    However… is it better than the alternative? For me, holding my nose, yes.

  17. Personally i think we would be better off with a straight up carbon tax, or better yet a pollution tax.

    If we are going to do it at all, do it properly and in an upfront way.

    If a company pollutes, they pay. They pass on the cost to their customers (reducing demand and/or increasing efficiency and competition) or offset them with tree planting (or other carbon storage/pollution remediation projects)

    That way we can reduce the tax or raise it as needed, depending on what the future brings and there is less scope for abuse.

    I reckon an ETS has too much scope for manipulation by vested interests on both sides of the argument.

    That said, im not a climate scientist or an economist, so ive almost certainly overlooked something somewhere.

  18. Mondo, you need to stop trying to appear to be so reasonable, and look at the facts!

    The fact is that tens of billions have been invested by governments in buying a ‘consensus’, starting with the IPCC itself. There are enough stories about non-conformists being slandered, sanctioned and sacked for their beliefs to warrant a serious discussion about the corrosive effects of government funding on science. As Eisenhower said:

    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

  19. I am a pest controller living in Melbourne.
    my take on global warming is this….
    20 years ago most in Melbourne wouldn’t recognize a cockroach when they saw one…
    today most would.

    roaches love heat

  20. SB – you need to stop being so unreasonable so that the genuine sceptic message (which I agree with btw) does not get lost amongst your hysterical crackpot nonsense.

    If all you do is take pot shots at an opposing ideology using talking points taken from wingnut blogs then no one will take you seriously.

    There is no doubt in my mind that the AGW juggernought has taken on a momentum that, in some aspects, is quite removed from legitimate science. Nonetheless it appears that a significant core is still rooted in overwhelming global scientific consensus, and by completely ignoring that you undermine your position.

  21. Looks like I was only a couple of days out with my prediction of SB’s rant – and on a different subject as well. Oh well.

  22. Mondo:

    a significant core is still rooted

    All of it I would say.

    Seriously, though I did accuse you of being reasonable. However, that approach is not warranted on this risible thread, which is based on the thinnest of pretexts.

    The alarmists do deserve to be pilloried for their folly, and Jeremy’s pre-emptive strike at trying to prevent them being held accountable for the consequences of their doomsday nonsense is just laughable.

  23. Today I overheard a conservative voter say “I use to think my marriage broke down because of teh gays, but now I know it was the Copenhagen thing”

  24. Yea I know what you mean Broken Left Leg I got a dose of walking dandruff once (crabs)I had a case of G.W. in my crutch from copulating not, Copenhagen.

  25. The alarmists do deserve to be pilloried for their folly

    You lump all those who believe in AGW into the category of ‘alarmist’ SB – a technique that is as dishonest as it is irrational. It’s no better than lumping all sceptics into the category of ‘denier’ -which is something that you condemn.

    Once again you display the exact behaviour that you seek to deride in others.

  26. Mondo: You lump all those who believe in AGW into the category of ‘alarmist’

    I would have thought that was true by definition.

    The rational position is that AGW is not proven to be a serious problem.

    The irrational positions are that it is is proven not to be a serious problem, or that it is proven to be a serious problem.

  27. SB The rational position is that AGW is not proven to be a serious problem.

    The irrational positions are that it is is proven not to be a serious problem, or that it is proven to be a serious problem.

    The completely rational position is that we can’t be certain, but we need to assess the costs abd risks of doing nothing and the costs and risks of doing something.

    The evidence I’ve seen suggests a risk assessment suggests the best course is to reduce our CO2 emissions.

  28. Excellent. Now we have a spurious reason to blame for everything:

    – Grocery prices go up – blame Copenhagen.
    – Weather is hotter/cooler/wetter/drier/more-something than usual – blame climate change.
    – Unemployment is rising – blame asylum seekers.
    – Kevin Rudd does something nasty – blame John Howard.

    etc, etc. I’ll be sure to use any/every one of these rhetorical tactics whenever necessary. Thanks Jeremy!

  29. Funny how she didn’t blame the duopoly we have in the supermarkets at all, isn’t it?

  30. philip travers

    Could it be the shopkeeper was just plainly being a bit stupid and one-eyed,and all that Jeremy has done is to allow a whole lot of statements that do not even account for the many on farm matters that certainly maybe heat related,but, not necessarily anything to do across the year of temperatures collected on heat increases alone!?I you want to argue the way you do here often,it means that perhaps your applied capabilities in solving problems have diminished,or have never been a process of action!

  31. Now I know why you stay in Ringwood. It’s to look down on people. Catherine Deveney would be proud.

    One person’s opinion is one person’s opinion, and I reckon this one person definitely blamed the rising prices of consumer goods on “that Copenhagen thing” because she doesn’t want you to think that her employer is ripping off the public.

    You don’t have to publish a post every day, Jeremy.

  32. SB its obvious that AGW has not been “proven”. Apart from the obvious scientific principle that theories (which is all science has, there are no “laws” written on some copsmic book so… well there are actually but you’ll probably never see them,) can never be proven, only disproven or replaced by better forumulated theories.

    Its a theory for explaining things, like for example, this ongoing spate of heatwaves.

    The IPCC doesn’t claim AGW is proven.

    They claim a probability of 90% that human activity is responsible for the current warming trend.

    I spose given that, “believing” in AGW is irrational, tho I dunno if its alarmist.

    Believing the odds of AGW being an accurate model or representation of reality are around 90% is rational tho, and not alarmist.

    Its not alarmist to act on 90% probabilities either, especially when the worst case of inaction could be very severe.

  33. SB The rational position is that AGW is not proven to be a serious problem.

    Not proved certainly, but a rational person would also not completely dismiss a theory supported by a majority of qualified scientists in every developed country in the world. A rational person would recognise that these circumstances compell governments around the world to act – even if there is legitimate debate over how much caution should be exercised when acting.

