Meet Malcolm Roberts, Pauline Hanson’s “expert” on climate change.

July 5, 2016
Written by: Kaye Lee
260 Replies

Roberts is/was the project manager for the climate sceptic group the Galileo Movement. The mission of the Galileo Movement was to see the “carbon tax” repealed and to cast doubt on the science of climate change.

In 2012, in an interview with Journalist Ben Cubby, Roberts claimed a cabal of international bankers were behind the climate change “scam”. He went so over the top with his conspiracy theory that it led to “adviser” Andrew Bolt repudiating both Roberts and the Galileo Movement due to the implied whiff of antisemitism of his claims.

According to Roberts, the CSIRO is a tool of international bankers, who over the past century have also orchestrated every major financial boom and bust since 1913. The United Nations was created at the urging of international bankers, who are using it as a vehicle to usher in a New World Order.

“The objective is global control through global socialist governance by international bankers hiding control behind environmentalism” says Roberts.

Roberts is a former coalface miner and management consultant and in a declaration of interests writes: “For extensive work performed in the mining industry I was paid money by mining companies (including three government-owned coal mining companies)….”

He claims to have foregone more than a million dollars in earnings for his unpaid work researching climate change. Part of that involved him travelling to the US to attend the Heartland Institute’s climate skeptics conference in New York in 2008, co-sponsored by Australian free market think-tank the Institute of Public Affairs.

A quick look at One Nation’s climate change policy shows what we may be in for.

They will oppose any form of carbon pricing and want the Renewable Energy Target abolished. They want all subsidies and financial advantages offered to the renewable energy industry removed to “make them compete on an even playing field with other energy sources” though they seem to be silent about fossil fuel subsidies.

“The wind industry must compensate all residents who have been proven to suffer from Wind Turbine Syndrome and any residents where the presence of wind turbines have negatively effected the price of their home.”

They want to hold a Royal Commission (or similar) into “the corruption of climate science”, review the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO “to ensure independence and accountability “, and to establish an independent Australian science body to replace the UN IPCC.

They also want to “remove from the education system the teaching of a biased and one-sided view of climate science.”

In 2013, Roberts wrote a document titled CSIROh! – Climate of Deception or First Step to Freedom, sent it to everyone he could think of, and challenged them to respond, stating a failure to do so would be taken as endorsement.

This is the response from Ben Cubby, the environment editor at the Sydney Morning Herald

Malcolm-Ieuan,

In considering your request that I identify errors in the report you sent to me – CSIROh! Climate of Deception? Or First Step to Freedom? – I find myself confronting an unusual problem: how does one critically analyse a pile of horse shit?

Even by the exceedingly low standards of Australia’s climate skeptic community, your report is dire. You direct me to Appendix 13. It is littered with errors of all kinds: a mish-mash of muddled conjecture, impossible leaps of logic, fundamental misunderstandings of the scientific method, misread and misquoted research that has been poorly cited, internal contradictions, confused dates, spelling mistakes, and strangled grammar. It is, in all respects, a dud.

I am not going to comply with your demand that I ‘‘identify, specify and justify’’ all the errors in your report. There are too many. However, this should not be read as a reluctance on my part to address your complaints. You will recall that, many months ago, you asked me to provide you with some empirical evidence of human-induced climate change, and I immediately sent you a series of peer-reviewed papers that did just that.

You responded, a month later, after lengthy consultation with your science advisor Tim Ball (not ‘‘Tim Tall’’, as you call him in your report). You advanced an unpublished and frankly bizarre theory about underwater volcanoes. Apparently these hidden volcanoes conveniently rumbled to life at just the right rate to mimic both the rise and isotopic signature of human-generated atmospheric CO2. With theories like this, it is not difficult to see why even other climate skeptics have distanced themselves from your work.

Your report tries to allege that there are factual errors in my reporting. If you honestly believe this, there is a fairly simple way to deal with it: request a correction from the newspaper. Your requests will be independently considered on their merits by people other than me. It is remarkable that you allege thousands of errors, spanning a period of several years, yet have not sought to address them in this straightforward, transparent way.

You demand I declare my ‘‘personal financial interests in advocating the claim that human CO2 should be cut’’. First, I’m not advocating anything in particular, apart from fact-based reporting. Second, I have no financial interest in any industry related to emissions cuts. Nor have I worked for coal companies, as you have.

As I’ve made clear in earlier replies to your many emails, I don’t mind a civil discussion about environment reporting or climate change. But until you start to ground your opinions in fact, I will continue to regard your correspondence as amusing spam.

Watching the Deniers, in a 2013 article about Roberts, made what has turned out to be a prescient warning.

“What I fear in coming years is the rise of a vicious form of right-wing populism, with demagogues riding a tide of conspiracies and hatred to positions of power. Our public debates are toxic enough when it comes to refugees and marriage equality. The climate debate is equally toxic, if not more so.

The work of Roberts falls squarely in the tradition of both conspiracy culture and right-wing populism: for this reason I’m neither laughing nor dismissive.”

From serial pest to Senator – the IPA will be well pleased.

Post Views: 1,797

260 comments

Login here

Register here

geeJuly 5, 2016 at 9:32 am

quelle surpise. a Coal Miner who believes AGW is crap. sounds about the same level of intelligence as Hanson herself. no wonder one of her catch phrases is “please explain”.

Kaye LeeJuly 5, 2016 at 9:58 am

“According to activist group Get Up, eight of the 12 conservatives who lost their seats were “right-wing blockers” who held us back on key issues like climate action” since late 2009, when they first dumped Malcolm Turnbull from the Liberal leadership and replaced him with Tony Abbott.

Get Up named Abbott supporter Andre Nikolic, pro-nuclear advocate Senator Sean Edwards in South Australia, and the independent John Madigan, who chaired the absurd wind farm inquiry in the Senate, as being among its list.

Others noted likely losers were WA Senator Chris Back, Family First Senator Bob Day, and Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm, all of whom have campaigned against wind energy in particular, and climate policies in general.

But it’s not quite as easy as that. While some strong opponents of climate change action and renewable energy are clearly on their way out, others are on their way in.

The Liberal ranks, for instance, include two former policy makers from the Institute of Public Affairs, James Paterson and Tim Wilson, both of whom can be expected to join the right faction.”

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/will-australias-far-right-lose-its-stranglehold-on-climate-policies-30129

Kaye LeeJuly 5, 2016 at 10:11 am

Galileo Movement ‏@GalileoMovement Jul 3
Galileo Movement Retweeted The Australian
Very good odds that we will see Galileo Movement’s Malcolm Roberts as a federal Senator. Climate alarmists beware

Galileo Movement ‏@GalileoMovement 7h7 hours ago
.@MJIBrown You must be shitting yourself when you will be forced to provide empirical evidence to support your gravy train. LOL

Galileo Movement ‏@GalileoMovement 17h17 hours ago
TGM’s Malcolm Robert’s ‘Affordable Energy Policy’ could be implemented by balance of power Senators

“Pauline Hanson’s Mixed Bag

Her economic policies reek of ratbaggery, so let us hope she doesn’t use her Senate clout to revive protectionism and tariffs. On multiculturalism and de-funding Big Climate’s fools and charlatans, however, she is with the angels. No wonder the ABC is already spitting insults.

Roberts is an engineering honors graduate and MBA from Chicago Graduate School of Business. He is a one-time underground-coal miner and project executive, and his primary motive for joining Hanson is the fight against global warmists. The Galileo website says Roberts had been “statutorily responsible for thousands of people’s lives based on his knowledge and real-world experience of atmospheric gases, including carbon dioxide.”

Pauline Hanson’s Mixed Bag

Steve Laing - makeourvoiceheard.comJuly 5, 2016 at 10:59 am

In some respects the very public stage might expose these charlatans to the utter ridicule they deserve. The 1%ers who chose to promote them in order to divert attention from their ongoing destruction of our future (the one that the LNP are always keen to worry about when it comes to their need to return to surplus, and to live within our means, whilst simultaneously wanting individuals to be forced into greater personal housing debt), continue to laugh all the way to the banks, but the more they do it, the more dangerous the world becomes.

Mind you, if you are significantly invested in the arms trade, where is the downside?

Miriam EnglishJuly 5, 2016 at 11:05 am

I wonder what it takes for such closed-minded twits to get some inkling of reality.

The only good thing to come out of this is the amount of egg they’ll be scaping off their stupid faces after another couple of years of accelerating climate change when everybody (except them) will be able to clearly see the change that’s being denied. Unfortunately that means we and the world will be just that much more screwed and there will be an even more costly mess for us and our children to clean up, with far more of our environment irretrievably destroyed.

Maybe the rest of the world will gang up on Australia and force us to grow a few brain cells. That would be nice to see.

I’m normally a very committed optimist, but I seem to be drowning in very dark pessimism…

Kaye LeeJuly 5, 2016 at 11:21 am

Miriam,

There may be a tie in the HoR with 6 crossbenchers – 2 NXT, Bandt, McGowan, Wilkie and Katter. Be disappointed but never be pessimistic – you more than anyone understand the great things that are happening around the world. We must always aim to improve, knowing that we will never be perfect. Keep smiling 🙂

Miriam EnglishJuly 5, 2016 at 11:54 am

🙂 Thanks Kaye.

I have been so incredibly disappointed by the antics of so many in this election and the reaction of the people.

Maybe I need more sleep. I should really be working on my book. I might take a holiday from all this for a month.

You are such a penetrating light Kaye. I have so much to thank you for. I’ve learned an enormous amount from your articles. Many of the writers (and the commenters) here at AIMN provide so much delicious brain food, but I’ve always looked forward most eagerly to yours. Hold the fort, honey.

markJuly 5, 2016 at 11:58 am

Ive been waiting for 17 years to see the global temps increase. How much longer Miriam.

HarquebusJuly 5, 2016 at 12:03 pm

“The last station on Earth without a 400 parts per million (ppm) [CO2] reading has reached it.”
“That’s the first time it’s passed that level in 4 million years (no, that’s not a typo).”
“the planet as a whole has likely crossed the 400 ppm threshold permanently”
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/antarctica-co2-400-ppm-million-years-20451

Even if we stopped all CO2 emissions today, we would still have to endure 40 or so years of climate warming and with positive feedback mechanisms now kicking in, probably a lot longer. The problem is now not how to stop climate change, it is how are we going to survive it?

DuffaJuly 5, 2016 at 12:05 pm

If they provide evidence more than socialist governance of international bankers (whatever that could be) than we should listen but I am arrogant to suggest it will be a while coming

Kaye LeeJuly 5, 2016 at 12:09 pm

You obviously don’t get out much mark. 2015 was the hottest year on record, followed by 2014. Next was 2010 followed by 2013. Since 2000, every single year appears on the hottest 15 years of all time. May 2016 was the warmest May on record for the globe, making it the 13th consecutive warmest month on record. What are you waiting for, godot?

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513

https://weather.com/news/climate/news/record-warmest-may-earth-2016

DavidJuly 5, 2016 at 12:13 pm

When a small percentage of the Queensland population announced to the nation on Saturday, they were candidates for the Darwin Award, by sending Miss Shark n Tatie Hanson to the Senate I have been searching for one topic she will offer a constructive, intelligent contribution to in debate. Given such themes as stupid, dumb, crazy, offensive, racist and similar would offend Standing Orders and as she is not known for expertise in intelligence, I fear I have drawn a blank.

DavidJuly 5, 2016 at 12:18 pm

Mark have you been photographed with a red headed female recently?

Möbius EckoJuly 5, 2016 at 12:22 pm

17 years now. I wish they would make up their mind. In the last while it’s been 9, 12, 16 and 18 years without warming, and all of them wrong. So let’s pick 17, it’s as good a number as the others and fills in the gap between 16 and 18 nicely.

passum2013RonbarnesJuly 5, 2016 at 12:58 pm

Well We Now Know Where Pauline’s money comes from so it looks like Her party will be similar to the Liberal, Nationals with Climate Change

paul walterJuly 5, 2016 at 1:30 pm

So it is a maverick outfit and a problem re enviro. We have seen Mark above apparently subscribe to the theory that climate change is a story, but if he had viewed a recent SBS doco on the big thaw in the northern hemisphere and the likely consequences of the process he would not be so impressed with these frauds.

markJuly 5, 2016 at 1:58 pm

Just going on the available data Paul. It says there is no increase in the global temps in 17 years. Yes 17 Mobius -try to keep up. In fact the predictions now are for a global cooling due to limited action on the sun. Who would have thought that the sun would have any effect on global temps.

paul walterJuly 5, 2016 at 2:52 pm

“None so blind as those who will not see”.

Kaye LeeJuly 5, 2016 at 3:00 pm

mark,

Could you provide the link to your source for that information please. Could you also explain why you choose such a short time frame to discuss climate trends?

markJuly 5, 2016 at 3:01 pm

completely distance myself from your comments,mark.mark

Miriam EnglishJuly 5, 2016 at 3:07 pm

mark (the climate denialist one), who are your references as to lack of warming for 17 years, and being about to go into global cooling? Or do you just make this stuff up to suit your preconceptions?

Haven’t you looked at any of the actual weather records? Have you noticed that the Arctic ice now almost entirely disappears in the summer? In all of previous human history it has never done that. Have you noticed the exponentially increasing speed of ice melt on Greenland? Have you noticed virtually all glaciers all over the world are disappearing? …along with the water supply for large populations of people. Have you noticed the way plants are flowering at odd times now and birds are migrating too soon, with insects out of kilter in their cycles?

I guess not. You’ll have your eyes firmly closed, except when you peruse denialist websites, dismissing all reality-based information. It will be interesting to see how long it takes those of your deluded ilk to wake up.

Climate change is not a linear thing; it is exponential. It begins slowly and goes faster and faster, accelerating over time as feedback systems add more impetus to warming.

Perhaps your love of conspiracy would be better served looking into the fact that scientists working for the fossil fuel industry have admitted that they knew global warming was happening 40 years ago, but were instructed to cover it up, followed by decades of lies and funding of denialists to spread misinformation for the purpose of confusing suckers like you. Where is your annoyance at being deliberately misled?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/12/31/exxons_climate_cover_up_just_got

Justice Department Refers Exxon Investigation Request to FBI

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/11/05/exxon-mobil-under-investigation-for-climate-change-denial

Brad AdamsJuly 5, 2016 at 3:22 pm

MARK, like so many others you MISREAD the report on global temperatures as many many journalists have. (Lack of education of the journalists I suspect). What the reports of the past 18 years have said is: “There has been no increase in the rate of temperature rise over the past 18 years.” So the magic words people like you keep missing is the bit in the middle where it says “in the rate of”. What that means is there has been a STEADY RISE over the last 18 years and that STEADY RISE has not increased. EG. If the rise each year for 18 years was 0.01 of a degree cel then it has been the same every year for 18 years. If that then increased this year to 0.02 degrees that would be a “rise in the rate of temperature increase” as WELL as a rise in temperature. Is that now clear?

PaulJuly 5, 2016 at 5:11 pm

It’s not worth the effort Mark. I’m waiting for enough of these “carbon drives climate” wankers to clump together in great enough numbers to actually turn the energy dial down.

That’s when the laughing starts. It is fossil fuels that gives these dimwits the time and leisure to comment here. The alternatives really aren’t alternatives yet. I’m all for driving my home electricity with a huge solar furnace and insulated molten salt baths. I have the knowledge and expertise to whip that up, but I’d be lying if I said everyone could do it because it’s a hell of a lot more expensive than plugging into your coal powered mainline. That’s the bottom line. They can’t do it for everyone yet, so they’d be consigning a great many people to hardship that they themselves may not have to endure. The worst kind of political pundit: making choices for others that they don’t pay the price for.

Carbon is great for plant life. Plants go bonkers on the stuff. Most of a tree is made of it, and it isn’t taken from the ground. In fact, beside water, very little comes up through the roots. More carbon dioxide means healthier plants. More plant life means mutually reinforcing precipitation patterns.

I love carbon. Carbon is LIFE. Anyone who doesn’t want theirs is perfectly welcome to throw themselves on a bonfire to liberate what they have back into the troposphere for the rest of us.

Kaye LeeJuly 5, 2016 at 5:30 pm

The ignorance is gobsmacking.

“In fact, beside water, very little comes up through the roots.”

Are you telling me the fertiliser industry is one big scam too?

The ProfessorJuly 5, 2016 at 5:49 pm

Dis is very sad news.I have been treating Malcolm now for many years for his psychological delusional disorder along with his OCD. Malcolm is a lovely man deep down inside. Though he has never gotten over loosing his dog when he was 7 and half years old. Hopefully Malcolm can come to terms his tragedy and move on with his life.

@RosemaryJ36July 5, 2016 at 5:50 pm

When I was studying maths at the Imperial College, London (at the time, a hotbed of British Communists), one of my fellow students was a Communist. An argument with him was a circular process where he started off by arguing black was white and ended up arguing that white was black because he refused at all times to admit that he could possible be mistaken! By the way – most of the reds resigned from the British Communist Party when Russia invaded Hungary – a bridge too far.

corvus boreusJuly 5, 2016 at 6:25 pm

Paul,
The fact that plants lay down carbon and store/release water is hardly groundbreaking news.
Nor is the fact that our own island reflects the global trend of a general increase in rates of deforestation.
Removing shade canopy vegetation heats the ground up, and having less water tied up in trees means less regular land weather, to say nothing of the demonstrated role of increased rates of atmospheric carbon in trapping radiant heat.
That is why the clever people are saying that, among other changes needed, we should slow down on leveling forests.