    But you don’t appear to recognise either of those realities (or, at least, you pretend not to). Instead you spew insane conspiracy nonsense about corrupted scientists and “greenie bullshit” being used as a cover for government power grabs. It’s hysterical and childish nonsense SB.

    The biggest problem with the current AGW debate is that both sides have now retreated to the extremes and are simply throwing abuse at each other. I guess, given your penchant for vomiting abuse at the left, it’s no surprise that you’ve taken up residence with the lunatic right-wing fringe.

  34. Jules, the odd thing is that the Australian Academy of Sciences was asked to do a response to the Garnaut report. When it became clear that they thought there was only a 5o/50 chance of AGW leading to an increase in droughts (which was the major basis of Garnaut’s argument that there is a an economic cost to Australia from AGW), the idea of a response was dropped.

    The question is (assuming that AGW is not only a statement about the recent past, but also the future) how much do we pay now so that people who will, in 100 years time, be four times more wealthy than we are do not see that wealth eroded by 25% in 100 years time.

    The IPCC is a political body set up to prove a certain point. If it comes to the conclusion that AGW is not a serious problem, its funding will be decreased, and it may well be dissolved.

    The IPCC relies on unscientific studies to justify its existence by producing alarmist reports. It is merely a tool of mass hysteria and will go down in history with other alarmist cults such as the Club of Rome, Paul Ehrlich and the Malthusians.

    The basis on which one might conclude that recent warming (if any) is man-made is the hockey stick graph. It dispenses with the Medieval Warm Period. If in fact the MWP was warmer than now, there would be no compelling basis for believing that today’s temperatures are anything out of the ordinary.

    The methodology behind the original hockey stick graph has been shown to be flawed (yet ‘Thescience’ was even then said to be settled). The successor hockey stick graphs are still hotly contested.

    The Hockey Team ‘scientists’ have shown an alarming coyness about having their worked critically examined as this Quote by Phil Jones shows:

    We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

    This attitude is, of course, the opposite of science.

  35. Mondo:

    The biggest problem with the current AGW debate is that both sides have now retreated to the extremes and are simply throwing abuse at each other.

    It is Al Gore that will not debate anyone.

    Kevin Rudd gave us 3000 words of abusive cant recently at a Lowy Institute lecture, without bothering us with any relevant science. he should stick to abusing stewardesses.

    The Climate alarmists claimed victory in the early 2000s, and have generally refused to debate the matter. The main line of attack has been to abuse those who questioned the orthodoxy. Utter fuckwits like George Monbiot suggest that not getting with the AGW program should be criminalised. The rancour in this debate has been driven largely by the smartarse cry of “Thescience is settled”, usually bellowed by twits who can’t be bothered trying to understand the scientific basis of AGW.

    Smugness is >de rigueur for the chattering classes, but in the case of AGW it is particularly pungent. Probably because they have no idea what they are talking about.

    Now that the momentum is swinging away from AGW in the community at large, I expect that the flow of insults will also reverse. That’s human nature for you.

  36. The IPCC is a political body set up to prove a certain point. If it comes to the conclusion that AGW is not a serious problem, its funding will be decreased, and it may well be dissolved.

    The IPCC relies on unscientific studies to justify its existence by producing alarmist reports. It is merely a tool of mass hysteria and will go down in history with other alarmist cults such as the Club of Rome, Paul Ehrlich and the Malthusians.

    That is really nothing more than baseless conspiracy and suspicion built on personal bias about governments and scientists in general.

    I don’t suppose you have anything tangible to back up those assertions?

  37. Shorter SB – I know I’m being completely unreasonable, abusive, and failing to actually engage any of the substantive scientific issues raised, but I reckon the AGW camp did it first so it’s justified.

    And you have the gall to accuse others of being smug.

  38. Mondo:

    and failing to actually engage any of the substantive scientific issues raised

    Actually, I was just replying to a particular assertion you made. Funnily enough, you didn’t raise any “substantive scientific issues” yet you berate me with your usual belligerent ignorance for not including same in my reply.

  39. Patrick, suspicion of governments is always a good idea, as is suspicion of scientists in there pay.

    I did live through the great population scare of the 70s when ‘scientists’ like Paul Ehrlich were telling us that we would soon run out of food and hundreds of millions would starve. Apparently we also run out of oil and other commodities. Actually those things did not happen. It was all scare-mongering, as was the global cooling scare of the 70s.

    Now we have the global warming scare. I would have thought that a healthy dose of scepticism is warranted in relation to this episode as well. In particular, the theory is that climate warms as atmospheric CO2 increases, yet for the last 10 years, that correlation does not seem to have held true.

    Also, in the case of a lot of the more alarmist studies, the authors seem extremely coy about having their work checked. My view is that if the data and calculations on which the study is premised are, for any reason, not available to be checked, then the study should be disregarded.

    Any study which is not transparent is more in the nature of unverifiable assertion than science. It is certainly no basis for the formulation of drastic public policy proscriptions. Yet, in many cases, this is exactly what the IPCC has relied upon. Funnily enough, in the cases where the data has subsequently been released, serious questions about the methodology have been raised.

  40. Patrick, you referred to my bias about governments, yet in another thread made the following astute observation with which I whole-heartedly agree:

    I would never take the word of the US government at face value, or any government for that matter

  41. In particular, the theory is that climate warms as atmospheric CO2 increases, yet for the last 10 years, that correlation does not seem to have held true.

    This is a bit of denialist nonsense that ought to be addressed (although I do appreciate SB’s eventual contribution of some substance rather than wild conspiracy theory and abuse).

    The idea that the lack of warming for the last ten years is inconsistent with the theory of man made global warming is utter stupidity. It only holds if you assume that human activity is the only factor that impacts climate change on Earth – which is a notion that is clearly ridiculous. In fact the deniers base their entire position on the idea that natural causes are behind climate fluctuation.