Ps, Despite the fact that even ‘dimwits’ and ‘wankers’ know the basic fact that ‘carbon is good for plants’, average annular tree growth rates have been observed and documented to have been declining (reasons unknown) since the 1960’s, despite the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon theoretically available.

John LordJuly 5, 2016 at 6:30 pm

He really is a shocker this fellow. Why would she believe him when there a many scientists to consult. One can only conclude that she was looking for someone to confirm her own misguided view.

passum2013RonbarnesJuly 5, 2016 at 6:52 pm

To the chap that loves carbon Well take a Co2 Fire extinguisher and Fill a small room with it For an experiment then while in it with all doors and windows closed release the rest of the CO2 breath deeply for enough o2 and turn blue what happened to the Carbon your blue and dead

Miriam EnglishJuly 5, 2016 at 7:16 pm

Paul, the climate denialist, yes, plants do love carbon dioxide, animals not so much.

Have you ever tried eating the produce from plants in an atmosphere with a high concentration of carbon dioxide? You’d be sorely disappointed. You see, carbon dioxide promotes lignin production in the plant. You end up with giant pumpkins, but they’re woody and inedible.

Also, have fun trying to plan crop production when the climate is shifting one year to the next, as it is beginning to do.

MarkJuly 5, 2016 at 7:54 pm

Miriam – one for you.http://joannenova.com.au/2016/06/spotless-sun-again-even-a-little-ice-age-wont-slow-the-man-made-climate-monster/ Also i think you will find that the ice does melt in the summer – surprise surprise , but it came back thicker and more wide spread in the winter.
And one for you Kaye Lee .https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/29/new-uah-lower-troposphere-temperature-data-show-no-global-warming-for-more-than-18-years/
Exactly what time frame would you like to use .

Matters NotJuly 5, 2016 at 8:04 pm

I know when it comes to Nova, one must be conscious of the need to be careful of the legal implications when making any comment.

Nevertheless, when Nova contributes to a proper scientific Journal’, then I will read and comment. Otherwise, she is in the same category as the Bolta.

Shit, the education system (broadly defined) has much to be ashamed of.

Jo Nova as a scientific ‘authority’. ? ? ?. Hilarious!

Vlastimil Brych anyone?

Lord JohnJuly 5, 2016 at 8:43 pm

John Lord :Why would she believe him when there a many scientists to consult.
Loneliness rejected, misguidedness, maddhattered, delusional makes strange bedfellows as misery loves company. That’s why.

Miriam EnglishJuly 5, 2016 at 9:03 pm

Yeah, right, Mark the climate denialist. Waste of time. I don’t understand how you can have your eyes so firmly averted from reality. We break global temperature records every year and you insist the Earth is cooling? Are you stupid?

There is, in fact, the risk of global warming actually causing a sudden ice age for the Northern Hemisphere, but it doesn’t have anything to do with sunspot activity. The rapidly increasing melt of water from Greenland has the potential to stop the northward current of warm water in the west Atlantic. If that happens then global warming could paradoxically trigger a short ice age in Europe and North America. This has happened in the deep past. Of course it won’t affect the Southern Hemisphere. We will continue to cook. And some decades later the warm Atlantic current resumes, the ice covering Europe thaws, and the Northern Hemisphere rejoins the South in warming again. This might not happen, but it is a genuine risk, since it has happened before in the prehistoric past.

The link between the Maunder Minimum (decreased sunspot activity) and climate is pure conjecture. I’ve never even heard of a mechanism proposed. There is much more evidence to indicate the Little Ice Age was caused by four massive tropical volcanic eruptions with atmospheric ash decreasing sunlight, and that triggering changes in oceanic feedback systems that caused the ice age to persist.

Look at this graph of sunspot activity and tell me if you think it looks like we’re entering a sunspot minimum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

leonetwoJuly 5, 2016 at 10:13 pm

I don’t think Hanson will have much ‘senate clout’. She will be a mere backbencher. She certainly won’t be able to implement amny of the things she has been shrieking about, especially not the RC she wants into Islam. Whatevr she puts up will be either knocked back by the senate or killed off in the reps.

i don’t think the woman knows a thing about how the senate works.

HarquebusJuly 5, 2016 at 10:30 pm

The missing temperature increase was taken up by the oceans. This has been known for quite some time now. There was also some miscalibration of scientific instruments which now have been rectified.
Search criteria: warming hiatus absorbed oceans

Kaye LeeJuly 5, 2016 at 10:42 pm

As always, it comes down to the credibility of your sources. Watt was a tv weatherman who has received money from the Heartland Institute. I do not consider him any sort of an expert.

Nova did a B Sc in biology and then became a children’s tv show host. She has no qualifications in climate science at all.

Why would you listen to tv personalities instead of actual climate scientists?

Carl grovesJuly 6, 2016 at 1:45 am

Most of you lot are deluded, “the hottest day on record” is s beat up, how old are you lot,, in ya twenty’s?? If you are older you should wake up to yourselves, gee you were all quick out of the gates to assasinate One Nation AGAIN!!!
WHAT DO YOU LOT DO FOR CRUSTS???

silkwormJuly 6, 2016 at 2:11 am

Jo Nova has also received money from Heartland.

silkwormJuly 6, 2016 at 2:28 am

To all those climate change deniers who deny the greenhouse effect. Come on down to the Uni of NSW and stand in front of their CO2 laser. I will bring the popcorn.

markJuly 6, 2016 at 5:17 am

Just as i thought shoot the messenger rather than confront the message should i remind you all of Flannery who was the head of the climate authority and still some guru on the climate. He has no climate qualifications and is an paleontologist. Jo Nova ans Watt present the evidence gathered from other sources. They dont write the stuff so their background is irrelevant

Miriam EnglishJuly 6, 2016 at 6:06 am

Carl groves, nobody mentioned the hottest day. Hottest years were mentioned. The temperature on days fluctuates dramatically and can be subject to local, temporary phenomena. Longer periods, such as months smooth out what can be short-term, almost random changes. The longer the period considered, the more reliable the data become. Days are almost worthless for discovering trends. Months are better. Years better still. Decades and centuries even better. If you think pointing to individual days means much then you have no idea about what climate is.

As for what we do for crusts, I have to say I wondered the same about you and your climate-change denying pals. Are you being paid to distract with denialist bullshit?

Mark, the climate change denialist, you’re wrong about Tim Flannery. He has a Master of Science degree in Earth Science from Monash University and a doctorate in Palaeontology from the University of New South Wales. In understanding long-term climate change those two fields are very useful.

Anybody who accepts money from corrupt groups like the Heartland Institute immediately loses all credibility. The Heartland Institute is a repellent organisation that has in the past been funded by big tobacco to very successfully deny the known links between cigarettes and cancer, and to instill in people disbelief of the very real evidence. They have applied the exact same methods to their fossil-fuel-funded campaign to muddle and confuse the public’s perception of genuine science regarding climate change. They also do the same to confound the public’s and politicians’ knowledge of the dangers of Coal Seam Gas (CSG) fracking. They are an extremely dangerous group, interested only in short-term money and perfectly happy to metaphorically “eat their children” for the sake of up-front loot. They can be accurately described as “anti-human” since their interests do not align with those of future (or even current) generations of humans.

Dan RowdenJuly 6, 2016 at 7:04 am

WHAT DO YOU LOT DO FOR CRUSTS???

Buy a loaf of bread, like everyone else.

markJuly 6, 2016 at 7:22 am

Miriam -so anyone that has received funding from green groups or left leaning organisations should similarly be rejected.

markJuly 6, 2016 at 7:28 am

Woops – earth science ,are you joking. Anyway ,as i said the people mentioned dont produce the data they just present it. Their affiliations are a red herring.

Kaye LeeJuly 6, 2016 at 8:34 am

mark,

You have fallen prey to the oldest trick in the book. The graph shown in Watts’ article has been deliberately manipulated. They use 1998 as a start year because it was unusually hot. They then use a (comparatively) short time frame and just shove in a flat line. If you truly wanted to see trends look at a graph over a longer time frame.

To claim global warming stopped in 1998 also overlooks a simple physical reality – the land and atmosphere are just a small fraction of the Earth’s climate (albeit the part we inhabit). The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth’s entire heat content. More than 90% of global warming heat goes into warming the oceans, while less than 3% goes into increasing the atmospheric and surface air temperatures.

In 1998, an abnormally strong El Niño caused heat transfer from the Pacific Ocean to the atmosphere. Consequently, we experienced above average surface temperatures. Conversely, the 2000s saw predominantly La Niña conditions, which had a cooling effect on global temperatures. As a result, the warming of atmosphere and surface temperatures temporarily slowed – not cooled, just warming at a slower rate. They’ve now started to speed up again, and the planet as a whole has kept on heating up the whole time.

Andreas BimbaJuly 6, 2016 at 9:36 am

Thanks again Kaye for yet another important article. I also really dislike climate change deniers, xenophobes and racists.

The case of former DLP, Senator for Victoria, John Madigan is an odd one but it is far from rare. Yes he has some strange negative obsession about wind farms and renewable energy and he holds really conservative Catholic views on social issues yet he is genuinely concerned about the well being of Australians, especially the working class and rural people. He is not an ogre or even selfish or incompetent. He must however be ignorant about climate change and the question is, will he learn? If he read Doctor James Hansen’s book ‘Storms of my Grandchildren’ maybe he would recognise his mistaken views. We will see.

One of my roles with the Australian Greens is to promote the cause of a sustainable Australian manufacturing industry and I am well aware that John Madigan has been one of the most determined and effective supporters of the Australian manufacturing industry, along with Nick Xenophon and a few other independents as well as the Greens. We would have lost our steel industry by now without the support of the independent Senators and the Greens, yes the Greens.

The Liberal and National Parties hard right ideologues have been an almost total disaster for the Australian manufacturing industry, more by design than by neglect as it suits the purposes of the mining, banking and bulk rural export sectors that in reality control our nation and its political institutions, and the ALP are effectively the same.

Globalisation, total free trade and the philosophy of neo-liberalism that are still entrenched in both the Coalition and the ALP are a race to the bottom and are a disaster for the bulk of Australia’s manufacturing and associated service industry and the food processing industry. We don’t need totally closed markets nor do we need totally open markets but a middle path of PTAs or Preferential Trade Agreements where some vulnerable industry sectors have moderate tariff protection (not subsidies that come and go) when necessary to ensure survival in a ruthless and highly competitive world. Not all manufacturing areas, for example medical devices and pharmaceuticals, require trade protection but some such as steel, cars and car parts and white goods for example do.

Bob Katter is also an odd case where he is also an effective and genuine fighter for the common man and woman, not just in rural areas, and is a strong supporter of Australian manufacturing and can be seen as an agrarian socialist but again he is a climate change denying, fossil fuel industry supporting dinosaur. Maybe he should also read James Hansen’s book.

Pauline Hanson is quite similar to Katter but exploits the bigotry and xenophobia of many Australians to a much greater extent. This Islamophobia aspect of Pauline Hanson and her party really is disgraceful. But underneath is she a cold hearted bureaucrat, I doubt it. Is she an agent for Gina and the fossil fuel industry at the expense of the common man? I don’t know and we will soon find out.

The real danger in my view is not these colourful characters or even their parties but it is those that continue to promote the cause of the corporate takeover of Australia’s democracy and our steady transition to a feudalistic, corporate, fascist state and they currently control the Liberal, National and Labor Parties. Prove to me that I am wrong if you deny this.

Arrest Rupert Murdoch.

This article is important, it is about the US situation but the same issues apply here:

A thoughtful piece on our dilemma – The chaos of a Hillary Clinton Presidency

Andreas BimbaJuly 6, 2016 at 9:48 am

Kaye, I think most of the global warming heat arising from the atmospheric ‘green house effect’ energy imbalance goes into melting ice. Warming of the oceans is the second biggest heat sink.

Kaye LeeJuly 6, 2016 at 10:32 am

Andreas,

Re FTAs and tariffs, what the Chinese did was include industry protection in their part of the deal.

China has a safeguard clause which allows it to add customs duties to fresh and frozen beef carcasses and meat when Australian beef imports hit a volume trigger of 170,000 tonnes.

“In 2013-14, Australia exported 161,000 tonnes of beef to China worth $787 million,” Mr Fua told the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Treaties.

“The concern here is that given the growth in Australian beef exports to China, which has been exponential in the last few years, the risk here is that the trigger will be reached fairly quickly and China is able to apply extra customs duty which appears to be against the spirit of chapter two [of the FTA],” he said.

Mr Fua said a similar situation applies to Chinese imports of Australian milk and cream solids.

One entire industry, the Australian Fibre Packaging Industry, expects to face a significant increase in competition from Chinese competitors selling to Australia at zero tariffs from day one, while it has no scheduled tariff rate reduction for selling its product into China under the current terms of ChAFTA.

The products that do have tariff reductions for export has them phased in incrementally over a long period whereas import tariffs have been removed immediately.

We did not do well out of the negotiations which were conducted to a timetable rather than a favourable result. The minute Abbott said I want the signature by the end of the year, we lost any chance of a fair deal. No wonder we had Robbexit. He has left the mess for others to deal with.

David1July 6, 2016 at 10:54 am

The Lib trolls are out in numbers, the thrashing they received has upset their equilibrium, always in a delicate state of balance, regardless of what is happening around them

Kaye LeeJuly 6, 2016 at 11:09 am

ANDREW DENTON: Ray Danton actually publicly questioned the statistics on Aboriginal infant mortality as though they might have been made up for some other reason. Now, this is, of course, as you know, one of the great health problems we have in this country. And it wasn’t just what you said…

PAULINE HANSON: There were some radicals that tagged themselves to me. They saw me come along and, you know, this woman came along and they thought there was their platform to go and say whatever they wanted to.

ANDREW DENTON: But he was your Health spokesperson.

PAULINE HANSON: Oh, look, I wouldn’t even know… I don’t even know who he is.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s1203646.htm

Miriam EnglishJuly 6, 2016 at 11:41 am

Mark the climate denialist, yes, if a left-leaning group paid money to people to lie, mislead, and subvert evidence then they should be regarded as tainted, just as the Heartland institute pays millions to people to lie, mislead, and subvert evidence.

You laughed about Tim Flannery’s qualifications in Earth Science. Poor Mark. Just where do you suppose the evidence of past climates is? Yes, that’s right: in the earth — the paleontological record.

Mark, I’d suggest you widen your reading a little beyond the silly climate change denialist websites you currently frequent. Learn a little about the real world.

Pingback: Pauline Hanson is back – and so is Hansonmania | Woolly Days

Will JanoschkaJuly 8, 2016 at 12:08 pm

Have you any measurement not fantasy that would indicate that atmospheric CO2 levels between 300 and 1000 ppmv would have any measurable effect upon surface temperature anywhere on Earth? How might the claims of such be falsified? If a method of falsification of any claimed conjecture is not provided with the conjecture itself there is no science involved whatsoever!

Andreas BimbaJuly 8, 2016 at 12:34 pm

Will and other fighters for the destruction of the earth. Read this if you, can. Otherwise fck off.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648

Kaye Lee. The FTAs were not badly written or even rushed, they achieved the objective of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia and WILL NOT be rescinded by the Australian Labor Party if they ever form government again unless they change course. Is this likely? I doubt it.

The objective of all of these political parties has been defined by sections of the resources industry, the banking/finance industry, the commercial mass media, sections of academia and the bureaucracy that have been cultivated over decades by these same lobbyists, and a few more powerful lobbyists. The dirty corporate money must be removed from Australian politics FIRST or otherwise we are all wasting our time pretending we have a functioning democracy.

My article has some relevance:

Political and economic coup détat in Australia?

Will JanoschkaJuly 10, 2016 at 10:17 am

Andreas BimbaJuly 8, 2016 at 12:34 pm
“Will and other fighters for the destruction of the earth. Read this if you, can. Otherwise fck off”.

I ask Bimba Have you any measurement not fantasy that would indicate that atmospheric CO2 levels between 300 and 1000 ppmv would have any measurable effect upon surface temperature anywhere on Earth?
The mighty Bimba returns with nothing of measurement whatsoever only a link to a 3 year old plos.org religious fantasy by James Hanson (astronomer) referring to “potentially disastrous impacts!”

We assess climate impacts of global warming using ongoing observations and paleoclimate data. We use Earth’s measured energy imbalance, paleoclimate data, and simple representations of the global carbon cycle and temperature to define emission reductions needed to stabilize climate and avoid potentially disastrous impacts on today’s young people, future generations, and nature.

Do you have even one actual measurement of anything; even some fantasy “energy imbalance”? Yes/No? Where is that measurement? Who did that measurement? When was that measurement made? What instrumentation was used to make that measurement?
All the best! -will-

Kaye LeeJuly 10, 2016 at 10:29 am

Will,

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate

W.F.J. Evans, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin

The earth’s climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth’s surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

Andreas BimbaJuly 10, 2016 at 11:19 am

To Will and the other fighters for the destruction of the earth.