    A stepped temperature increase is exactly what you would expect to see if human caused warming was occurring at the same time as short-term weather cycles (like El Nino and La Nina). In other words it is entirely consistent with AGW theory.

    It must be noted, of course, that it’s far from conclusive proof of the veracity of AGW. It is an outcome that merely matches the theory, not one that proves it. But what it does highlight is the fundamental ignorance(/dishonesty) of all those claiming that the observed stable temperatures of the last ten years are inconsistent with AGW theory.

  42. “Global cooling scare”. Yawn, yawn, yeh yeh. Can’t compare this with GW AT ALL:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#Introduction:_general_awareness_and_concern

    What was that about Ehrlich’s predictions re running out of oil? I think you’ll find it’s pretty much spot on – we’re just being told that there’s still enough oil, nothing to see here, business as usual, and it’s WRONG.

    “Hundreds of millions would starve”: of course … because everyone in the world has plenty to eat. Changing weather patterns certainly haven’t affected farmers across the world, have they? Have they?

  43. Mondo, I’m not saying that the failure of atmospheric CO2 increases to correlate with temperature (as per AGW theory) over 10 years is a decisive proof, although with every passing year, more questions are raised. How long would it take to convince you that there is something amiss with AGW theory?

    Some scientists think that this is the start of a 30 year cooling cycle, but I think even if we get to 30 years of cooling the Chicken Littles of this world will still be at it.

    RM, Ehrlich completely screwed up. We have hundreds of billions of barrels more oil reserves than when he predicted the drying up of the oil wells, England still existed in the year 2000, humanity did not enter into an age of scarcity in 1985, and humans have increased calories per person, rather than starved in their millions as predicted by Ehrlich.

    Unsurprisingly, Ehrlich predicted that “carbon-dioxide climate-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020.”

    Ehrlich was a phenomenon, like Al Gore, reaping a handsome return for scaring the public. In the end he serves only as a lesson in the need for rigorous scepticism as regards doomsday cults dressed up as science.

  44. I’m not saying that the failure of atmospheric CO2 increases to correlate with temperature (as per AGW theory) over 10 years is a decisive proof

    SB – not only does it fail to disprove AGW theory, it’s not even inconsistent with the theory. As I have pointed out above it is exactly what you would expect to see if AGW theory were true.

    Raising it as evidence that counters AGW theory is retarded – it’s like creationists claiming that gaps in the fossil record are evidence against the theory of evolution.

    How long would it take to convince you that there is something amiss with AGW theory?

    Now that’s a good question.

    From the graphs I have seen, the previous periods of temperature stability have not lasted much longer than ten years (before the next period of sustained warming). If the warming trend does not resume within the next two or three years my scepticism will grow. If it hasn’t resumed in the next 5 years it may blossom into full-blown denialism.

  45. Mondo, there are a number of things you might expect if AGW were true. For example you might expect a continued warming in line with increases of CO2. Thus your use of the word ‘exactly’ is a little over the top.

    Now, you know that I was merely using the lack of temperature/CO2 correlation as grounds for looking a bit harder at the AGW claims. While it may be consistent with AGW, it is not “exactly’ what I would expect, especially given the hysteria about tipping points in the years after 1998. I certainly wasn’t (in your words) “raising it as evidence that counters AGW theory “.

  46. It’s quite amazing to see an apparently intelligent person let themselves be comforted by the absurd notion that every single legitimate scientific organisation on the planet has been subverted into successfully propagating the biggest scam in the history of mankind for the purpose of retaining their research funding.

    I suppose with their million dollar pay checks these climate scientists really do have a lot to lose…they did choose the scientists career path for the money after all.

  47. Arlen.
    What is more amazing is people just prattle on about subjects they know absolutely nothing about.What is even more nauseating is, they are in a total minority when it comes to the science and they are in absolute denial that climate change is actually taking place.

    Most of the individuals who comment on this science on blogs and I admit like I, haven’t got a clue, and put in a debate with a bona fide academic/scientist on the subject, would be made to look like morons.

    The worlds scientists are in agreement, and the few that are against the normal empirical evidence that is growing by the day that warming is a reality, can be counted on one hand.And they all have vested interests if you dig deep enough.

    This isn’t a debate about the science it is about the politics, if it had been the left that had been the doubting Thomasa’s we would have been held up to ridicule and be accused of a lefty plot to destroy the planet.

    Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and a host of other scientists since the beginning of time has had to suffer these fools, and their fine traditions have been carried on into the 21 st century, they are now called conservatives.

  48. The worlds scientists are in agreement, and the few that are against the normal empirical evidence that is growing by the day that warming is a reality, can be counted on one hand.And they all have vested interests if you dig deep enough.

    Hyperbole, loaded statement, untruth, lie.

  49. Well we’ll all know for better or worse in 50 years or so, because the necessary action is not going to be taken in any circumstance. Those of us still alive will be able to say “ha ha told you so” to whoever was wrong.

  50. If you don’t know for certain, say so!

    The argument that ‘scientists say, so we must believe’ is absolute insanity. As sentient beings we have an obligation to at least subject the various theories to some critical thinking.

    Given the invective of the alarmists, the don’t argue just believe approach, the fact that this has become a political not scientific issue it is hardly surprising that people are concerned.

    ‘Thescience’ is nothing to do with reason or logic. It is an ideological battering ram to stop people thinking and start them believing.

    If I actually believed that the hockey stick graphs provided a rigorous and certain description of global temperature over time, I would certainly be in the AGW camp. This is the main reason for believing that humans are involved in warming. The trouble is that thes HS view of climate history is hotly contested. The initial graph was shown to be based on flawed methodology, and the subsequent studies are hotly contested.

    Funnily enough Philip Adams subjected Paul Ehrlich to an obsequiously fawning interview on LNL last night. Certainly it would give any rational listener pause as Ehrlich traipsed through the fevered doomsday swamps. Acolyte Adams grunted approval from time to time, and no doubt sagely stroked at least one of his chins as his sainted senile schizoid prophet preached up a storm of stupidity.