If research papers are too challenging for you, can you read a book?

May I suggest you read this one.

Doctor James Hansen’s book ‘Storms of my Grandchildren’.

This book is not that long, is fairly easy to understand and can be easily purchased on Amazon or similar. The book is not the newest material available as he has revised some data but the core message and justification remains sound.

After you have read it, come back with any questions.

Miriam EnglishJuly 10, 2016 at 11:43 am

Will Janoschka, a bit of a dishonest strategy there.

You ask for information on predicting the effect of human-produced greenhouse gasses on the climate, then when you are supplied with that you dismiss it as “fantasy” because it is prediction. This, regardless of all the massive amount of data that went into the preparation of the model. Did you download the 3 spreadsheets at the end of the article, containing centuries of data? Did you examine the graphs in the article? Did you even bother to read the article?

I assume if the prediction had been more in keeping with your hunches and wishful thinking you would not have labelled it “fantasy”.

Doesn’t such personal dishonesty bother you at all, Will? Do you think, maybe you’ve been approaching this wrongly? Do you wonder if wishful thinking is the wrong tool for dealing with the world? That perhaps actual, real evidence might be more useful and safer?

Will JanoschkaJuly 10, 2016 at 11:55 am

Andreas Bimba July 10, 2016 at 11:19 am
“To Will and the other fighters for the destruction of the earth.
If research papers are too challenging for you, can you read a book?
May I suggest you read this one. Doctor James Hansen’s book ‘Storms of my Grandchildren’.”

I ask if you have a measurement and you refuse to even answer, yes or no! Why?

I care not of religious dogma! What has been measured? What has not been measured?

Have you ever met Dr. James Hanson? I have! Why would anyone pay $14 + shipping for a book by Dr. Hanson?
All the best! -will-

Kaye LeeJuly 10, 2016 at 11:56 am

It is all about risk management. The future predictions based on historical data and measurable trends indicate overwhelmingly that we must take action. If consequences turn out not as bad as predicted, we will be in front. If we take no action and the almost universal predictions are even part way true, we are up shit creek. Why take that risk?

Will, I note you ignore the requested and provided empirical evidence.

Tell me, would you pay to hear Lord Monckton speak? I see you are a regular on his speaking partner Jo Nova’s page.

Will Janoschka
July 9, 2016
“If you consider both ocean and atmosphere, it seems 65% deterministic. Cycles within cycles each of the other 7 planets + Earth’s moon each doing its own thing within it own time frame, all the way down to the twice per day ocean and atmospheric tides. Deliberately none synchronized with any other! Why is that? Add the Chaos from no starting point. Then the rest of the universe adding own 2 cents opinion of how it should be! Add less than a 6% statistical variance from thermal effects.
Hundreds of self appointed academic Climate “SCIENTISTS”, with no experience, doing statistical computer modeling to arrive at some global average temperature anomaly, as the only work product! How much does such nonsense cost per microsecond?”

You produce that waffle yet ask others for empirical evidence?

Will JanoschkaJuly 10, 2016 at 12:32 pm

Miriam English July 10, 2016 at 11:43 am

“Will Janoschka, a bit of a dishonest strategy there.You ask for information on predicting the effect of human-produced greenhouse gasses on the climate, then when you are supplied with that you dismiss it as “fantasy” because it is prediction.”

I asked for no such thing! I am not interested in predictions! I ask Bimba Have you any measurement not fantasy that would indicate that atmospheric CO2 levels between 300 and 1000 ppmv would have any measurable effect upon surface temperature anywhere on Earth? That “would have” is not predictive, but instead, mandatory.
Does exist, such physical measurement of some conjectural effect, or not exist? Where is such? What details of such measurement are available? Doesn’t your personal dishonesty and falsification of what I have asked, bother you at all, Miriam? perhaps actual, real evidence might be more useful and safer?
All the best! -will-

Kaye LeeJuly 10, 2016 at 12:41 pm

Testing, testing, is this thing turned on?

Will JanoschkaJuly 10, 2016 at 12:47 pm

Kaye Lee July 10, 2016 at 11:56 am

“It is all about risk management. The future predictions based on historical data and measurable trends indicate overwhelmingly that we must take action.”
You claim some sort of ‘we must’, Are you pregnant, royalty, or just have mice in your pockets? Your so called predictions are faith based religious fantasy, having no physical basis on this planet!
All the best! -will-

Kaye LeeJuly 10, 2016 at 12:59 pm

Phew….you can hear me. So what did you make of the empirical evidence? (and tell me…have you perchance ever been to a Monckton talk?)

Will JanoschkaJuly 10, 2016 at 1:31 pm

Kaye Lee July 10, 2016 at 10:29 am

“Will, We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius)”

Again the arrogant royal we! Are you pregnant, royalty, or just have mice in your pockets? Tyndall did good careful work identifying much of gas spectroscopy. Most all has been carefully, reproduced and verified (measured) under laboratory conditions. Physical (in situ) measurements of EMR flux absorption in this Earth’s gas atmosphere truly contradicts the predictions of the Climate Clowns! Such simplicity never occurs!

“Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.”

What complete babbling BS! The self proclaimed academic scientists you refer to have not a clue as to how ‘measure’ the electrodynamics of this Earth’s atmosphere! All that have attempted such measurement claim (in own dialect), Beats the sh*t out of me. Wad you tink?
All the best! -will-

Will JanoschkaJuly 10, 2016 at 1:40 pm

Kaye Lee July 10, 2016 at 12:59 pm

“Phew….you can hear me. So what did you make of the empirical evidence?”

You have provided nothing empirical! Can you even explain that word to yourself?

” (and tell me…have you perchance ever been to a Monckton talk?)”

Just what might be a “Monckton talk”?

Kaye LeeJuly 10, 2016 at 1:54 pm

empirical – based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation

So what did you think of Evans paper?

I was asking if you had heard Christopher Monckton speak.

Andreas BimbaJuly 10, 2016 at 2:06 pm

Wills comment. “The self proclaimed academic scientists you refer to have not a clue as to how ‘measure’ the electrodynamics of this Earth’s atmosphere!”. Electrodynamics????

There is clearly no point for anyone to continue any communication with Will on the issue of climate change even if it gave some pleasure to expose his ignorance and incompetence.

Miriam EnglishJuly 10, 2016 at 2:34 pm

Will, NASA measures the infrared spectrum directly using satellites and is able to see how CO2 affects global warming.

It is possible to map temperatures globally as well as carbon dioxide produced globally. Also timing of carbon dioxide increases match temperature increases. When you take into account the fact that carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere it is easy to see why these coincide.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/
Compare the temperature graph on page 1 with the carbon dioxide graph on page 2.

Here is a model based on CO2 measurements
https://www.nasa.gov/press/goddard/2014/november/nasa-computer-model-provides-a-new-portrait-of-carbon-dioxide/#.V4HOmoLImCg
And the clincher is temperature maps
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

But of course you’ll dismiss this as fantasy with NASA being involved in some conspiratorial coverup.

Will JanoschkaJuly 10, 2016 at 3:02 pm

Kaye Lee July 10, 2016 at 1:54 pm

“empirical – based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation”

OK Does this rule out anything statistical or computer generated?

“So what did you think of Evans paper?”

Mostly well done technically. Most folk will not appreciate the required rigor!

“I was asking if you had heard Christopher Monckton speak.”

No I have not! I have read some of his writing!

Andreas Bimba July 10, 2016 at 2:06 pm

“Wills comment. “The self proclaimed academic scientists you refer to have not a clue as to how ‘measure’ the electrodynamics of this Earth’s atmosphere!”. Electrodynamics????”

Perhaps I should have used Quantum electrodynamics. The R. Feynman term for trying to get all disparate technical POVs to agree on something, anything!!

Miriam EnglishJuly 10, 2016 at 3:05 pm

Will, your reaction is like being in a car that’s accelerating toward a cliff edge and when people are warning to either put on the brakes or turn to the side you say, “BS! Prove to me that we’re approaching a cliff! I can’t see a cliff.” And you can’t, because shrubbery makes it difficult to see, though you can make out the edge if you look carefully, but you can’t be bothered paying attention. Others point out that we are rushing down a slope that matches the map that they show you. However your response is, “That’s just a blasted map! Prove it to me.” And you’re still racing ahead.

Don’t you think it would be smarter to be careful?

We have one Earth. There really is very good evidence that global warming is being driven by human-generated CO2, but you don’t have to believe it.

There are other important benefits to changing our CO2-producing energy sources for renewable sources that don’t produce CO2. Security is one. Most oil comes from countries that are a political mess (I won’t get into a discussion on how much of that mess is caused by the petroleum corporations). Avoiding it makes the world much, much more secure. Renewable sources such as solar and wind power are largely, by their nature, distributed (making them more reliable), cheaper to install and run, faster to produce and scale up, much safer and less polluting, and they sustain many more skilled jobs. Solar and wind power output fluctuates, but unlike the downtime from fossil-fuel sources failure can be easily forecast.

The world is already buying and installing vastly more renewable energy sources than fossil fuel sources. Fossil fuel plants are largely being decommissioned without being replaced. There are some new fossil fuel energy plants being installed, but they’re dwarfed by new renewable installations.

So, in the end it doesn’t matter what you think. You’re free to deny reality all you want.

Will JanoschkaJuly 10, 2016 at 4:02 pm

Miriam English July 10, 2016 at 2:34 pm

“Will, NASA measures the infrared spectrum directly using satellites and is able to see how CO2 affects global warming.”

The JPL guys try very hard to measure whatever they can remotely measure. While examining the latest batch of numbers, to try to figure out “what the hell were we measuring”,
Folk like Miriam English want fodder to produce the latest new SCAM!

“It is possible to map temperatures globally as well as carbon dioxide produced globally.”

Grand scammer claim with absolutely no physical evidence whatsoever!

“Also timing of carbon dioxide increases match temperature increases.”

They never have, they never will!

“When you take into account the fact that carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere it is easy to see why these coincide”.

Such claim of heat trapping is but part of the larger scam. There is no evidence whatsoever that the components of Earth’s atmosphere can delay any EMR radiative exitance to space.

The obvious exception (but not radiative) is that the 1% atmospheric water in all 5 phases can indeed store/release thermal energy between phase change with no temperature change, equivalent to a 3 degree temperature change in top 100 meters of all oceans. Why not try to hire folk that can consider such, rather than just plagiarizer (with attribution) the last guys work that also demonstrates “not a clue”?
All the best! -will-

Kaye LeeJuly 10, 2016 at 4:14 pm

ummmm….Will, the link I provided before gives exactly that – Surface measurements of downward longwave radiation and Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation.

And then there is this which gives a good summation of the physics of radiative forcing

http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr72.pdf

Miriam EnglishJuly 10, 2016 at 4:28 pm

Will Janoschka is clearly trolling. Each kind of gas has its own absorption and emission spectra. It is not hard to measure carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and NASA has been doing so for years. He obviously hasn’t been looking at any of the links. He isn’t interested. He seems to think it’s some sort of game. “I’ll see how long I can get these suckers dancing by just denying everything out of hand.” He’s a fool.

Will JanoschkaJuly 10, 2016 at 5:55 pm

Kaye LeeJuly 10, 2016 at 4:14 pm

“ummmm….Will, the link I provided before gives exactly that – Surface measurements of downward longwave radiation and Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation.
And then there is this which gives a good summation of the physics of radiative forcing”

You seem to have no capability for distinguishing between measurement of radiant intensity ( a potential) and the measurement of radiative flux ( the power transfer). Back in 1912 Planck’s time, there was no word distinction, all was called ‘radiation’. However all trying to understand such the clear distinction in measurement or meaning was inherent in the writing or discussion. The low temperature detectors on down looking spacecraft actually measure the received flux from the higher temperature surface/sky! Looking upward from the surface the outward flux at any frequency/wavelength band must be reduced by the surround opposing “radiative intensity” of the atmosphere at every frequency, and in each direction.. The difference in surface ‘can be’ flux v.s. ‘is’ outward flux is the difference between two measurable radiative potentials. The deliberate.scammers call the lower sky opposing radiative intensity down-welling radiation with some ability to increase surface temperature fictionally creating undefined surface ‘warming’ (whatever that may be). On and on goes this perpetual scam for financial or political gain!
All the best! -will-

Miriam EnglishJuly 10, 2016 at 6:00 pm

I can show he’s trolling with a simple challenge:

More than 97% of scientists agree about about anthropogenic global warming. You say it’s a fantasy. Prove you’re right.

Miriam EnglishJuly 10, 2016 at 6:11 pm

“on goes this perpetual scam for financial or political gain”
And we come to heart of his conspiratorial delusion: scientists say there’s global warming to get grant money (despite mass firings of outspoken climate scientists in USA and Australia and the fossil fuel industry handing out easy money to anybody who’ll help them muddy the waters).

Will JanoschkaJuly 10, 2016 at 6:23 pm

Miriam English July 10, 2016 at 6:00 pm

“I can show he’s trolling with a simple challenge:More than 97% of scientists agree about about anthropogenic global warming. You say it’s a fantasy. Prove you’re right.”

I have no need to prove anything! I only politely asked if you have measurement of your claims.
I likely am not right, left, up, down, nor sideways, but you refuse to answer my question of having some measurement. A 97% agreement of fake scientists is worlds apart from some measurement! 🙂

Kaye LeeJuly 10, 2016 at 6:27 pm

The increase in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases has increased the amount of infrared radiation absorbed and re-emitted by these molecules in the atmosphere. The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation, which is then re-radiated away from the surface as thermal radiation in infrared wavelengths. Some of this thermal radiation is then absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and re-emitted in all directions, some back downwards, increasing the amount of energy bombarding the Earth’s surface. This increase in downward infrared radiation has been observed through spectroscopy, which measures changes in the electromagnetic spectrum.

The increased greenhouse effect is also confirmed by NASA’s IRIS satellite and the Japanese Space Agency’s IMG satellite observing less longwave leaving the Earth’s atmosphere.

The increased energy reaching the Earth’s surface from the increased greenhouse effect causes it to warm.

Miriam EnglishJuly 10, 2016 at 6:38 pm

I’m probably wasting my breath…

from http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm

When presented with the overwhelming evidence that the planet is warming, many people react by asking “but how can we be sure that we’re causing the warming?” It turns out that the observed global warming has a distinct human fingerprint on it.

In climatology, as in any other science, establishing causation is more complicated than merely establishing an effect. However, there are a number of lines of evidence that have helped to convince climate scientists that the current global warming can be attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions (in particular CO2). Here are just some of them:
The first four pieces of evidence show that humans are raising CO2 levels:

* Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.
* Oxygen levels are falling as if carbon is being burned to create carbon dioxide.
* Fossil carbon is building up in the atmosphere. (We know this because the two types of carbon have different chemical properties.)
* Corals show that fossil carbon has recently risen sharply.

Another two observations show that CO2 is trapping more heat:

* Satellites measure less heat escaping to space at the precise wavelengths which CO2 absorbs.
* Surface measurements find this heat is returning to Earth to warm the surface.

The last four indicators show that the observed pattern of warming is consistent with what is predicted to occur during greenhouse warming:

* An increased greenhouse effect would make nights warm faster than days, and this is what has been observed.
* If the warming is due to solar activity, then the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) should warm along with the rest of the atmosphere. But if the warming is due to the greenhouse effect, the stratosphere should cool because of the heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere). Satellite measurements show that the stratosphere is cooling.
* This combination of a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere should cause the tropopause, which separates them, to rise. This has also been observed.
* It was predicted that the ionosphere would shrink, and it is indeed shrinking.

(References for all of these findings can be found here.)

Often one hears claims that the attribution of climate change is based on modeling, and that nobody can really know its causes. But here we have a series of empirical observations, all of which point to the conclusion that humans are causing the planet to warm.

Will JanoschkaJuly 10, 2016 at 7:01 pm

Kaye Lee July 10, 2016 at 6:27 pm

“The increase in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases has increased the amount of infrared radiation absorbed and re-emitted by these molecules in the atmosphere.”

All you offer is religious fantasy!!! Measured CO2 goes up from 300-1000 ppmv. Measured surface temperature somewhere goes from aC to bC. Measured CO2 returns from 1000 ppmv to 300 ppmv. Measured surface temperature same somewhere goes returns from bC back to aC, a possible repeatable measurement. All else must be fantasy with intent to deceive!!!

Again I ask, Have you any measurement not fantasy that would indicate that atmospheric CO2 levels between 300 and 1000 ppmv would have any measurable effect upon surface temperature anywhere on Earth? Yes or no? Where is such measurement!

Miriam EnglishJuly 10, 2016 at 7:04 pm

Will Janoschka wrote: “You seem to have no capability for distinguishing between measurement of radiant intensity ( a potential) and the measurement of radiative flux ( the power transfer). Back in 1912 Planck’s time, there was no word distinction, all was called “radiation”. However all trying to understand such the clear distinction in measurement or meaning was inherent in the writing or discussion. The low temperature detectors on down looking spacecraft actually measure the received flux from the higher temperature surface/sky! Looking upward from the surface the outward flux at any frequency/wavelength band must be reduced by the surround opposing “radiative intensity” of the atmosphere at every frequency, and in each direction.. The difference in surface “can be” flux v.s. “is” outward flux is the difference between two measurable radiative potentials. The deliberate.scammers call the lower sky opposing radiative intensity down-welling radiation with some ability to increase surface temperature fictionally creating undefined surface “warming” (whatever that may be).”

I call this out as double-speak bullshit.

Miriam EnglishJuly 10, 2016 at 7:14 pm

Will Janoschka, the only one with clear intent to deceive here is you. You’ve been given data that you’ve refused to look at and simply called fantasy. Your only recourse has been to gibberish and paranoid conspiracy theory. It’s a waste of time attempting to show you anything.

Will JanoschkaJuly 10, 2016 at 7:17 pm

Miriam English July 10, 2016 at 7:04 pm

( ” Will Janoschka wrote: “You seem to have no capability for distinguishing between measurement of radiant intensity ( a potential) and the measurement of radiative flux ( the power transfer). Back in 1912 Planck’s time, there was no word distinction, all was called “radiation”. However all trying to understand such the clear distinction in measurement or meaning was inherent in the writing or discussion.” )

” I call this out as double-speak bullshit.”

You can call out whatever you wish! Do you have any measurement or not?

Will JanoschkaJuly 10, 2016 at 7:21 pm

Miriam EnglishJuly 10, 2016 at 7:14 pm

“Will Janoschka, the only one with clear intent to deceive here is you. You’ve been given data that you’ve refused to look at and simply called fantasy. Your only recourse has been to gibberish and paranoid conspiracy theory. It’s a waste of time attempting to show you anything”.

Do you have any measurement or not?

Miriam EnglishJuly 10, 2016 at 8:15 pm

Yes, Will. It has already been shown to you and you refuse to see it.
Here is a link to single graph so that you don’t have to read through an article:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_temp_1964_2008.gif
(Caption: Atmospheric CO2 (parts per million, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and Global Temperature Anomaly (°C Goddard Institute for Space Studies) from 1964 to 2008.)

Kaye LeeJuly 11, 2016 at 5:31 am

Miriam,

It is obvious that Will isn’t asking a question….he is delivering a script.

Miriam EnglishJuly 11, 2016 at 7:46 am

Yes, I think you’re right. 🙂

I have to say, Kaye, I was amazed by and admire your evenness of response. When I was expressing my annoyance with him and lowering my replies to reflect that, you were continuing to control your reactions amazingly. Kudos.

AndyG55July 11, 2016 at 8:10 am

roflmao..

Using SkS as a science reference.. quite funny..

lets have a look at some reality using UAH temperatures rather than the SKS fabricated temperatures.

Each of these can be verified from the UAH data source..

1. No warming in the UAH satellite record from 1980 to 1998 El Nino

2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015.

3. No warming in the southern polar region for the whole 38 years of the satellite record.

4. No warming in the southern ex-tropicals for 20 years.

5. No warming in Australia for 20 years, cooling since 2002

6. No warming in Japan surface data for the last 20 years, No warming from 1950-1990.. zero trend for 40 years

7. No warming in the USA since 2005 when a non-corrupted system was installed, until the beginning of the current El Nino.

8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979 1997, the no warming from 2001 – 2015

9. Iceland essentially the same temperature as in the late 1930s as now, maybe slightly lower

10. Southern Sea temperatures not warming from 1982 2005, then cooling

11. Even UAH NoPol shows no warming this century until the large spike in January 2016.

That is DESPITE a large climb in CO2 levels over those periods.

There IS NO CO2 WARMING effect.

The ONLY real warming has come from ElNino and ocean circulation effects.

Sorry, but the REAL data is very much against any CO2 warming effect.

Unfortunately the ocean cycles have switched, and the Sun looks like going into a longish snooze.

The planet is most likely heading into a colder period.

Will you cling to your erroneous understandings and worship of John Cook’s cartoon site? ?

Or wake up to reality?

Time will tell.

Kaye LeeJuly 11, 2016 at 8:20 am

Skeptical science links to peer-reviewed papers. It is an excellent source.

Miriam EnglishJuly 11, 2016 at 8:34 am

Huh? Another climate science denier? I wonder where they’re coming from.

The University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) satellite data has been shown to have a number of errors. (But then you’re just copying what someone else said and probably don’t even know what UAH stands for, let alone the contents of the data.) They neglected to allow for a number of variables. These have been included in later information.

As for the specific points you raise, AndyG55, most are pure lies and don’t even bear answering. (“No warming in Australia for 20 years, cooling since 2002” had me laughing aloud! Did you even read what you pasted in?)

A couple of points rely upon cherrypicking small runs of data and ignoring the larger sequence in order to deliberately misinterpret the data. Look at the graph I linked to earlier — of course you won’t — but if you did you’d see that there are small periods when, in normal fluctuation the temperature cools, but over the longer period the temperature is quite dramatically rising.

As for imputing the reliability of http://www.skepticalscience.com perhaps you’d like to note the qualifications of the team who run the site. They are scientists who have expertise in the actual subject being discussed:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php

What “reliable” source are you pasting your reply in from?

Kaye LeeJuly 11, 2016 at 8:37 am

I am wondering why you are so reliant on the University of Alabama. They don’t believe in evolution either.

All of the world’s 10 warmest years have occurred since 1998. 2015 is the 39th consecutive year with above-average global temperatures.

Having just perused Andy’s rubbish on another site (where he made the exact same comment), I doubt that any facts are going to permeate his belief that the world is cooling.

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/06/atmospheric-temperatures-plummeting-at-a-record-pace/

AndyG55July 11, 2016 at 8:59 am

SkS is a base-line propaganda site, containing just enough science to suck in the gullible and the scientifically illiterate.

Mirriam,

If you have the capability, you can download the UHA data and VERIFY every fact I have posted.

Or you can avoid looking at the actual data.

Your call.

The next few years will be a wake up call to you and you can “belief”

Now for the Australia data….

https://s19.postimg.org/bxtzcefub/Australia_20_years.png

ZERO trend for 20 years, and from 2002 there are 3 distinct downward trends broken with single jumps in 2009, 2012, and now 2016, each of which was a ocean cooling event.

The data is NOT your friend.

Kaye LeeJuly 11, 2016 at 9:05 am

I would trust NASA a long way in front of creationist deniers. I would also trust the BoM in front of UAH for Australian data.

Kaye LeeJuly 11, 2016 at 9:29 am

Dear oh dear….things become a little clearer. It seems Andy is relying on the latest push from the Heartland Institute.

http://blog.heartland.org/2016/04/be-prepared-for-latest-uah-satellite-global-temperature-data/

And another disturbing graph from the BoM. Sorry to disagree Andy but real data is certainly our friend. You need to be more discerning about your sources.

Glen MichelJuly 11, 2016 at 10:05 am

Weather balloon data backs up UAH data.No warming of lower troposphere.In any event,the issue should be debated as to what influences climate-that has been denied to dissidents up to this point.My money is on atmospheric/oceanic interplay- not carbon dioxide;or carbon as so many conflate.

AndyG55July 11, 2016 at 10:16 am

Seems Katy is relying on data specifically adjusted to carry the AGW meme.

To be expected though… REALITY is not an alarmist trait.

The surface data is often sparse, erratic in availability (huge numbers of sites became inactive during the supposed steepest warming… by choice, no doubt), of unknown condition and reliability, often highly tainted by UHI effects and highly tainted by unwarranted “adjustments”…

They are the epitome of junk science, hence the mainstay of “climate science™”

You too could download the actual real data, if you were capable. Matches RSS very well,

And a sample validation against the only untainted surface data in the world (USCRN) shows that UAH, RSS, USCRN have exactly the same trend. UAH also matches balloon data. Satellite data is scientifically validated.
End of story. Even Katy might have enough basic maths to understand sample validation.

You do know that the current solar cycle is less active than cycles 5 and 6, which lead up to the Dalton minimum, don’t you?

Not on SkS ? oh dear. !

Anyway, it will be hilarious to watch the alarmiasta wiping the egg off their faces over the next several years as global temperatures start to trend downwards. 🙂

Have fun… bring a big towel.

Good bye. 🙂

AndyG55July 11, 2016 at 10:19 am

Trouble with BOM is that it shows very little relationship to real original data.

Its a homogenized mess.

Kaye LeeJuly 11, 2016 at 10:29 am

The next time you hear someone say it isn’t warming, or it hasn’t warmed for “xx” years, or “it’s actually cooling,” remember: someone is trying to deceive you with cherry-picked numbers.

You will find the data tables linked below the graphs and explanations of where it came from

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/

You can also find data from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Sciences, NOAA’s National Climate Data Center, and the UK’s Met Office Hadley Center

Miriam EnglishJuly 11, 2016 at 10:37 am

Looks like IPA, their fossil fuel backers, and their easily led zombies have targeted AIMN. I guess we can expect more of this nonsense while the LNP remain in power. It’s going to be a dreary 3 years.

It will be interesting to see how these hired idiots spin the data when it’s no longer plausible even to someone with heavy blinders on. We will then have more absurdities along the lines of “Yes, it’s warming, but humans aren’t causing it.” We’re already starting to get that from some.

It would be depressing if there wasn’t such a concerted move around the world to drop fossil fuels. Coal companies are thankfully going broke in great numbers, and when the psychopaths that run them use shell companies to get out of paying workers and to avoid cleaning up their sites they’re causing increasing bad feeling against them. Meanwhile a vast amount of money is pouring into renewables in an investment boom. But Australia, with our short-sighted, fossil-fuel-beholden government (and I include the ALP in that), is largely missing out on this bonanza.

These fossil-fuel-funded, wilfully blind, deniers of reality really matter very little in the larger scheme of things. This government of inept, corrupt halfwits will pass. Murdoch will die or have his propaganda megaphone taken away from him (I’d love to see him suffer the latter long before he dies). The easily-led empty-headed deniers are on the wrong side of history. Sure, Australia will be heavily screwed by them and their ilk, and they will do their damnedest to slow down the gathering tsunami of change to renewables, but it’s now clear that they won’t succeed.

Matters NotJuly 11, 2016 at 10:38 am

“We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.”.[

Give up. It’s all down to God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence . And so it goes. ? ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

Kaye LeeJuly 11, 2016 at 10:42 am

The U.S. Climate Change Science Program produced a study in April 2006 on this topic. Lead authors included John Christy of UAH and Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Labs. The first page has this quote:

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming… This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.”

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/tmlw0602.pdf

June 2016 was 2nd warmest June in satellite record
Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.12 C per decade

http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2016/june/june2016GTR.pdf

Kaye LeeJuly 11, 2016 at 11:25 am

To anyone tempted to believe the denier arguments, ask yourself why they choose 1998 as a start year? Most climactic measurements look at a cycle of 30 years but even if you were looking at decades, why 1998? Why not use 1990 or 2000? Why do they select time periods of a decade or so when we have records for much longer?

They also use the scattergun approach of pseudoscience misquoting references (as seen above) to distract and wear you out, demanding that, rather than prove your case, you must disprove theirs, and when you do, they fly off to another wild and well-rehearsed claim.

As Ben Cubby said, “How do you critique a pile of horse shit?”

JillJuly 11, 2016 at 2:33 pm

Go Mark, Paul and others. How people love to fall in to a popular line. I wonder how much money the GW enthusiasts think will have to be placed as a sacrifice to make things better. Surely throwing money at it will just make things harder for everyone, and no difference to what you believe to be a problem. I don’t think we can do much about the sun. Worry about something you can make a difference to.

Kaye LeeJuly 11, 2016 at 2:51 pm

Jill,

This isn’t a footie match or a popularity contest. You are correct in saying we can’t do anything about the sun but we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth’s climate, the sun has a strong influence on climate. A comparison of sun and climate over the past 1150 years found temperatures closely match solar activity (Usoskin 2005). However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. This led the study to conclude, “…during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.”

Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) found that from 1979 to 2010, solar activity had a very slight cooling effect of between -0.014 and -0.023°C per decade.

Lean and Rind (2008) found that while solar activity can account for about 11% of the global warming from 1889 to 2006, it can only account for 1.6% of the warming from 1955 to 2005, and had a slight cooling effect (-0.004°C per decade) from 1979 to 2005.

Miriam EnglishJuly 11, 2016 at 3:29 pm

Jill, judging by what’s been happening elsewhere, in more enlightened parts of the world there’s actually money to be made out of renewable sources of energy. Oil companies pour millions of their profits into funding climate change denying websites, and funding people who will happily fudge their results for money, and funding climate change denialist lobbyists in Canberra, but their investors have seen the writing on the wall and are quietly abandoning them. As the bottom falls out of coal, and giant coal companies go broke in rapid succession, as people understand the incontrovertible facts of climate change, despite the the deniers’ attempts to muddy them, people are instead investing in renewable energy and finding that there’s a bonanza there.

We are past peak oil, so we really have no choice; the oil companies always scared the willies out of everybody by saying that renewable energy was too expensive to contemplate (while pocketting billions in subsidies on top of their billions in profits), but it’s turned out that wind power is less costly than even coal — which is the cheapest fossil fuel, and the cost of solar power is plummetting as more and more people take it up, which people are doing faster than they embraced mobile phones! It is on track to become even cheaper than wind power. Both are quicker and easier to deploy than any fossil fuel source and this has certainly caught the eye of investors.

There is enormous potential here in Australia to take advantage of these, but our idiot politicians have been bribed by fossil fuel companies to ignore them. All that sunlight outback and all that wind on the coastline, where the bulk of our population lives.

So argue all the bullshit you want Jill. If this was a footie match, you’d be well and truly on the losing side. You’d do well to widen your reading beyond one-eyed climate change denialist web sites.

Matters NotJuly 11, 2016 at 4:01 pm

What happens when a group of ‘sceptics’ turns their attention to the ‘claims’ of global warming and its causes. Richard Muller, founder of Berkeley Earth, asserted:

we are bringing the spirit of science back to a subject that has become too argumentative and too contentious, ….we are an independent, non-political, non-partisan group. We will gather the data, do the analysis, present the results and make all of it available. There will be no spin, whatever we find. We are doing this because it is the most important project in the world today. Nothing else comes close

Apparently a man of good scientific research repute as were other dozen or so members of the team. Even the Charles G. Koch Foundation stumped up some dollars to support the work. When the study team was announced, Anthony Watts, a blogger who popularized several of the issues addressed by the Berkeley Earth group study, expressed full confidence in the team’s methods:

I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. … [T]he method isn’t the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU, and, there aren’t any monetary strings attached to the result that I can tell. … That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet.

So the study proceeded. Without detailing the findings which you can ‘Google’, Muller said:

“Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”

Would you believe that Muller stated: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

Mugged by reality.

But for ‘deniers’, it matters not.

AndyG55July 11, 2016 at 6:22 pm

I’ll come back in a couple of years, and bring a big rag so you can wipe the egg off your face

Meanwhile here are some RAW data graphs for some Aussie sites that are not affected by too much UHI.

https://s19.postimg.org/thunh848j/AMBERLEYAMO_AS_Mean_Temperature_Jan_Dec_1895_2015.pn

https://s19.postimg.org/4pv19zn1v/DENILIQUIN_WILKINSO_AS_Average_Mean_Temperature_Ja.png

https://s19.postimg.org/bucuj0ub7/ALICESPRINGSPOSTO_AS_Average_Mean_Temperature_Jan.png

https://s19.postimg.org/oa9kcrnn7/BATHURSTGAOL_AS_Average_Mean_Temperature_Jan_Dec_1.png

https://s19.postimg.org/b7dxthxf7/PATERSON_TOCALAWS_AS_Average_Mean_Temperature_Jan.png

Enjoy.

REAL DATA is not the friend of the gullible AGW “believer”

Kaye LeeJuly 11, 2016 at 6:25 pm

Are you seriously offering graphs from single towns now to refute global data? What was the source of those graphs? I would like to see what other towns show.

Oh for heavens sake. I just looked up Bathurst gaol…it stopped doing temp reading in 1983, Deniliquin in 2001.. The Alice Springs data stops in 1954. The Amberley data shows page not found. What is the point of showing us that???? Is that your REAL data? I am so laughing right now.

Matters NotJuly 11, 2016 at 6:52 pm

Went to the link re the ‘Alice’. It terminates in 1953 or thereabouts. Really, really up-to-date. Hilarious!

Amberley doesn’t link.

Bathurst data ends in the last century also.

I gave up at that point because I realised you were ‘taking the piss’. Sorry I was sucked in.

But you have me convinced. ? (Walks slowly backward – conscious that most Americans are usually armed. And react violently when challenged.) ? ? ?

Kaye LeeJuly 11, 2016 at 6:55 pm

MN,

Ima guessing he usually goes to pages where people don’t look at his links – and I can see why.

Speaking of links….this is one of my favourites from “Australia’s fave Lord” I think Andy may have read it.

http://o.b5z.net/i/u/10152887/f/Setting_the_Climate_Council_Straight_about_their_propaganda.pdf

AndyG55July 11, 2016 at 6:56 pm

ps.. on a parting note, I’m not surprised y’all are so scared of Malcolm Roberts getting into the Senate.

Imagine if he was able to push through a proper independent investigation into BOM’s temperature “adjustments”

pps.