  51. ‘Thescience’ is nothing to do with reason or logic.

    Is it not logical to conclude that a theory being promoted as highly likely by mainstream scientific institutions in almost every single developed country in the world has a greater than average likelihood of being correct?

  52. Mondo, your proposition has a superficial attractiveness, especially when it comes to disinterested science. It is less valid the more that politics are involved.

    I think you might find that the 90% confidence level put forward by the IPCC is relatively low in scientific terms.

    From a Kuhnian point of view, AGW is in the nature of a scientific revolution. It is still in the pre-paradigm phase.

  53. I guess, as Patrick has noted, we will all find out in the end.

    For the record I also hope that the doomsdayists are wrong. As bad as it would be to see Andrew Bolt vindicated in his craptitude, it would be preferable to actually dealing with the sort of lifestyle changes necessary to address climate change.

  54. Just out of interest what oil reserves?

    I know a couple of blokes who prospect for oil, in the middle east and in other places too, for big international mining cos.

    Production is dropping and replacement wells are harder to find. It seems there may be something to abiotic oil, sothe wells may refill, but not in anything remotely resembling the time frames we would need.

    At the same the cost is going up. 100 years ago it was something along the lines of one barrel of oil could generate enough energy to produce 500, and at one point possibly even 1000.

    These days in new fields the ratio is something like 1 barrel provides enough energy for the production of 10 barrels. there may be massive deposits offshore and offshelf, but getting them has an even lower ratio, and once it hits 1:1 oil will probably only be mined as a mineral resource not a fuel. (cept of course for dependant military use.)

    The 90% may be relatively low, SB but only cos the standard is 95%. Any scientific prediction higher than 95% is bullshit cos there is (or was, but I’m pretty sure it still exists) a convention of allowing a 5% margin of error.

    In everydy odds too, if there is a 90% chance your current actions will cause you some harm would you continue with them.

    Also:

    “The argument that ’scientists say, so we must believe’ is absolute insanity. As sentient beings we have an obligation to at least subject the various theories to some critical thinking.”

    True.

    So in response to your comments about the political nature of the IPCC. To ignore the political nature of anti AGW information is also foolish.

    I’m not even gonna bother crediting that anti hockey stick and MWP stuff either, cos all of the analysis I have seen that focuses on that is as agenda driven, and as poor as you claim the IPCC info is.

    So on a practical level….

    I’m an officer in my rural fuire brigade and have been for over 10 years. I have responsibility for issuing fire permits, so I tend to take notice of whats going on in my local environment.

    There are definitely changes, they are subtle but they are there, and they have meant that in the last few years the way I personaly assess a situation when writing someone a permit has changed. Assumptions that were previosly ok about any number of things from weather behaviour (ie wind and humidity) to the rate at which fuel dreis out, have changed, and they seem to be in line with the claims made by AGW proponents. or GW proponents for whatever reason manmade or not.

    There has been a corresponding change in fire behaviour too.

    I’m not alone in thinking this. The vast majority of people I know in various brigades feel the same way. I don’t know anyone who actually seriously challenges the idea, especially people with over 15 years experience fighting fires in the bush.

    Nothing scientific about all that, its just our anecdootal evidence. Given we need to be able to assess whats going on around us to keep ourselves safe tho … I know whose opinion I trust.

    Not everyone who accepts the very very high liklihood of AGW and esp GW does so cos they are brainwashed morons who get all their life experience through the media. tho thats what you seem to be suggesting.

  55. The ‘fair enough’ comment was directed to Mondo.

    Jules, your anecdotal evidence of local conditions is interesting, but should not be decisive. I don’t think giving over your decision to people you trust is a wise thing to do. Maybe I’m just contrarian, but personally, I usually prefer to take my own advice. It is part of the responsibility of freedom that people think hard about serious matters and exercise their own judgment.

    The fact that temperature has increased since the late 70s is clear. It appears to have leveled off in recent years, and we don’t know whether that presages cooling, or is just a pause in the warming trend.

    The question is whether the increase we have seen are man-made. As noted above, I think it is perfectly rational to accept AGW if you are convinced that the hockey stick graph is correct. However, I have much less confidence in it than I had in, say, 2003.

  56. TimT, sorry that is just wishful thinking on your part. The science is in end of story.

    What is happening here is, the denialists have taken a position that is untenable, and have dug themselves in deeper than a moles ball bag.They have no where left to go because they were so sure they were right, and most of the worlds scientists were wrong.

    It is quite laughable actually, that these people come from the same “smoking is harmless, asbestos is good for you, condoms don’t help to stop aids, just say no to drugs “, clique of tossers.

    These same tossers that don’t question a heart surgeons credentials when they are dieing of heart disease, or of course they go to their local painter and decorator when they have lung cancer.

    These people people should not be allowed to sprout their nonsense they are a danger to the human race..So what if we are wrong, what’s it gonna cost a few bucks, resulting in a cleaner planet for our grand children, unlike the opinions of fools, doing nothing could be catastrophic.

  57. I think you might find that the 90% confidence level put forward by the IPCC is relatively low in scientific terms. – SB

    Complete bollocks.

  58. Gary, your brilliant argument has convinced me of the error of my ways. I particularly admire your commitment to free speech:

    These people people should not be allowed to sprout their nonsense they are a danger to the human race.

    If only the other AGW advocates were so reasonable and eloquent there would be no opposition to the idea at all.

  59. Well SB try shouting fire in a cinema, same difference to me.One mans free speech is another’s mans right to sue your arse off if it offends him.There aint nothing free about that.