So easy to suck you guys into making fools of yourself

…. you do realise that the data is GHCN data.. the stuff they pretend to use for the global temperature.. don’t you ?????

So hilarious watching you splash around in the mudpit you have built for yourselves. 🙂

Kaye LeeJuly 11, 2016 at 7:05 pm

I will look forward greatly to watching Malcolm Roberts ask questions in Senate Committees. It should be a hoot. A total waste of time and resources – but sure to be entertaining.

I wish you’d stay Andy – it has been enlightening. Probably not in the way you think but interesting nevertheless and I enjoy the practice 🙂

Matters NotJuly 11, 2016 at 7:06 pm

so scared of Malcolm Roberts getting into the Senate

Not really. I’m sure he will provide comic relief. Just imagine anyone with serious intent providing support for Roberts. (Out of the mouths of babes.)

As for:

able to push through a proper independent investigation into BOM’s temperature “adjustments”

You never learn. That was tried with Muller. And look how that turned out. ? ? ?

See above.

As for ‘cherry-picking’ data, it seems your speciality. Well at least there’s consistency.

Kaye LeeJuly 11, 2016 at 7:12 pm

“All scientific work at the Bureau is subject to expert peer review. Almost all of our methodologies are published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The associated publications are available widely.

In 2012 the Bureau of Meteorology completed an extensive and dedicated international peer review, through a panel of world-leading experts, of its preparation of observational temperature data for Australia.

That review ranked the Bureau’s procedures and data analysis as amongst the best in the world, and the results of this review have been published.”

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/

Matters NotJuly 11, 2016 at 7:17 pm

a panel of world-leading experts

Was Malcolm Roberts on the panel? Just jokin …

PS, the historical evidence suggests that AndyG55 will be back. And soon. They’re like that.

Matters NotJuly 11, 2016 at 7:30 pm

Just for the record. Malcolm Roberts has been ‘peer reviewed’ but only by that eminent climate expert – Pauline Hanson.

As an aside, I don’t think Roberts will get to share in the $1.2 million that Pauline ‘jagged’ because when it comes to the $$$, Pauline is without ‘peer’.

RossleighJuly 11, 2016 at 7:54 pm

You can always pick those not interested in the science.
They’re abusive, arrogant, cocky and sure.
They take advantage of the fact that any true scientist will qualify their answers, change their answers as the evidence changes and alter their predictions.
The idiot will take this as proof that they weren’t sure to begin with so that means that because some scientists have made a slight alteration to their prognostications that they didn’t know what they were talking about and it’s us – the people who never change their mind even when the evidence is against us because we all know that the data is fabricated and we don’t believe it, unless it seems to back up our case – that are right and we’ve been right all along because we never waver, or even stop to doubt ourselves. And so we can scoff at the bedwetters who try to argue that smoking cause cancer and happily light up because those doctors aren’t 100% sure, and Auntie Lizzy smoked a packet a day for forty years and she was killed when a car hit her, not because of smoking, God, she was as fit as a fiddle and would have lived to 130!

judyryan46July 11, 2016 at 8:10 pm

Wake up you Silly Billy’s. Go here. http://bit.ly/29sCHZ3 Follow the links to the historical evidence and the simple maths. I dare you to open your eyes

Will JanoschkaJuly 11, 2016 at 10:16 pm

Matters NotJuly 11, 2016 at 7:17 pm

(“a panel of world-leading experts”)

A panel of world-leading Climate Clowns with zero experience in compressible fluid dynamics! Hog trough academics!

“Was Malcolm Roberts on the panel? Just jokin …”

No, Malcolm Roberts, was excluded “for not chanting proper ritual”!
Malcolm Roberts, Did write several papers with some scientific credibility!

Kaye LeeJuly 11, 2016 at 11:03 pm

Will, could you please link to one of Malcolm’s peer reviewed papers. Could you also tell me who reviewed the BoM – the people you dismiss as clowns – so I can check their credentials for myself.

Matters NotJuly 11, 2016 at 11:13 pm

I knew they would be back. As for:

Malcolm Roberts, Did write several papers with some scientific credibility!

some scientific credibility? In whose estimation? Stop! No need to respond. Pauline provides the imprimatur.

I really can’t believe that they keep digging when their black hole of ‘knowledge’ is so obvious.

Please provide links to Roberts’ papers.

Kaye LeeJuly 11, 2016 at 11:26 pm

Judy I read through your letter. Could I ask what type of a doctor you are because the naivity shown in that letter is gobsmacking. Why are you using data from 2001 when there is much more up to date data for starters? If you are any sort of a scientist you will understand about balanced systems and saturation points. Remember buretting? Dr Dargaville gave you a very good explanation. You should read it because if you had, you wouldn’t be wasting your time sending out 5,000 copies of your “calculations”.

While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2. A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.

Matters NotJuly 11, 2016 at 11:30 pm

Then there’s judyryan46 who links to the Galileo Movement.

I believe she’s given me a ‘movement’ of sorts.

It’s effing unbelievable.

I must away. My ‘crap’ detector needs a rest.

Matters NotJuly 11, 2016 at 11:41 pm

BTW, If you follow Judy’s link to the conclusion (including the footnote) you will read that the meaning given to her ‘evidence’ has been repudiated by the person cited.

When will they ever learn?

Will JanoschkaJuly 12, 2016 at 12:44 am

Kaye LeeJuly 11, 2016 at 11:03 pm

“Will, could you please link to one of Malcolm’s peer reviewed papers.”

Sure: http://www.climate.conscious.com.au/docs/new/CSIROh_18.3.2013.pdf

Although Malcolm gives to much credit to the intelligence of his identified controlling cabal, They certainly have the money and political power to fully engage all that get trapped by the Church of the Anthropogenic! This includes all the chior members posting here! Please download all the references and appendices. Please report any errors!
The paper is fully peer reviewed by most of the engineering community that are actually employed, not feeding at government trough! We all agree that Malcolm overrates the intelligence of those feeding on public funding! These are the same engineers that have to deal with this Earth’s atmosphere and have both the fluid-dynamics and electrodynamics experience to do just that!

“Could you also tell me who reviewed the BoM – the people you dismiss as clowns – so I can check their credentials for myself”.

Your BOM site has the list of all their reviewers. See if you can find even one that is not fully bought by government funds! That is not a Climate Clown!

markJuly 12, 2016 at 2:24 am

Pestilent climate denier.Be alert.mark

Will JanoschkaJuly 12, 2016 at 3:55 am

Matters Not July 11, 2016 at 11:41 pm

“When will they ever learn?”

The individual posters here have no illusion that any member of the Choir of The Church of the Anthropogenic has had, or will have, any ability to LEARN!

Kaye LeeJuly 12, 2016 at 6:49 am

Will,

You linked to the paper that I had already referred to in the article that has been described as a load of horse shit.

If Malcolm the engineer wants to be taken seriously as an expert on climate change, I would suggest he drops this line……

“The objective is global control through global socialist governance by international bankers hiding control behind environmentalism”.

That was even too crazy for Andrew Bolt.

The idea that climate scientists and scientific organisations and universities all around the world are in cahoots to lie about the science is just ludicrous. Do you have any idea how much the Koch brothers would pay someone who could actually disprove global warming?

How come everyone who claims climate change is a hoax has worked or is working in mining? How come they all have a connection to the Heartland Institute? Who funds the Heartland Institute? If we are going to talk self-interest here it seems quite a coincidence don’t you think?

PS Remember the Heartland Institutes campaign telling us smoking isn’t harmful to your health? Anyone connected to that place cannot be considered a credible source. They are mouths for hire.

Möbius EckoJuly 12, 2016 at 7:17 am

Ah the fall back to it being a religion. Argument lost, not the least reason being that it’s axiomatic the deniers are running on faith, not the advocates.

The fall back to it being a global conspiracy. Argument lost, not the least on the sheer ludicrousness of it

Kaye LeeJuly 12, 2016 at 7:27 am

Even George Pell considers himself an expert on climate change. He has made submissions to Senate Committees and given talks overseas on how it is all a hoax despite him never having studied anything other than theology.

“Some of the hysteric and extreme claims about global warming are also a symptom of pagan emptiness, of Western fear when confronted by the immense and basically uncontrollable forces of nature. Belief in a benign God who is master of the universe has a steadying psychological effect, although it is no guarantee of Utopia, no guarantee that the continuing climate and geographic changes will be benign. In the past pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.”

“Radical environmentalists are more than up to the task of moralising their own agenda and imposing it on people through fear. They don’t need church leaders to help them with this, although it is a very effective way of further muting Christian witness. Church leaders in particular should be allergic to nonsense….. I am certainly sceptical about extravagant claims of impending man-made climatic catastrophes. Uncertainties on climate change abound … my task as a Christian leader is to engage with reality, to contribute to debate on important issues, to open people’s minds, and to point out when the emperor is wearing few or no clothes.”

Church leaders should be allergic to nonsense? That could cause conflict. I just love that George the Catholic Cardinal thinks it is environmentalists “moralising their own agenda and imposing it on people through fear.” What does he think religion does?

Miriam EnglishJuly 12, 2016 at 8:17 am

Will, still harping on about the evil government trying to impose draconian global warming inspired restrictions upon us?

Are you not aware that our government is hostile to the research findings of human-caused climate change? Doing genuine research on climate change and speaking publicly about it gets you fired by this government. If you want bundles of money from this government the easiest way is to spout climate denialist nonsense.

So much for the government-funded evil conspiracy of global warming.

I guess from this that you’re not even in Australia, Will. That means you’re almost certainly a paid shill for the fossil fuel industry and Heartland Institute. So when you look in the mirror next you can see the true face of evil. Go spread your lies elsewhere.

Kaye LeeJuly 12, 2016 at 8:39 am

This is interesting….

Will Janoschka

07/03/2013

Support the Heartland Institute with your dollars to put
an end to scientific FRAUD!!!

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.global-warming/LR1ZPsj0-Jc/A5chRisYXaoJ

Smiling…..

Matters NotJuly 12, 2016 at 8:51 am

I asked for a link to a serious paper. What I got was a link to a paper written for Steve Austin – a radio journalist here in Brisbane who specialises in lost causes.. While I haven’t read the whole paper, this claim is worthy of citation.

Global atmospheric temperatures peaked in 1998. Temperatures have since been flat
with every year since colder than in 1998. Since the start of atmospheric temperature
measurement in 1958 temperatures cooled slightly from 1958 to 1976. A sudden small
step change known as the Great Pacific Climate Shift occurred in one year, 1976.

Temperatures very slightly increased to 1998. Temperatures have since been flat with
the possible start of a cooling trend in 2006. CSIRO and the UN IPCC use groundbased
temperature measurements that are corrupted and unscientifically manipulated.
Rural ground-based temperatures uncorrupted by urban heat sources reveal no net …

A cooling trend predicted to start in 2006. Every year colder than 1998. Seems as though ‘evidence’ to the contrary is just ignored. Hilarious! As for the ‘urban heat sources’ I again refer to the study undertaken by Muller et al.

That’s about it from me.

Kaye LeeJuly 12, 2016 at 9:02 am

To date, including 2015, 15 of the 16 warmest years on record have occurred during the 21st century. 1998 is currently tied with 2009 as the sixth warmest year

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513

Matters NotJuly 12, 2016 at 9:15 am

KL, don’t try to blind them with science. Those measurements you refer to are all ‘faked’. Corrupt scientists, feeding on the public purse, think nothing of protecting this giant scam. Why, it’s found across the world. They communicate in an encrypted code that …

Michael TaylorJuly 12, 2016 at 9:16 am

I’m still waiting for Andrew Bolt to be wheeled out as a reference. By the looks of what’s been dished up so far, I may not have to wait long.

Kaye LeeJuly 12, 2016 at 9:19 am

Roberts and Andy seem to get their stuff from Monckton’s sidekick Jo Nova or perhaps from the articles in the Australian

The heat is on. Bureau of Meteorology ‘altering climate figures’ — The Australian

It is, of course utter rubbish, explained in this article from the Conversation

Homogenisation can be necessary for a range of reasons: sometimes stations move, instruments or reporting practices change, or surrounding trees or buildings at a site are altered. Changes can be sudden or gradual. These can all introduce artificial “jumps” (in either direction) in the resulting temperature records. If left uncorrected, these artifacts could leave the data appearing to show spurious warming or cooling trends.

Far from being a fudge to make warming look more severe than it is, most of the Bureau’s data manipulation has in fact had the effect of reducing the apparent extreme temperature trends across Australia. Cherrypicking weather stations where data have been corrected in a warming direction doesn’t mean the overall picture is wrong.

Data homogenisation is not aimed at producing a predetermined outcome, but rather is an essential process in improving weather data by spotting where temperature records need to be corrected, in either direction. If the Bureau didn’t do it, then we and our fellow climatologists wouldn’t use its data because it would be misleading. What we need are data from which spurious warming or cooling trends have been removed, so that we can see the actual trends.

Marshalling all of the data from the Bureau’s weather stations can be a complicated process, which is why it has been subjected to international peer-review. The Bureau has provided the details of how it is done, despite facing accusations that it has not been open enough.

Valid critiques of data homogenisation techniques are most welcome. But as in all areas of science, from medicine to astronomy, there is only one place that criticisms can legitimately be made. Anyone who thinks they have found fault with the Bureau’s methods should document them thoroughly and reproducibly in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. This allows others to test, evaluate, find errors or produce new methods.

This process has been the basis of all scientific advances in the past couple of centuries and has led to profoundly important advances in knowledge. Abandoning peer-reviewed journals in favour of newspaper articles when adjudicating on scientific methods would be profoundly misguided.

https://theconversation.com/no-the-bureau-of-meteorology-is-not-fiddling-its-weather-data-31009

I think Will is from Arizona so he may not yet be aware of the Dolt but I am sure they would be sympatico on many things.

Miriam EnglishJuly 12, 2016 at 10:06 am

So the climate denialists posting here have only linked to data that is either cherry-picked for the conclusions they want to impose or which has fatal errors whose later corrections they’ve ignored. They argue from articles and letters written by people who are not experts in the field of climate science, yet decry as fantasy peer-reviewed work that is done by experts in the field. And their basic reason for all this? That it is all a giant conspiracy by tens of thousands of respected scientists all over the world to victimise the poor, beloved, fluffy oil and coal billionaires.

Oh yeah, I’m convinced. Not.

How the hell can anybody be taken in by this crap?

I have a friend who believes any crazy whoopdydoop conspiracy theory, from the moon landing being staged, to UFOs making crop circles, to mind-control substances in the drinking water. He doesn’t need any proof; the more outrageous and impossible the claims, the more likely he is to believe them.

Not long ago I met a kid who astonished me by confiding in me that he believes the Icke nonsense of all the rulers being shape-shifting, blood-drinking reptilians from the constellation Draco.

What is wrong with people that they so easily lose touch with reality and actually prefer to believe ridiculous babble?

But then, I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised.

Many otherwise intelligent people believe a god made a virgin pregnant so as to give birth to himself as his own son so that he could be tortured to death in order to bizarrely forgive a sin incurred by the first man and woman… instead of simply forgiving them. Seriously???

Others believe that an illiterate warlord prone to epileptic seizures was chosen by a god to dictate his message to humanity then rode on a winged horse up to heaven.

Astonishing numbers of people indulge in the baffling cognitive dissonance of believing a good and just and loving god would torture you forever for not being persuaded by the nonsense in religious books.

People put their health at risk with homeopaths’ memory water or in the dangerous hands of chiropractors who have the unsettling history of accidentally killing people or paralysing them. They believe in Bowen “Massage”, telepathy, astrology, tarot readings, palmistry, magic spells, ghosts, and spirits.

Billions of people believe without needing any evidence whatsoever that their mind continues after the brain that generates it dies. This, even though every night, when they sleep, their mind stops several times; even though general anaesthesia halts your mind for a while; even though brain injuries can completely alter your personality. Hell, it’s even been found that the kind of bacteria inhabiting your gut can alter your personality!

The only good thing about all this is that such anti-reality attitudes are losing ground on a thousand fronts. We just have to continue to work against those who prefer delusion. We are slowly getting there. Frustratingly slowly, but we are getting there.

boblJuly 12, 2016 at 9:41 pm

So Miriam, Some Questions for you:

1. You are clearly happy with burning food (corn converted to ethanol) in your car rather than feeding it to the poor?

2. You are exhilarated by grannies dying in Europe because they can’t afford to heat their houses and eat at the same time

3. You presumably think that building Windmills in South Australia is a better idea that building cyclone shelters in the Philippines in protecting Philippines from cyclones.

4. Clearly you think we should deny the safe clean thermal electricity that built the western democracies to those third world black people condemning them to lives of poverty forever?

5. Spending on solar panels and windmills to you is clearly more important than curing cancer, or eliminating malaria,

6. You ARE aware of course that baseload equivalent Solar power has an energy density of less than 5Watts per square meter of solar panel?