    I’m glad you have found the error of your ways, you can now move out of that group put so eloquently by John Quiggan, of that group of people whose Emeritus disease is a product of reflexive contrarianism an over – estimation of ones own intelligence and knowledge relative to those, actually working on the topic.But what you think or don’t think at the end of the day is of no concern to me.

    I will always console myself with the fact, that people who think like you do will always be in the minority, and thank God for that.

  60. SB, the “theory” of global warming is subjected to “critical thinking” every time a paper is published in a peer review journal. I think what you care calling critical thinking is more aptly called delusion.

    How many of your theories about AGW have been subjected to peer review and passed the test?

  61. Seriously, this couldn’t be true, could it?

    From: Phil Jones
    To: ray bradley ,mann@virginia.edu, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu
    Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
    Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
    Cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk

    Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
    Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. Thanks for the comments, Ray.

    Cheers
    Phil

    Prof. Phil Jones
    Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
    School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
    University of East Anglia
    Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
    NR4 7TJUK

    Or this:

    From: Gary Funkhouser
    To: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
    Subject: kyrgyzstan and siberian data
    Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700

    Keith,

    Thanks for your consideration. Once I get a draft of the central and southern siberian data and talk to Stepan and Eugene I’ll send it to you.

    I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. It was pretty funny though – I told Malcolm what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functions – he laughed and said that’s what he thought at first also. The data’s tempting but there’s too much variation even within stands. I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have – they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I’ll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.

    Not having seen the sites I can only speculate, but I’d be optimistic if someone could get back there and spend more time collecting samples, particularly at the upper elevations.

    Yeah, I doubt I’ll be over your way anytime soon. Too bad, I’d like to get together with you and Ed for a beer or two. Probably someday though.

    Cheers, Gary
    Gary Funkhouser
    Lab. of Tree-Ring Research
    The University of Arizona
    Tucson, Arizona 85721 USA
    phone: (520) 621-2946
    fax: (520) 621-8229
    e-mail: gary@ltrr.arizona.edu

  62. The Hockey Team has shown real form in the leaked emails.

    No doubt the wobbly special pleading of the Real Climate camp will be regurgitated here as soon as Michael and the other climate trolls have time to memorise it.

  63. Duncan, in matters of style, you should look to my new favourite superhero, Glenn Beck!
    SB // 18 November, 2009 at 1:56 pm

    Glenn Beck is an absolute lunatic of the first division. He peddles frothing conspiracy theories and hatred towards the US Government and cuddles up to neo-fascists whenever he gets the chance.

    Hell, even the ADL, in a special report, have singled Beck out for attention!
    Full article here.

    If Beck is your “favourite superhero”, then, by offering him support and legitimacy, you’ve crossed from being an annoying polemicist to an outright danger to civil society.

    Cheers.

  64. Thanks, Marek. I was beginning to worry that no one would pick that up! I was actually talking about “matters of style”, not content.

    Beck is a phenomenon. He is different to Olbermann, who generally talks down to his audience in a smug bullying Alan Jones type manner.

    Beck implores his audience to agree with him rather than bully them. He certainly appeals to the libertarian crowd and, like Olbermann, some of the points he makes are very good.

  65. An Marek, did you note the little stoush between Obama and Fox. First he tried to ban Fox (because he can’t stand a free press that actually questions his judgment and calls out his hubris). When that tactic sent Fox’s ratings through the roof (at the same time his approval ratings nose-dived) he changed tack and is now granting interviews to Fox!! In the fracas, Beck managed to rid Obama’s administration of a couple of commo nutters.

  66. Beck implores his audience to agree with him!@# Jesus wept

  67. Beck implores his audience to agree with him!@#% Jesus wept I have read it all now.

    His audience already agrees with him, especially the ones with the one tooth in their heads he he.

    Beck is phenomenon bwaaaaaaaa.Beck is as cunning as a shit house rat, he knows which side his bread is buttered. He has hitched his waggon to the retards on the right, who lap his shit up like a dog does to fresh meat.

    He is fully cognisant of the fact you can’t be controversial and “out there” being intelligent.I mean most of his audience is from Deliverance country, and the more he piles it on the more they like it.

    I can bet when Beck, Hannity, O’Rielly,and ol Rush get down the pub, or is it a “Tea Party” he he Yep I can imagine they dead set piss themselves laughing at the gullible shit for brains that buy their stuff.

    Yea laugh alright, all the way to the bank.

  68. OK, fair enough, Splatters.
    Good on me for catching your bait and good on you for stirring me from my usual somnambulance!

    When it comes to matters of style, I would still argue against Beck.
    He’s a rank amateur.
    He’s a pamphleteer without skill, nuance or applied intellect.
    He’s the Pauline Hanson of American politics.
    He’s rubbish and, despite his right to spew his ignorance, he should be told to shut the fuck up and stop muddying the waters.

    BTW, when did Obama ever try to ban Fox?
    It’s a real question…, I don’t bother following Washington politics.

    Cheers.

  69. Marek, Deputy White House Press Secretary Josh Ernest said:

    “This White House has demonstrated our willingness to do a round of interviews with a range of networks but not Fox. Clearly, that didn’t happen yesterday.”

    Here is the Huffington Post take on it.

    Note that the other media, to their very great credit said that if fox was excluded, they would not cover the press conference.

    Gary, you are a second rate reverse caricature of Beck, without even the wit to see the irony.

  70. Ah SB from a mental giant like you I will take any insult from you as a compliment.

    I can see how people take your polemic on anything serious from the hits on your own website.Where do you find the time to answer all the questions and opinions of all those enquiring minds?

  71. SB, I understand that admitting the natural limits to growth goes against the magic puddingesque, cornucopian fantasy world you conservatives live in, but global peak of food, energy and water really is one of those issues where Left/Right politics should be checked at the door.

    As to your claim of their being plenty of oil left to burn did you see this recent article in The Guardian?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency

    “The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.”

  72. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/29/fossil-fuels-oil

    “UK will face peak oil crisis within five years, report warns”

    “Skrebowski (consulting editor of Petroleum Review) predicts that global oil production will peak in the period 2011-2013 and then decline steadily, with non-conventional sources such as tar sands failing to fill the gap in time to avoid a serious energy crunch.”

    “Shell, by contrast, foresees oil production rising until 2015 and then remaining on a plateau until the 2020’s..”

    Shell and The Petroleum Review. Leftists and alarmist to a man, im sure.

  73. Duncan, Peak Oil is another crazy concept the left has been trying to foist on society since the great Peak Whale Oil scare of the 1850s.

    The real crisis is the vast amount of money spent implementing leftist ‘solutions’. Peak Money was achieved long ago.

    Funnily enough, the simple expedient of printing more money means only that it is worth less. Obama is doing a fabulous job of debasing the US currency. Even Kevin Rudd is struggling to keep up.

  74. You live in a beautiful world SB.

    Fox is the perfect example of why news should not be motivated by profit. It might make people feel good to have their ignorance massaged but it’s disastrous for democracy.

  75. During the last presidential election, Arlen, Fox was the only network that gave balanced coverage. The attitude of the MSM was best exemplified by Chris Matthews, in reference to one of Obama’s speeches:

    “I Felt This Thrill Going Up My Leg”

    The profit motive is what should drive media – it stops them being colonised by agenda driven ideologues – like the ABC, BBC Fairfax, NYT etc.

    Better that a news organisation report what is interesting to a majority of viewers than to constantly spin to the left. At the very least, Fox forces the MSM to cover issues outside its agenda that it would prefer to ignore.

  76. SO you DO believe the oil industry, the International Energy Agency and the transport industry to be part of the global Leftist Plot.

    Maybe it would be easier to come up with a list of individuals and groups who AREN’T part of the conspiracy SB

  77. “The profit motive is what should drive media”

    Its called advertainment SB, and its not quite the same as news and current affairs.

    Im suprised someone who values free speech as much as yourself would advocate such a vile idea as “free speech for those who can afford it”

  78. Ahhh!!! Fox gave fair coverage of the Obama election. Yea well why wouldn’t they they’re “Fair and Balanced”

    They tell us that every day, in fact, they tried to sue Al Franken for using”Fair and Balanced” in one of his books.Like they own this cliche that’s been around like, forever.

    Yep they’re doing such a good job there must be a hundred web sites that analyse every word that comes out of their network.

    The main reason SB values free speech is, no bastard would ever pay him for his diatribe.Well maybe Glen Beck.

  79. The profit motive is what should drive media – it stops them being colonised by agenda driven ideologues – like the ABC, BBC Fairfax, NYT etc.

    Hmm…I am pretty sure that the New York Times is owned by the New York Times Company, a business with the profit motive. I’m also certain Fairfax has the profit motive too.

    And how exactly does the profit motive stop those media being taken over by “agenda driven ideologues”? Isn’t the profit motive itself an ideology with an agenda? The profit motive is not ideologically neutral.

    I don’t see how the profit motive is good for free speech either.

  80. One thing about the media is clear: public media is inevitably slanted to the left. Sooner or later it becomes an echo chamber for tone deaf leftist shills.

    Media that is run for profit succeeds because to make money it needs to be responsive to its audience. The Wall Street Journal has a long history of profitability.

    The New York Times is run on ideological lines. hence, even though it is nominally a for profit enterprise, it is in reality just an ideological plaything for the Sulzberger family. Sooner or later they are going to get sick of loosing hundreds of millions of dollars each year, and start reporting news instead of slanting it.

    Free speech is threatened by state intrusion into the media, be it in Russia, Venezuela or Cuba. It is only by having a strong free market in media that state owned media can be checked. I spend a lot of time listening to ABC and BBC. I am not saying they are worthless. Having provate media organisations keeps them honest.

    The bizarre thing about the US MSM is that they have fallen in love with Obama and treat him like smitten school children. They have incapacitated themselves from serving any useful role, choosing instead to be a cheer squad for the government. No good can come of this.

    The advent of the blogosphere has provided alternative sources to the MSM and now important news is often broken in the blogosphere. For example the Climategate scandal this weekend was broken on a blog, and the best analysis of the detail has been on blogs, for example, see here.

  81. I note you didn’t answer my questions about how “the profit motive” is not an ideology with its own agenda.

    The profit motive intrudes into free speech on a regular basis ensuring that the mass media serves its interests. Being responsive to your audience does not necessarily mean free speech.

    As for The Wall Street Journal. Of course it makes money – its clientele are generally very well off meaning big bucks from advertisers.

    One thing about the media is clear: public media is inevitably slanted to the left. Sooner or later it becomes an echo chamber for tone deaf leftist shills (sic).

    You only have to look at the media in days gone by to see how publicly owned radio stations and TV networks have served the government of any political persuasion. It is not inevitable it will be left leaning.

  82. One thing about the private media especially the networks owned by Murdoch is, they become echo chambers for rabid right wing nut shills.

    Apart from the Fox network of course, they’re “Fair and Balanced”

  83. AU: how “the profit motive” is not an ideology with its own agenda.

    I am not into reification. I don’t think in those terms. People have agendas, even groups and organisations have agendas. I’m not so sure about a ” profit motive” having an agenda.

    Profit motive is a preference that people have to choose activities that improve their economic circumstances.

    If a media owner is delivering news to sell advertising, their interest is to deliver the news that people are interested in reading.

    WSJ makes money because it delivers news and information to its readers that they are prepared to pay for. Neither the NYT nor the Australian makes money because they are motivated more by an agenda than a goal of serving an audience. Perhaps their returns are more political than economic.

    As to public media being leftist, I think that is generally true these days. In the case of totalitarian regimes, the media is more a creature of the regime. Organisations like BBC, ABC, NPR etc do not have their basic leftist impulse overridden by a despotic state, as is the case in say, Cuba or North Korea.