7. You are aware that bird mincers – Oops wind turbines are a net GENERATOR of CO2 because you need to clear 5 Ha per MW of wind generation (nameplate)

8. You are aware of course that wind turbines/PV Solar can’t be built north of Brisbane because of Cyclones?

9. You are aware that you can’t put solar panels in deserts because of dust and sand blasting?

10. You are surely aware that the Gillard tax cost $5000 per Tonne of CO2 saved, which means that offsetting our emissions using taxes would cost 535.7 Mt CO2-e. x 5000 = $3 Trillion per annum (or around 2 x national GDP) for a temperature reduction of 0.000024 degrees using IPCCs own figures? IE Useless.

11. Simple calculation. Since the LIA temp is up 0.7 deg and the law relating CO2 and temp is T=k ln(C/C0) Substituting 0.7=k ln (400/27) and k therefore = 0.7/ln(400.270) = 1.78. So k = 1.8. Substituting for k 1.8 ln (C/C0) so for a doubling that’s 1.8 ln (2) = 1.24 degrees warming per doubling IF ALL WARMING SINCE THE LITTLE ICE AGE WERE CAUSED BY CO2. The IPCC claims only HALF of all warming was caused by CO2 resulting in a demonstrated unalarming sensitivity of around 0.6 Degrees per doubling! Do the math Miriam.

12 You are aware of course that Australia is a Nett CO2 sink, sinking over 20 times our emissions, in fact ironically since 2000 CO2 fertilization has caused vegetation to convert over 10% more CO2 to oxygen and carbohydrates which is around twice our emissions. It is absolute poppycock that the biosphere can’t process more CO2 – absolutely wrong. 1/2 of all emissions goes into the biosphere in the FIRST YEAR.

13 The next best Thermal fuel after Coal is flour – you are ok with burning flour to make electricity?

14 You are OK with the families dispossessed of their land or murdered to make way for carbon offset tree plantations in Africa?

That you accept the DAMAGE being done to real people by AGW “ACTION” Side effects goes to your sense of morality. When the world’s diseases and poverty are all solved, then I will worry about controlling the weather with taxes, until then I want MY taxes to be spent on things that help rather than hurt people. I really resent my taxes being used to fund some greenies wet dream.

Facts Miriam, Facts, and Mathematics tells one a lot, and all the math points to Global Warming being so much nonsense, and we are wasting Billions on this twaddle while there are real problems to solve. Get another crusade, an Honorable one, like say deploying reliable electricity – Coal gas or Nuclear across the third world, so they too can have a refrigerator!

Matters NotJuly 12, 2016 at 10:19 pm

Dear oh dear, another has arrived. As always, armed with their ‘facts’. So let’s look at just one to determine credibility.

You are aware of course that wind turbines/PV Solar can’t be built north of Brisbane because of Cyclones?

As someone who has travelled the length and breadth of Queensland (and beyond) on any number of occasions, let me assure you that wind turbines are alive and well even as far north as the islands in the Torres Strait. Thursday Island, for example, which is 2,190 km north of Brisbane has a very ‘big one’. It dominates the horizon. Spins its head off day and night because TI is a very windy place. Generating renewable energy and the only sign of birds is their droppings.

But there’s more. Here’s a list of existing (and) proposed wind farms north of Brisbane. (And I know they’ve missed a few, particularly around the Atherton Tableland.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wind_farms_in_Queensland

As for solar panels, they are in ‘plague proportions’ not only in Brisbane but to the north as well. Not only on domestic rooftops but also on schools, hospitals, commercial buildings, here, there and everywhere.

Clearly you have never been to Queensland.

I am intrigued as to where you get your info from. If it’s from University lectures, then you arte being ripped off. It’s so ‘wrong’ (not debatable, not opinion) but factually incorrect.

Matters NotJuly 12, 2016 at 10:53 pm

Let’s look further at the ‘logic’ of the post above.

Spending on solar panels and windmills to you is clearly more important than curing cancer, or eliminating malaria,

You would have to be an intellectual cretin to advance that supposed ‘binary opposite’.

There seems to be no consideration that one could do both. Or even more worthwhile pursuits. Like chewing gum and walking at the same time are the only options? No thinking?

But while on the subject of ‘cancer’ and coal mining, I am conscious that ‘black lung disease’ (a virulant form of cancer) is on the rise among current and former coal miners in Queensland. But I suppose coal supplies the safe clean thermal electricity referred to above.

Miriam EnglishJuly 13, 2016 at 12:14 am

Well bobl, nice to see stupidity still reigns in the climate change denier camp.

I read to point 9 and I just couldn’t read further for laughing. You can’t seriously believe this shit? Who writes this stuff? Where on Earth are you copying and pasting it from? I genuinely want to know. Whoever writes it must be pissing themselves with laughter thinking of you poor clueless sods lapping it up.

So I’ll answer a few, but I won’t waste a lot of time because I know you’re not actually interested. You’re just here because someone’s paid you to post this crap in the hope it will persuade someone — at least I hope someone’s paid you and that you’re not doing it because you actually believe this crap.

No, like most people interested in renewable energy I’m not especially interested in biofuel, although there is a place for it. I know someone (friend of a friend) who drove across Australia recently using the old spent oil from fish and chips shops. Much biofuel can be made from the leftovers after crops are reaped, so no, it doesn’t deny anybody food if done right. In fact it can increase the return to poor farmers by netting the money from food and the side products. But I’d prefer they go into fertilising the soil. Who needs biofuels when we have electric vehicles?
I am so tempted to swear at you right now. Any grannies who are dying in Europe are likely doing so because of the heatwaves that have become more common because of global warming and the extraordinary cold storms that paradoxically also come from injecting more energy into the atmosphere. But heating or cooling, it amounts to the same thing. In Europe the people operating the big electricity plants are upset because electricity is being produced so cheaply with windmills and solar that they’re finding it difficult to turn a profit. They want to keep the price of electricity high. Renewable energy is making it easier for grannies to stay warm in the winter and cool in the heatwaves.
How the hell does building windmills in South Australia stop people being protected from cyclones in the Philippines? The reverse is actually true. Building windmills helps protect people in the Philippines from the increasing severity of cyclones that result from global warming. The global warming comes from fossil fuels. (bobl, you really need to give more thought to these points.)
This is one of your dumbest points. I have a friend who grew up in Zambia. She goes back to visit her family every year or two and returns with exciting stories of how their technology is leapfrogging ours. We’re still tied to old fossil fuels. Over there solar panels are everywhere. Do you know which country is installing solar panels on homes faster than any other, and I believe already has the largest installed base of panels? Bangladesh. People who could never get electricity supplies from the big coal electricity plants are able to now, thanks to solar. (Do you feel like a dick now bobl?)
As Matters Not mentioned. There is no binary choice between renewables and fixing the world’s diseases… except for the fact that coal causes untold deaths, not only in its mining, but in its burning. Have you seen photos of the big Chinese cities and the awful air pollution there? Yep, coal power. That’s why they’re now frantically installing more renewable energy plants than any other country.
The amount of solar energy received per square meter is roughly 1,000 watts (not 5) depending on what latitude you’re at. At the moment solar panels are able to generate about 200 watts per square meter (about 150 Watts in Northern Europe, I think), and every year they become more efficient. An average household installation can supply most of their needs. We have solar panels on the roof. It’s not a big installation, but it supplies much more electricity than we can use. One of the nice things about the move to efficiency is the way we need smaller panels.
More laughter from me again. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a forest being clearfelled for a windfarm. God. You are such an idiot. Mostly they go on farmland, though there’s an increasing trend in Europe of putting them offshore. (How many trees does that displace?)
I really fell about laughing with this one. I live way north of Brisbane. Yeah, your points are sooo reliable.
You are aware that the Mars rovers have been wandering around a desert planet for years without maintenance, powered entirely by solar panels?

…and from there your points just get more ridiculous. So, yes facts and mathematics. I like the way you underquoted the energy from solar panels as about a tenth of the actual value. Wake up you idiot. You’re being fed a pack of lies by mean, vicious, fossil fuel empires who would happily see you and your kids go straight to hell just so long as they got a few measly dollars for it. Stop doing their dirty work. Get on the side of the living. Those zombies will happily eat your brains.

I enjoy a good laugh as much as the next person, but after the chuckles died down I have to say I’m a bit worried about you bobl. Are you seriously that broken?

Möbius EckoJuly 13, 2016 at 7:23 am

Thanks Miriam and Matters Not, I was also going to do a serious point by point rebuke of bobl but you both covered it.

What it boils down to is it’s not an either/or but a both or many. There’s nothing stopping all the things being done simultaneously. One does not have to be relegated to accommodate another. Mankind has the wherewithal and resources, along with the point that some of the supposed contradictory points raised by bobl being different areas of expertise so are not in conflict.

If bobl is attempting to allude that mitigating anthropogenic climate change takes away resources from other areas of need, any look at the programs, policies, budgets and resources of governments and related industries would soon dispel that falsity.

Kaye LeeJuly 13, 2016 at 7:37 am

Scatter gun loaded with pseudo-science designed to bury you in bullshit.

Kaye LeeJuly 13, 2016 at 12:56 pm

Ahhhh I see why our denialists are all in a tizz….

By the middle of this week, about 20 Democratic senators in the US will have stood up before their Congress to talk about the fossil fuelled machinery of climate science denial.

In a resolution also being tabled, the upper house will be asked to acknowledge that the fossil fuel industry had done just what the tobacco industry had done – “developed a sophisticated and deceitful campaign that funded think tanks and front groups, and paid public relations firms to deny, counter, and obfuscate peer-reviewed research” and “used that misinformation campaign to mislead the public and cast doubt in order to protect their financial interest.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/jul/12/us-senators-detail-a-climate-science-web-of-denial-but-the-impacts-go-well-beyond-their-borders?CMP=share_btn_tw

Miriam EnglishJuly 13, 2016 at 1:46 pm

That’s interesting. We must be getting the fallout from the panic over there among the denialists.

There are also some recent, sneaky, underhanded attacks on scientists over there too. I got an email from the Union of Concerned Scientists this morning because they’re:

…under attack from the House Science Committee of all places! We’ve been so successful at exposing ExxonMobil’s efforts to deceive the public about climate change science, that the company’s allies in Congress are now coming after us, demanding internal correspondence in an effort to silence us. While this is a clear violation of our First Amendment rights, they are claiming that we’re violating ExxonMobil’s constitutional rights—to defraud company shareholders apparently

I hope when these denialists go down they go down hard.

Möbius EckoJuly 13, 2016 at 7:24 pm

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/the-last-12month-period-was-the-hottest-for-the-ninth-time-in-a-row/

Will JanoschkaJuly 13, 2016 at 8:05 pm

Miriam English July 13, 2016 at 12:14 am

6. The amount of solar energy received per square meter is roughly 1,000 watts (not 5) depending on what latitude you’re at. At the moment solar panels are able to generate about 200 watts per square meter (about 150 Watts in Northern Europe, I think), and every year they become more efficient. An average household installation can supply most of their needs. We have solar panels on the roof. It’s not a big installation, but it supplies much more electricity than we can use. One of the nice things about the move to efficiency is the way we need smaller panels.

What total horse shit! That 1000 W/m^2 is exo-atmospheric insolation For any baseload power the cloud cover reduces this to less than 300w/m^2 A 15% max sun tracking solar panel thus produces 45 W/m^2 in operation for 6 hours/day but 30 W/m^2 is used by the tracking system. The result is 15 x 6 = 90/24Wh less than 4 W/m^2 of base load power, even if you could afford the batteries. Solar panels are not getting more efficient!
The actual truth is that the total atmospheric CO2 generation created by the construction, installation, maintenance, and disposal of said solar panels is never recoverable. For the total lifetime of any solar panel using 1960s coal fired electrical power generation would have produced less overall atmospheric CO2. There is absolutely nothing “green” nor “renewable” is any of your anthropogenic religious claims!

Will JanoschkaJuly 13, 2016 at 8:17 pm

Möbius Ecko July 13, 2016 at 7:24 pm

http://www.iflscience.com

A Trident University blog. Good luck with that!

Kaye LeeJuly 13, 2016 at 8:32 pm

So Will, you hold shares in Exxon-Mobil and you solicit donations for the Heartland Institute and we are to take your word instead of the climate scientists because THEY have a vested interest? Now THAT’S chutzpah.

“refuses to answer any questions about the assumptions and methodology”

crap.

https://theconversation.com/no-the-bureau-of-meteorology-is-not-fiddling-its-weather-data-31009

Michael TaylorJuly 13, 2016 at 8:45 pm

So, Miriam, out of your nine points Will disagreed with just one of them. You got eight right. ?

Kaye LeeJuly 13, 2016 at 8:47 pm

Labs that test solar panels calculate output using “peak sun,” or 1000 watts of sunlight per square meter of surface. That’s approximately equal to the power of the sun at noon, on a sunny day, at the equator. A typical solar panel produces around 200 watts of power. There’s a little bit of variation on this, based on the size and efficiency of the solar panel you choose; you’ll see panels that produce 205, 210, even 230 watts.

Kaye LeeJuly 13, 2016 at 8:48 pm

lol Michael, should we take that as an endorsement?

“The only horse shit here comes from your ass horseface!”

The ultimate denier’s argument. lololol

Möbius EckoJuly 13, 2016 at 8:55 pm

So Will you didn’t bother to read the article, which was a piece from the Guardian that used NASA info and sourced to Cowtan and Way.

Yet we’re supposed to take your crap and discredited sources at face value.

Michael TaylorJuly 13, 2016 at 8:56 pm

It’s a standard line, Kaye.

I like the ones such as:

If you really believed in climate change you wouldn’t drive a car.

If you really believed in climate change you wouldn’t use an air-conditioner.

If you really believed in climate change you’d be using candles.

Kaye LeeJuly 13, 2016 at 8:58 pm

They are so predictable Michael.

Michael TaylorJuly 13, 2016 at 9:01 pm

Anyway, I have to go and milk the cows now and tie the horses up.

Kaye LeeJuly 13, 2016 at 9:13 pm

“My reference included “please show any error.” You cannot do so as it is evident you cannot read with comprehension!”

Have you read Robert’s “scientific paper” that you linked to? Let me give you a quote…

“The UN’s forty-year campaign fabricating climate fraud used strategies and tactics proven 100 years ago. They’re similar to those used by international bankers in their thirty-year campaign from the 1880’s to gain control of the USA’s money supply, finances and economy. Their campaign succeeded in forming the USA’s Federal Reserve Bank in 1913.”

Such power is extended through the bankers’ global creations including the Bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Through these the European-American banking alliance controls global finances. The alliance’s global organisations dictate to other nations outside America and Europe, including Australia.”

It continues on in the same vein. Roberts takes preexisting conspiracies and weaves them together with climate scepticism. It is a textbook example of what scholars of conspiracy culture call fusion paranoia.

You seriously put that forward as having “some scientific credibility”?

Kaye LeeJuly 13, 2016 at 10:12 pm

From the One Nation page….

“Malcolm Roberts has earned the respect of informed people around the world for his investigation of claimed global warming and climate change where he analysed the measured data and then exposed the corruption.

Malcolm’s climate investigations led to deep understanding of the foreign control wrecking our country and to clarity on the tax system now choking Australians and destroying initiative and responsibility, while sabotaging our children’s future.”

Miriam EnglishJuly 13, 2016 at 10:36 pm

I’m off to bed for an early night, but before I do I just wanted to thank Will and the other denialist loons. I originally read their comments with annoyance, but now I’m actually grateful. Thanks to their ludicrous prodding I have supplemented considerably my knowledge about climate change. I thought I knew a fair amount about it before. I understood enough to know that it is a genuine problem, but now, because I like to research what I write (unlike Will and the other denialists) I have much more detailed knowledge of the many factors involved in climate change and the dangers it poses.

So Will and the other denialists… thank you. You have actually convinced me even more thoroughly of the dangers of climate change.

What I find most interesting about the denialists is the apparently fake ferocity with which they pitch their arguments. They make one muddled claim after another, almost never with any actual facts to back them up, just linking to some other muddle-headed denialist’s claims. Hilariously, they often contradict each other, but tellingly they never argue with each other, they only battle against actual science. The conclusion I must draw from all this theatre is that it is just cynical ploy. Simply an attempt to mislead and confuse — to muddy the waters.

Well, you unintentionally clarified the waters for me and I’m very pleased that you did. I genuinely hope you awaken more people to the genuine threat of climate change when they catch on to the purpose behind your antics.

Matters NotJuly 13, 2016 at 10:51 pm

There’s enough material above for another decade of Monty Python.

The Ministry of Silly Walks could become – The Ministry for Silly Science. Or the Ministry for Nonsense. Or …

The possibilities are almost endless.

The ‘Silly’ keep on giving. Just watch this space to see the next ‘cretin’ make a ‘contribution’. Won’t take long.

In the meantime, be reminded.

Will JanoschkaJuly 13, 2016 at 11:01 pm

Kaye LeeJuly 13, 2016 at 8:32 pm

“So Will, you hold shares in Exxon-Mobil”

Certainly I have held Mobile Oil interests since 1968. The company clearly informs its shareholders of political fraud that will reduce value. It continues to do so!

“and you solicit donations for the Heartland Institute”

Only according to some AlGoresta 3 years ago!

” and we are to take your word instead of the climate scientists because THEY have a vested interest?”