    Gary, it is actually good to have different views out there. Maybe the problem is that people fixate on particular media according to their prejudices.

    Incidentally, which media organ do you think is the best?

    I think they all have weaknesses, but in terms of hours per week, I listen to more of ABC News Radio than anything else. If I hear anything there that I’m really interested in, I go to specialist blogs that are likely to look at the issues in more depth.

  84. SB I don’t fixate on a particular media because of my own prejudices, I can see bias when I see/hear it.

    But anyway as you expected, yes I listen/watch the ABC, BBC, and sometimes CNN.

    The media on the left has it’s own axe to grind to be sure, but nothing comes within a bulls roar of Fox, they are in a league of their own.

    There is no doubt the U.S./MSM is having a love affair with Obama but, when you consider he is the first black man to reach the office of President, why are you surprised he is getting all the attention?

    His predecessor Bush got plenty of attention but!, for all the wrong reasons.

  85. Gary: I can see bias when I see/hear it.

    I think we all have these moments. Often stuff flies under the radar because the item also presents its own facts.

    It is important to read a few articles from different viewpoints rather than to rely on one side or other’s reporting.

    Also we probably see less bias in an item that is against nuclear energy precisely because that would accord with already held views.

    It is more important to question ‘news’ that accords with already formed views than to question ‘news’ which contradicts them.

  86. SB I watch/listen to Fox for the reasons you state, and I have worked out that they are the political advertising arm of the Republican party.I am not the only person to have formed this view because if I was, I would be doubting my own analysis.

    I would go further and say, entertainers like Beck, Hannity, and O’Rielly are not only disingenuous in the way they present their current affairs programs, they’re cognisant of the fact they are coming across as biased as we the punters on the left perceive it.But they could care less what we think, they’re after the anti abortionists, tea baggers, and other assorted nut jobs.

    However I do not go along with the consensus on the left that all of these entertainers are stupid, far from it.As I have said before, they have chosen to hitch their selves to the media organisation that is going to make them rich, hence Murdoch, they’re making a kings ransom from this media empire to the point of being obscene.I should imagine the more known entertainers in the stable of CNN are doing much the same.

    I have been alive long enough to see the private media establishments go close to being compared to the propaganda coming out of Germany in WW2.

    An example was during the Vietnam conflict when the Packer/Fairfax press was running similar cartoons depicting Australian soldiers pulling Rickshaws with a Viet Cong soldier in the back with a nice Anglo Saxon blond haired girl under his arm.

    (The said cartoon that I remember is in Tom Urens biography)

    Ronald Ryan the last man to be hanged in Australia was not only a victim of conservative politics(Sir Henry Bolte) but, a covert operation by the Packer empire to pull editorials condemning this bastardy, he went as far as to pick up a weekly magazine(Newsweek) from the street distributors in Melbourne that had already run an anti capital punishment piece.Channel nine pulled a doco made by the BBC about the contentious issue of capital punishment, the week before Ryan was to hang.

    The country party as it was known previously in our history, was in total control of the bush in Australia because the farmers federation owned and probably still does in some cases all the radio stations.

    Don’t believe me? Do your own research.

    Yes you are probably right I do have my own bias, I wonder why.

  87. I believe you. The media can be viciously one-sided. just look at the treatment of Sarah Palin.

  88. Oh, for pete sake. She’s a moron with nothing more to contribute to the debate than a vacuous “cutting taxes will make us all RICH!” mantra. She’s mocked because she does nothing but pander to hardliners and play the victim.

  89. Palin is an air head, this was no more visible than in the recent interview with Katie Couric CBS.Having said that, she has animal attraction to males and only a fool would deny this.She is a looker, and Joe the plumber types probably masturbate to pictures of her.If I wasn’t happily married for forty years I know I would.But then, I’m easily aroused.

    But! She is for mine as qualified to be POTUS as some of the retards that we have seen in the past.She makes both Bush and Reagen look like they have a degree in quantum physics.

  90. Now even George Monbiot is “is dismayed and deeply shaken” by the Climategate emails. He also called for the resignation of the head of CRU, Professor Phil Jones.

    So much for Thescience.

  91. So what? Monbiot and Jones aren’t prophets, they’re advocates and scientists arguing about a particular issue.

    You throw their names about as if they’re critical players on some team and if they fall so does the argument.

  92. I thought Monbiot’s comment might be interesting given his alarmist credentials.

    Here is what Monbiot said:

    there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released(2,3), and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request(4).

    Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics(5,6), or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(7). I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

    At the very least this scandal calls into question the not only the workings of the most influential group of climate ‘scientists’, but also the IPCC itself, given that members were substantial contributors and lead authors.

    Jones said:

    “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Briffa] and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

    I am talking about a group of ‘scientists’ who refer to themselves as the ‘Hockey Team’.

    Until there has been a thorough inquiry into their methods, and the IPCC which relied so heavily on them, there is no basis for using the conclusions of either as a basis for the formulation of far-reaching public policy.

    This affair has more than confirmed the fears I held about their objectivity and transparency as a result of their monumental unwillingness to allow their results to be checked. That in itself provided ample grounds for caution.

  93. Ha ha!

    See the denialists in a tizz.

    I think George may come to consider his opinion on this as ill-considered.

  94. Michael, Monbiot is a deniaist capable of thinking for himself, something that appears quite beyond you. Why not take the blinkers off and give it a go?
    It isn’t that hard.

  95. This has been just a fantastic demo of the contortions the denialists get themselves into.

    For months the denialists have been getting stuck into Monbiot over his criticisms of Plimers book – he’s just a journalist, what he says doesn’t count etc etc etc, and now they are all – oh, look at what Monbiot has said, it’s the end of the climate fraud, etc etc etc etc etc. LOL!

    And naturally they are ignoring Monbiot’s overall message – if you think the science of AGW has magically disappeared, you have rocks in your head.

    This is going to be good for a few more weeks of laughs I think.

  96. I agree that the laughs will continue. It will be interesting when the various inquiries get under way.

    Monbiot is right about Jones, he should resign in disgrace.

    I agree with former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Lawson:

    There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay.

    In the meantime there is clearly no basis for implementing policy which is informed by the work of these people. A short delay would allow time for the inquiries to take place, and allow sober reflection by the decision makers.

  97. Fascinating to see what a consevative politician, long-known for his strident opposition to action on climate-change thinks.

    Did you think cidentifying him as the “former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer” (20 years ago) would lend some weight to his opinions on scientific processes??

  98. As usual, Michael, you are attacking the man.

    The interesting thing to note about Monbiot, is that although he remains in the pro-AGW camp, at least he had the decency to apply independent thought to the matter.

    As Monbiot said:

    I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.

    It is a shame that your ideological commitment to the cause deprives you of the capacity for dispassionate consideration of this scandal.

  99. If I want an opinion on the scientific process, I’d at least want someone who knows what it is.

    Pollies opinions don’t count (for much).

    This is just typical – the denialists say they want to talk science, but keep throwing up opinions from pollies, journo’s, and ex-mining directors.

  100. As noted in this quote from Monbiot:

    there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released(2,3), and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request(4).
    Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics(5,6), or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(7). I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

    there are issues disclosed in the correspondence which prima facie raise concerns about the behaviour of the relevant parties.

    As Lawson said, there may be an innocent explanation. We need to have an impartial inquiry. In the meantime the work of the people implicated in this scandal should not be relied on.

    It is not just their scientific integrity that is impugned by this scandal. There are also criminal issues raised by Jones’ suggestion of deleting emails and destroying data. Apparently the UK police are already investigating this aspect.

  101. Bollocks as usual.

    Before Lawson concedes that there just might be absolutely nothing to this, he makes sure of a few wild accusations,

    Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals.

    a – a completely unfounded claim of total fraud
    b – simply untrue. There are masses of publicly available data, with which the denialists have done SFA.
    c- the emails acutally show that the requests were dealt with through the normal administative channels, where decisions about the appropriateness or otherwise of such requests are decided. Not suprisingly with McIntyre, they are dismissed as ‘vexatious’.
    d- yes, they want to maintain the standard of peer-reviewed journals, which means keeping the rubbish out. That is peer-review. Get a clue.

  102. Funnily enough Monbiot’s had a very similar list to Lawson even though they on different sides of the political divide.

    You also seem to have forgotten that Lawson started with: Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged

    There is no doubt that this is a reasonable comment on the documents. This is not presuming guilt, but commenting on the appearances of impropriety in the documents. It is also reasonable to call for an inquiry as Lawson did.

    Intellectuals such as Monbiot can see this and, rather than make complete asses of themselves, make the necessary concessions.

    Those who operate more on the basis of fundamentalist ideology than intelligence have neither the wit nor the integrity to do this. They are so hung up on politics that they are utterly incapable of seeing any fault whatsoever in the Hocking Team, or of seeing even the smallest virtue in their opponents.

    Truly you are of a piece with creationists, truthers, birthers and flat-earthers.

  103. This is a compendium of some of the choice quotes from the Climategate emails.

  104. You also seem to have forgotten that Lawson started with: Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged” -SB

    It’s the first line of the quote I included.

    I apologise for being rational enough to ask for evidence of “the scientists ….. manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend” before I make any claims that this is what is going on.

    The emails – 99% banal.

    The rest- people who haven’t a clue (journalists, pollies, ex-mining exec’s, TV weathermen) drawinglong bows on snippets of email exchanges where they clearly,
    – don’t know the studies being referred to
    – have almost zero undestanding of the science field under discussion
    – have no idea how the peer-review process works.

    What comes out of all of this is the high esteem in which the denialists hold scientists – they can somehow manage a worldwide global conspiracy of fraud with just a handful of emails over 12 years.

  105. Michael:

    I apologise for being rational enough to ask for evidence of “the scientists ….. manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend” before I make any claims that this is what is going on.

    Don’t apologise for being rational. You’re not.

    If you were being rational you would be asking for evidence for the assertion that Lawson actually made, ie what “appears, at least at first blush to be “the scientists ….. manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend””.

    Now there are many statements that appear at first blush to impugn the Hockey Team noted in the link in my previous post. If that is what you are seeking just read them – knock yourself out.

  106. Oh, so all the denialists want is for a superficial appearance of some vague hint of possible wrongdoing?

    Why didn’t you just say you had no interest in objective reality?

  107. In essence Lawson said that, while there may be a perfectly innocent explanation, at first blush the emails appeared to suggest some serious issues regarding the conduct of certain Hockey Team members, with implications for the reputation of the IPCC and for British science. He called for an independent inquiry.

    This seems to be a reasonable approach, more cautious than say, Monbiot calling for Jones’ resignation.

    Exactly what is your problem with Lawson’s approach?

  108. That ,on the most tenuous of pretexts, he makes the most serious possible allegations of scientific fraud on a huge scale.

    It’s the usual mealy-mouthed approach of those who want the cover provided by such transparent sophistry while twisting the knife with all their might – ala ‘well, this might lead to some people, not me you understand, drawing, at this juncture, the conclusion that you are the most despicable lying crook imaginable’.

  109. Your reply is hysterical, overwrought, and completely facile.

    The released documents raise significant questions. Lawson, while presuming innocence wants the issues examined. This is the only reasonable thing to do in the light of the reliance being placed on the work of the Hockey Team.

    Why does this outcome upset you so?

  110. Questions answered. The remaining substance – negligible.

    Primary sign of the irrational denialist spoon fed on a diet of blog anti-science – constant references to ‘the Team’.

    Gullible is a life-style choice.

  111. “Hockey Team” is their designation of themselves.

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