I expect no one to take my word for anything, that is but my word! Some of us do listen and then think! Scientific endeavor of any sort requires the generation of a falsifiable hypothesis. Then construction of some agreed upon repeatable test of that hypothesis. Then multiple testing within the limits of falsification. Only after all of that with no, not one, falsification can such a well stated hypothesis become scientific! Your academic Climate Clowns have not produced even one falsifiable hypothesis. There is simply no science there!! All is but religious fantasy, a belief, never science!
In engineering; tables (of preceding measurements) such as strength of material, are used to design the fabrication of material to withstand expected stresses. Witness samples are constructed, then stress tested to destruction. Any one failure at expected plus safety margin falsifies the entire design concept. This is the only reason why things sometimes do what is expected!

Kaye Lee July 13, 2016 at 8:47 pm

“Labs that test solar panels calculate output using “peak sun,” or 1000 watts of sunlight per square meter of surface. That’s approximately equal to the power of the sun at noon, on a sunny day, at the equator. A typical solar panel produces around 200 watts of power. ”

Indeed I have witnesses such testing. Although the panel was kept at temperatures below 10 degree Celsius. When connected through a viable controller, the Volts x Amperes never ever delivered more than 17% of incident insolation. Even then visible cloud cover remains above 64%. The panels on the space station do a wee bit better! The lifetime cost per WH delivered by these is 50 x that of a full up nuclear plant! Miss Lee all you ever have is intentional deliberate SCAM!!
.

Kaye LeeJuly 13, 2016 at 11:01 pm

Perhaps they paid $10 to have an argument

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

“Only according to some AlGoresta 3 years ago!”

Your comment is still there for all to see Will on the 7/3/2013

“Support the Heartland Institute with your dollars to put
an end to scientific FRAUD!!!”

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.global-warming/LR1ZPsj0-Jc/A5chRisYXaoJ

And do you still say that engineers have peer reviewed Robert’s “scientific paper” and agree with it? Thankyou for your garbled interpretation of the scientific method but, having done a science degree, I find it tortuous as I do most of your offerings. Do you deliberately try to be obscure?

Matters NotJuly 13, 2016 at 11:30 pm

Let’s make the Monty Python extra decade prediction into a ‘Blue Hills’. After all, it only stretched to 27 years.

The ‘Silly’ and the ‘Stupid’ keep on giving. And those in an intellectual hole keep on digging.

Anyone surprised?

Apparently the ‘conflict of interest’ concept isn’t even on the radar.

Kaye LeeJuly 13, 2016 at 11:40 pm

A team convened in 1998 by the American Petroleum Institute—the country’s largest oil trade association whose member companies include BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell—outlined a “roadmap” for climate deception including a plan to cultivate purportedly independent scientists as climate misinformers. The campaign would achieve “victory,” according to the memo, when “average citizens” believed that the realities of climate science were uncertain.

Kaye LeeJuly 14, 2016 at 12:02 am

A leaked internal 1991 strategy memo from the Information Council on the Environment, a front group for coal interests, explicitly calls for misrepresenting climate science as “theory,” not fact, and discusses plans to target specific demographic groups….

“One possible target audience includes those who are most receptive to messages describing the motivations and vested interests of people currently making pronouncements on global warming….People who respond most favorably to such statements are older, less-educated males from larger households who are not typically active information seekers and are not likely to be “green” consumers.”

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf

Documents released in February 2015 reveal that Wei-Hock (“Willie”) Soon received more than 1.2 million in research funding between 2001 and 2012 from fossil fuel interests including ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute (API), the Charles Koch Foundation, and Southern Company, a large electric utility in Atlanta that generates most of its power from coal.

Soon, whose background is not in climate science but rather in aerospace engineering, has long used his affiliation with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics to add credence to his climate-related research.
Soon has written about many aspects of climate change but is best known for his work on the role of solar variability, research that has broadly overstated the role the sun plays in climate change and has been largely discredited by his scientific peers (see, for example, Mooney 2015; Schmidt 2015; Schmidt 2005; Sanchez 2003).

Will JanoschkaJuly 14, 2016 at 12:14 am

Kaye Lee July 13, 2016 at 11:01 pm

WJ: (“Only according to some AlGoresta 3 years ago!”)

“Your comment is still there for all to see Will on the 7/3/2013”
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.global-warming/LR1ZPsj0-Jc/A5chRisYXaoJ
Yup!

josephus quoting someone unknown: (“Support the Heartland Institute with your dollars to put an end to scientific FRAUD!!!”)
My only comment to josephus: “You can refute nothing. No warming!”

“And do you still say that engineers have peer reviewed Roberts rubbish?”
———————–now revised posthumorsly to ————————————-
“And do you still say that engineers have peer reviewed Robert’s “scientific paper””

Indeed we all have!! Malcolm Robert’s CSIROh_18.3.2013.pdf Is clearly About the intentional corruption of science by high finance for profit! Clearly a political presentation of the current politics in the AU, Not of science, but of the corruption of science. We all agree Well written correct and much needed!

Miriam English July 13, 2016 at 10:36 pm

“Well, you unintentionally clarified the waters for me and I’m very pleased that you did. I genuinely hope you awaken more people to the genuine threat of climate change when they catch on to the purpose behind your antics.”

You are very welcome!. Always glad to point out the abject stupidity of those with much less than average intelligence! I especially like those with much belief in self-correctness, but with no demonstrated ability to think whatsoever!!!

Kaye LeeJuly 14, 2016 at 12:21 am

Will…..scroll up further in the convo with josephus to find your solicitation for donations. You can’t deny it petal. It’s right there. I’m wondering….do you fit the target group the oil companies thought would be easiest to dupe or are you one of the paid misinformers?

Michael TaylorJuly 14, 2016 at 12:51 am

Will, if you enjoy pointing out “the abject stupidity of those with less than average intelligence” I might suggest you return to where you came from. They clearly need you there. Your presence should boost the average IQ slightly above the moron level.

markJuly 14, 2016 at 1:15 am

always wondered what a mad scientist was,thanks will.mark

Kaye LeeJuly 14, 2016 at 1:25 am

You must have said something naughty then Will. You have been given leniency…we have let you express your view….we don’t really need to tolerate name-calling and abuse. (He probably thinks we are being paid by the Rothschilds as part of the plot to take over the world under the guise of environmentalism – it’s a socialist plot funded by the bankers…hang on????)

Will JanoschkaJuly 14, 2016 at 1:52 am

Kaye LeeJuly 14, 2016 at 1:25 am

“You must have said something naughty then Will. You have been given leniency…we have let you express your view….we don’t really need to tolerate name-calling and abuse. (He probably thinks we are being paid by the Rothschilds as part of the plot to take over the world under the guise of environmentalism – it’s a socialist plot funded by the bankers…hang on????)”
So yo finally admit the you are fully paid by the banksters and will tolerate no conflicting view whatsoever. Thank you!!

Miriam EnglishJuly 14, 2016 at 6:10 am

It takes a special kind of person to rage against science the way the denialists do. I guess they are either profoundly paranoid and educatioally backward, or else morally stunted and happy to commit future generations to a wrecked planet for the sake of a few quick bucks.

Will, how many $$ does it take for you to betray your children?

Miriam EnglishJuly 14, 2016 at 6:22 am

Goes to show the state of delusion that Will lives in that he’d accuse AIMN of being paid for by the wealthy banks and large amoral financial institutions, when writers of this site are among the most vocal critics of that group. This site would love to get some of that money. Unfortunately the main obstacle is that you have to sell your soul in exchange… you know, the way Will apparently has for the Heartland Institute and Big Oil.

Kaye LeeJuly 14, 2016 at 9:00 am

“So yo finally admit the you are fully paid by the banksters and will tolerate no conflicting view whatsoever. Thank you!!”

Of all the demonstrably false things you have said Will, that one takes the cake. I would be laughing except people like you have caused and will continue to cause the death of millions of people.

“This report estimates that climate change causes 400,000 deaths on average each year today, mainly due to hunger and communicable diseases that affect above all children in developing countries. Our present carbon-intensive energy system and related activities cause an estimated 4.5 million deaths each year linked to air pollution, hazardous occupations and cancer.

Climate change caused economic losses estimated close to 1% of global GDP for the year 2010, or 700 billion dollars (2010 PPP). The carbon-intensive economy cost the world another 0.7% of GDP in that year, independent of any climate change losses. Together, carbon economy- and climate change related losses amounted to over 1.2 trillion dollars in 2010”

http://daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/EXECUTIVE-AND-TECHNICAL-SUMMARY.pdf

Michael TaylorJuly 14, 2016 at 9:05 am

Will, you are a liar. Your comment wasn’t deleted. It wasn’t even published. Our system is set to ‘capture’ comments that contain the ‘c’ word and they are not published. I just went and looked at your comment and it doesn’t deserved to be published. Perhaps other sites you visit tolerate you calling authors or other commenters a “lying C*NT” but this site doesn’t.

Miriam, of course we are funded by the banks. Didn’t you know that? Gawd, don’t you know anything? ?

Kaye LeeJuly 14, 2016 at 9:28 am

I will ignore the potty mouth part and answer your question that wasn’t published because of your profanity rather than a direction from a Jewish banker.

“Your ignorance of internet newsgroups and threading therein is appalling! Please identify just where on the internet or elsewhere I have either solicited or accepted funds from any political group! ”

Will, I said you were asking for donations for the Heartland Institute. As for my ignorance, the lines with the arrows are what other people said….the typed bit at the bottom is yours….and I have already provided the link to same.

Will Janoschka

07/03/2013

On Wed, 6 Mar 2013 10:47:11, josephus wrote:

> > I wonder if you will explain why a noted liar (McIntyre) and
> > nonscientist thinks he knows more about climate science than the most
> > respected climate scientist of our time.
> >
> because he is paid by the backers of HEARTLAND. and they want him
> and people like him to spin the truth so they can continue business as
> usual.
>
There are only ridiculed climate scientist of our time.
Support the Heartland Institute with your dollars to put
an end to scientific FRAUD!!!

Andreas BimbaJuly 14, 2016 at 9:37 am

‘Dance like a butterfly and sting like a bee’.

The AIMN team remind me of the late and great Muhammad Ali.

Kaye LeeJuly 14, 2016 at 9:40 am

You deniers really are tiresome. You ask for empirical evidence. When shown it, you say the results are faked. When shown the reasons for making adjustments and the mechanisms used, you completely ignore it and start all over with a whole new batch of misinformation and demand that we disprove it….again. And when we scratch beneath the surface, every one of you has a connection to the Heartland Institute or mining. When shown the deliberate strategy used by the oil and coal companies in their campaign of misinformation, you ignore that too and start personally attacking the people providing you with verifiable information.

Just like the smoking lobby, your time is over Will. You have lost the argument. Give it up. We are on to you. Malcolm Roberts may be a fool but we aren’t all that gullible.

Michael TaylorJuly 14, 2016 at 9:41 am

Thank you, Andreas. We take that as a compliment.

Kaye LeeJuly 14, 2016 at 9:48 am

Rumble Downunder 😉

Michael TaylorJuly 14, 2016 at 9:50 am

Just checked our bank account. Al Gore’s monthly donation of $250,000 has just been deposited.

Kaye LeeJuly 14, 2016 at 10:04 am

Cool. Your shout.

Kaye LeeJuly 14, 2016 at 4:26 pm

Null hypothesis: Will is an objective observer of, and impartial contributor to, the climate change debate

Methodology:
1. Check for connection to/support for the Heartland Institute
2. Ask if he reads Monckton’s contributions
3. Check for income received from the fossil fuel industry through employment or shares
4. Ask for sources of information
5. Check credibility of same
6. Does he mention conspiracies to falsify data?
7. Does he mention bankers?
8. Does he eventually resort to abuse?

Results: See above conversation

Conclusion: The null hypothesis is rejected

Andreas BimbaJuly 15, 2016 at 4:30 am

KO for the creationists, Christian fundamentalists, climate change deniers, fossil fuel dinosaurs and the corrupters of our fragile democracies.

Will JanoschkaJuly 15, 2016 at 6:17 am

Kaye Lee July 14, 2016 at 4:26 pm

“Null hypothesis: Will is an objective observer of, and impartial contributor to, the climate change debate
Conclusion: The null hypothesis is rejected.’

You will never say what you may be referring to! I guess someone somewhere claimed a null hypothesis between atmospheric CO2 level and surface temperature somewhere. That certainly was not me. There is not sufficient understanding about atmospheric compressible fluid-dynamics, electrodynamics, ocean dynamics; and Solar system planetary dynamics to support any scientific hypothesis about atmospheric CO2 whatsoever. All you folk have are rabid religious belief, vast 0-dependence on self appointed academics, with no attempt to distinguish science from belief!

Kaye LeeJuly 15, 2016 at 6:24 am

Ok Will,

Explain to me how “atmospheric compressible fluid-dynamics” disproves global warming due to greenhouse gas emissions and provide a link to a peer-reviewed paper proving same.

“You will never say what you may be referring to!”

I am referring to the fact that every single climate change denier has a vested interest in so doing. I am referring to the fact that you all use the same very obvious strategies to confuse and misinform. I am referring to the fact that the fossil fuel industry have paid hundreds of millions in a deliberate campaign of lies just as the smoking lobby did, both campaigns being run by the Heartland Institute which is a front for fake science. I am referring to my fury that people like you are prepared to sacrifice my planet and kill millions purely for personal greed. Have I made myself clear now?

Kaye LeeJuly 15, 2016 at 7:27 am

Nineteen U.S. Senators spoke out on the Senate floor Monday in support of the Senate Web of Denial Resolution calling out the destructive forces of fossil fuel industry-funded climate denial.

The resolution condemns what they are calling the #WebOfDenial—”interconnected groups—funded by the Koch brothers, major fossil fuel companies like ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal, identity-scrubbing groups like Donors Trust and Donors Capital and their allies—developed and executed a massive campaign to deceive the public about climate change to halt climate action and protect their bottom lines.”

The resolution condemns the “efforts of corporations and groups to mislead the public about the harmful effects of tobacco, lead and climate. The resolution also urges fossil fuel corporations and their allies to cooperate with investigations into their climate-related activities.”

The latest round of Exxon’s funding of climate denial groups still peddling doubt brings the total known funding from Exxon to nearly $34 million over two decades. Add to that the nearly $90 million pumped into the denial machine by the Koch Family Foundations, as well as the largesse emanating from the dark money ATM, Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund.

Think tanks and front groups involved in climate denial include the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), U.S.Chamber of Commerce, Heritage Foundation, Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Kochs’ Americans for Prosperity, the Heartland Institute and many more.

http://www.ecowatch.com/senators-expose-web-of-denial-blocking-climate-change-action-1917189475.html

Give it up Will! Your lies have been exposed. IMO it is time that the deniers should be prosecuted for fraud and the politicians for their failure in duty of care. Fossil fuels kill more people every year than wars, murders, and traffic accidents combined. This is a war against greed.

Miriam EnglishJuly 15, 2016 at 8:09 am

Will, Michael was joking. The clue was in the “Gawd, don’t you know anything?” part.

Will, I’ve been thinking more about my earlier comments about you likely being a cynical manipulator. I’m now wondering if I was wrong and that you’re one of the manipulated. Someone who becomes screamingly angry like you did (calling one of us a “lying c*nt”) doesn’t sound like they’re in control. So maybe I have you figured wrong. If that’s true, I apologise. But it is very difficult to tell the true (religious) believers and those who are the cynics. A cynic would have seen their effort was wasted when we research statements and actually follow links to read the articles. They can’t just sow confusion and expect us to be swayed. There has to be actual information, genuine data.

For you to keep coming back I think you must have been honestly taken in by the fake claims delivered over long periods. Please, Will, look carefully at the claims made. And really, what is more likely? Tens of thousands of scientists scattered all over the world working for thousands of different employers indulging in some grand conspiracy, or a few big oil companies getting together to fund the Heartland Institute to create a campaign of uncertainty and doubt, the same way they did in their extremely successful campaign for the tobacco companies? (Bear in mind that getting large numbers of scientists to agree on anything other than real data is about as easy herding cats.)

Now, look at the kind of claims you and others are making. None of them actually stack up. Compare that with all the figures from multiple sources showing comparable global increases in temperature over the period of human industrialisation and large-scale use of fossil fuels.

To accuse me and others here of religious belief in global warming is a big mistake, Will. I don’t believe anything. Nothing. I try to let the data talk and follow the evidence. Most of us here do the same. We tend to argue against religious acceptance of anything. To identify yourself with a particular belief, to incorporate a particular worldview into your sense of self is a very dangerous thing to do because as soon as that worldview is threatened by uncomfortable facts the person holding it feels their self is threatened too. If that worldview is based upon falsehoods then they find themself desperately clinging to the wreckage of lies. We see this with religion all the time.

If I found that the climate wasn’t worsening I wouldn’t feel threatened, Will. I would be relieved. Unfortunately, the weight of evidence, not only from scientists, but from my more than 60 years of personal life spent largely reading science and living in the bush is very persuasive.

But the most persuasive thing of all? The changes required to try to fix global warming would be in our best interests even if there was no impending calamity.

This cartoon really says it nicely:

(Hmmm… don’t know how to embed pictures here.)

We are past peak oil. It is an extremely valuable and versatile substance. It’s almost criminal that we burn it. We should be saving it to use for more important things. Coal was never a good thing to burn. People should have got that message back in the days of London’s pea-soup fogs. The damage done to people from the coal’s pollution is horrendous — always has been. Coal is another great resource for making stuff. It’s terrible that we’re wasting it by burning it. Renewable sources are much cleaner and to a very large degree they cut the bottleneck of supply. They are enabling many more people to have access to cheaper, decentralised energy. (The figures given by the Heartland Institute about the energy cost vs energy produced in the cases of solar and wind are wrong. They fiddle the numbers to suit the agenda they’re promoting.)

Even if you don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming there are still many other good reasons to move to renewable sources. Continuing with fossil fuels wastes an incredibly valuable resource we should be safeguarding for future generations’ use, the risk of tampering with climate is too dangerous to dismiss on a whim based on propaganda from organisations with a terrible record of lying, and we have no alternative but to move to renewables eventually anyway. Oil, gas, and coal are limited, even if you ignore the political (oil funds terrorists) and environmental (pollution and climate) damage they cause.

Michael TaylorJuly 15, 2016 at 8:20 am

Of course I was joking. Are you really that thick, Will?

Kaye LeeJuly 15, 2016 at 8:30 am

Damn…and here I was waiting for the champagne to be opened.

Matters NotJuly 15, 2016 at 8:38 am

Here is a good, easy to read discussion of ‘scientific’ theories that brings together the insights provided by Kuhn, Popper and Imre Lakatos.

In short. For Kuhn:

The anomaly that the paradigm cannot solve leads to a crisis, and eventually the old paradigm is replaced by a new one.

For Popper:

The refuting instance contradicts the theory, and the theory is thereby shown to be false.

Lakatos brings those insights together:

Theory Plus Protective Belt Imply the Evidence as observed. There is no crisis or falsification.

http://bertie.ccsu.edu/naturesci/PhilSci/Lakatos.html

(PS, not sure where the latest developments have gone. Been out of that loop for some time.)

Will JanoschkaJuly 15, 2016 at 10:06 am

Kaye Lee July 15, 2016 at 6:24 am

“Ok Will, Explain to me how “atmospheric compressible fluid-dynamics” disproves global warming due to greenhouse gas emissions and provide a link to a peer-reviewed paper proving same.”

‘Atmospheric compressible fluid-dynamics” only demonstrates that the techniques used by self serving academic meteorology, including all finite element modeling, and absurd assumptions of electrodynamics can never result in any clue as to what this Earth may do in a while/later. 35 years of complete failure should be enough for most folk. There is never scientific need to disprove fantasy such as Gorebal Warbling. Such is merely dismissed, ridiculed!

(‘You will never say what you may be referring to!”)

“I am referring to the fact that every single climate change denier has a vested interest in so doing. I am referring to the fact that you all use the same very obvious strategies to confuse and misinform. I am referring to the fact that the fossil fuel industry have paid hundreds of millions in a deliberate campaign of lies just as the smoking lobby did, both campaigns being run by the Heartland Institute which is a front for fake science. I am referring to my fury that people like you are prepared to sacrifice my planet and kill millions purely for personal greed. Have I made myself clear now?”

You have indeed made it clear that you have no interest in science whatsoever. All you ever spout concerns but inter-social attitudes. This is the realm of psychology, religion, finance, and politics. You tried to disprove the mathematics of statistical “null hypothesis”. Why??

The activities of this Earth’s atmosphere have less than 6% statistical noise, while retaining greater than 65% deterministic behavior, and a leftover 27% chaotic. An atmospheric “null hypothesis” cannot exist!!!

Have you no recognizance of your own limitations? Please leave science to those that demonstrate some aptitude for it!

Kaye LeeJuly 15, 2016 at 10:13 am

“There is never scientific need to disprove fantasy such as Gorebal Warbling. Such is merely dismissed, ridiculed!”

“You have indeed made it clear that you have no interest in science whatsoever”

What YOU have made clear Will is that you have NO scientific evidence to back up anything you say.

The null hypothesis was that you are objective. The conclusion to reject that hypothesis was amply backed up by the evidence provided.

I should add that your bullying tone, dismissive insults and personal abuse have absolutely no effect on me 🙂 They just tick another box in the expected denier strategy. You guys really need a new script.

The only question that remains is are you a duper or a dupee Will? Should I despise you or pity you?

Will JanoschkaJuly 15, 2016 at 10:51 am

Miriam English July 15, 2016 at 8:09 am

“Will, Michael was joking. The clue was in the “Gawd, don’t you know anything?” part.”

As was the WJ of 2013 with:
“josephus,
There are only ridiculed climate scientist of our time.
Support the Heartland Institute with your dollars to put
an end to scientific FRAUD!!!”
“Gawd, don’t you know anything?”

“Will, I’ve been thinking more about my earlier comments about you likely being a cynical manipulator. I’m now wondering if I was wrong and that you’re one of the manipulated. Someone who becomes screamingly angry like you did (calling one of us a “lying c*nt”) doesn’t sound like they’re in control.”

TESTING, TESTING, AU not labor (folk), but a socialist laborUNION blog! The Australian Independent Media Network indeed..
Miriam is ‘one of us’, rather than a bot, hardly!!

Kaye LeeJuly 15, 2016 at 11:00 am

Will, your last comment was edited. You really need to stop the potty mouth. It was interesting however to note that you now admit to writing the comment that you denied writing before, calling me a “lying c***”. Evidence based research trumps bullshit belligerence any day 😉

The AIM NetworkJuly 15, 2016 at 11:22 am

So now we’re a Labor and unions blog.

Oh dear. Will, you truly are a strange one.

Will JanoschkaJuly 15, 2016 at 11:28 am

Kaye Lee July 15, 2016 at 10:13 am

WJ:(“There is never scientific need to disprove fantasy such as Gorebal Warbling. Such is merely dismissed, ridiculed! You have indeed made it clear that you have no interest in science whatsoever”)

“What YOU have made clear Will is that you have NO scientific evidence to back up anything you say.”

Indeed I have no need for such evidence, as I have made no claim, except that all of your claims are fantasy/BS

“The null hypothesis was that you are objective. The conclusion to reject that hypothesis was amply backed up by the evidence provided.”

The null hypothesis exists as a mathematical/philosophical concept of statistics/probability. Folk wearing diapers, unable to tie own shoes are not included. Most folk with technical or science ability, merely admit “beats the shit outta me” then get dronk! Do we have to worship the beatification of Kaye Lee evermore?

Miriam EnglishJuly 15, 2016 at 11:33 am

[sigh] Will Janoschka has well and truly outstayed his welcome, I think. What a poor, deluded, aggressive troll. I almost feel sorry for him… almost. He and his blinkered lot are responsible for enormous damage. I’m not looking forward to what the wilfully blind deniers do during the next three years of mismanaging our country. On the positive side, maybe they’ll commit screwups so massive they’ll have to be voted out next election.

Kaye LeeJuly 15, 2016 at 11:43 am

Miriam, with the number of idiot deniers we now have in parliament, and with secret deals being signed with Barnaby, I am truly worried.

In June last year, the Liberal Party’s Federal Regional and Rural Committee moved a motion at the party’s federal council calling for a parliamentary inquiry to “examine the scientific evidence that underpins the man-made global warming theory and investigate the reasons for the failure of computer models, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and prominent individuals to predict, among other things, the pause in global warming this century”.

The motion also recommend that “in light of the uncertainty around this issue, Australia does not sign any binding agreement at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris later this year.”

In March this year, the NSW Liberal Party formally called on the Turnbull government to conduct public debates about climate change.

The motion, which passed with the support of more than 70 per cent of delegates at the state council meeting, says the events should cover “the global warming/climate change debate”; “the claims by the IPCC”; and the statement “is all the science settled”.

A second motion called on the Turnbull government to hold an inquiry into Australia’s engagement with the United Nations on climate change and report back to the party by mid-year.

Michael TaylorJuly 15, 2016 at 11:47 am

Miriam, you’re not the only one getting sick of Will. We like to give most people a say but this guy’s proving himself to be an abusive, trollish nutcase. He has nothing to add except to demonstrate his stupidity. He even makes Neil of Sydney look mildly intelligent.

I’d be happy for any of the admins/moderators to delete his future comments.

Will JanoschkaJuly 15, 2016 at 11:48 am

The AIM NetworkJuly 15, 2016 at 11:22 am

“So now we’re a Labor and unions blog.
Oh dear. Will, you truly are a strange one.”

Who are you? Have you any identity beyond UNION BOSS control v.s. BANKSTER control?
All euro-peons, UK-peons, AU-peons, US-peons, will find out. BEWARE!

Miriam EnglishJuly 15, 2016 at 11:51 am

I am amazed that Will now says his beliefs don’t need to be backed up by facts or science. He thinks we only need hear his attempts to “ridicule” the science to be convinced of his correctness. Wow. His arrogance is only equalled by his closed-minded stupidity.

Kaye LeeJuly 15, 2016 at 11:59 am

“Who are you? Have you any identity beyond UNION BOSS control v.s. BANKSTER control?”

I am a middle-aged woman in jammies Will. I am not “controlled” by anyone. Who’s pulling YOUR strings might be more to the point.

Michael TaylorJuly 15, 2016 at 12:14 pm

“BEWARE!”

Was that a threat?

Michael TaylorJuly 15, 2016 at 12:21 pm

Will, just so you know and can drop all your stupid conspiracy theories about who owns this site, it is owned by my wife and I. We are not funded or receive donations from any political party, bank, union, scientific organisation, school, football club, newspaper, church group, etc etc etc.

Kaye LeeJuly 15, 2016 at 12:33 pm

This makes for interesting reading….

January 2012
Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy

Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. To counter this we are considering launching an effort to develop alternative materials for K-12 classrooms. We are pursuing a proposal from Dr. David Wojick to produce a global warming curriculum for K-12 schools. His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science. We tentatively plan to pay Dr. Wojick $100,000 for 20 modules in 2012, with funding pledged by the Anonymous Donor (whose contribution dropped from $1,664,150 in 2010 to $979,000 in 2011 – about 20% of our total 2011 revenue). He has promised an increase in 2012

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/2012%20Climate%20Strategy.pdf

Miriam EnglishJuly 15, 2016 at 12:38 pm

…and the writers come from all over Australia from a variety of backgrounds — school teachers, scientists, artists, writers, computer programmers, business people, union people, wives, husbands, parents… I’m a 63 year old child of the computer revolution who lives way out in the Australian bush. As far as I can tell the only unifying feature of the people here is their disgust at the lies propagated by the mainstream media, and a desire to improve Australia, to make it a better place for the next generations. Most of us have never met each other. We’re not part of some wealthy, shady cabal (I live below the poverty level, whereas others are sufficiently well off to own the homes they live in).

Miriam EnglishJuly 15, 2016 at 12:44 pm

Darn. The deniers want to screw up the next generations of kids. 🙁
Hopefully teachers will be smarter than to be taken in by it.

Kaye LeeJuly 15, 2016 at 12:47 pm

Miriam,

Knowledge is wealth and honesty is health. I would hate to be as scared and stressed as those who block out truth and tolerance. They feel attacked whereas we look for solutions.

Kaye LeeJuly 15, 2016 at 12:53 pm

As for our teachers being smart enough, they are battling our government

The government has cut funding to the Global Education Project that led national initiatives and had high impact on teaching and learning in schools. This project has engaged kids in learning through themes such as “our changing world”, “poverty and food security”, and exploring the way that how we live has impacts on other people around the world. We need to keep the momentum going to create smarter strategies to engage our children in this field, so cutting this program is a poor start.

Federal Education Minister Christopher Pyne has argued that we don’t need “themes” in education. The recent Review of the Australian Curriculum by Dr Kevin Donnelly and Professor Ken Wiltshire said there is:

a question for the future as to whether it is sound educational practice for politicians and policy makers to be continually ordering contemporary themes into a national curriculum.

https://theconversation.com/our-kids-need-to-learn-about-climate-change-33833

Matters NotJuly 15, 2016 at 1:01 pm

Let’s do away with ‘concepts’ as well. For example, let’s keep ‘history’ to dates and the like – to the ‘when’ and ensure we never consider the ‘how’ and especially the ‘why’.

In this way, ‘rote learning’ will again rule the roost. Do away with the ‘thinking’ part.

Kaye LeeJuly 15, 2016 at 1:21 pm

Get back to basics. Crush creativity, punish initiative, ban critiquing, more exams. Zere vill be no questions here. You vill do as ve say! SHTARKER!

I note Noel Pearson’s Direct Instruction experiment isn’t going so well. Who’d ever have guessed.

Will JanoschkaJuly 15, 2016 at 1:23 pm

Michael Taylor July 15, 2016 at 12:21 pm

“Will, just so you know and can drop all your stupid conspiracy theories about who owns this site, it is owned by my wife and I. We are not funded or receive donations from any political party, bank, union, scientific organisation, school, football club, newspaper, church group, etc etc etc.”

Thank you Michael!,
I am willing to accept what you claim and will give no further offense to your web-site.
Some here, though opinionated need careful consideration. Do not expect me to agree!

Kaye LeeJuly 15, 2016 at 1:31 pm

I would hope that you give careful consideration Will. We all must. I do not ask you to agree with me, just to look at the facts objectively. The conspiracy theories have been deliberately manufactured and perpetuated to misinform. We seek only to provide information from credible sources. We are all sceptics here about what we are told by politicians and the mainstream media.

Miriam EnglishJuly 15, 2016 at 1:37 pm

Here is some good news from California in USA:
Closing Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant Will Save Money and Carbon
http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2016_07_11_closing_diablo_canyon_nuclear_plant_will_save_money_carbon

The deniers can keep the propaganda coming, but investors are, in the end, worried about money. Renewables save money, are cheaper and faster to install, and scale to demand more easily.

Kaye LeeJuly 15, 2016 at 1:45 pm

Great point in that article Miriam.

“As Germany found, integrating varying solar and wind power with steady “baseload” plants can present challenges for the opposite of the reason originally supposed: not because wind and solar power vary (demand varies even less predictably), but because “baseload” plants are too inflexible….they can’t easily and economically ramp down much”

Michael TaylorJuly 15, 2016 at 1:47 pm

No Will, we do not expect everyone to agree. On the contrary, we welcome differing opinions and the chance to intelligently debate them. If I, one of our authors, or one of our commenters puts forward a claim and it is found to be wrong then I can confidently say they’d have the guts to accept that.

But likewise, if someone comes here and makes claims that we can refute then the same applies.

Believe me, we’re not bad people here. We just think differently to you.

Will JanoschkaJuly 15, 2016 at 2:36 pm

Kaye Lee July 15, 2016 at 1:31 pm

“I would hope that you give careful consideration Will. We all must. I do not ask you to agree with me, just to look at the facts objectively.”

I will try. Your religious basis is that the CO2 SCAM is true, or has some scientific authenticity.
THIS IS FALSE

Just how can I deal with that objectively What facts do you ever have from fantasy?

“The conspiracy theories have been deliberately manufactured and perpetuated to misinform. We seek only to provide information from credible sources. We are all sceptics here about what we are told by politicians and the mainstream media.”

Quite true from the political POV. but not from the physical… “due you only want to vote, or due you want to survive?

Will JanoschkaJuly 15, 2016 at 3:18 pm

Michael Taylor July 15, 2016 at 1:47 pm

“No Will, we do not expect everyone to agree. On the contrary, we welcome differing opinions and the chance to intelligently debate them. If I, one of our authors, or one of our commenters puts forward a claim and it is found to be wrong then I can confidently say they’d have the guts to accept that.”

I have never seen such on your site. Please give example of even one that admits “I was wrong sorry”!!!

“But likewise, if someone comes here and makes claims that we can refute then the same applies.”
How can the same ever be the opposite?

“Believe me, we’re not bad people here. We just think differently to you”
I expect no other. to think like me! Huge Rhinoceri, perhaps. I do not wish to greet them cordially either!

Kaye LeeJuly 15, 2016 at 3:19 pm

“Your religious basis is that the CO2 SCAM is true, or has some scientific authenticity.
THIS IS FALSE”

I do not subscribe to any religion. I look at the science.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

“Please give example of even one that admits “I was wrong sorry”!!

I recently wrote an article where I had misread financial statements. When my error was pointed out I acknowledged it, apologised, and removed the article.

But you cannot ask us to ignore the overwhelming proof of AGW. I have not heard you acknowledge any of the evidence we have provided.

Will JanoschkaJuly 15, 2016 at 3:54 pm

Kaye Lee July 15, 2016 at 3:19 pm

( “Your religious basis is that the CO2 SCAM is true, or has some scientific authenticity.
THIS IS FALSE”)

” I do not subscribe to any religion. I look at the science.”

https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

“Please give example of even one that admits “I was wrong sorry”!!

” I recently wrote an article where I had misread financial statements. When my error was pointed out I acknowledged it, apologised, and removed the article.”

Just where is the inscribed “I was wrong sorry”!!

But you cannot ask us to ignore the overwhelming proof of AGW. I have not heard you acknowledge any of the evidence we have provided.

You have produced absolutely no evidence of Anthropomorphic Global Warming whatsoever! Where the hell is your fake evidence.

Political Futures: Will Conservative Global Middle Powers Go…

Does the Treasurer have a god complex or…

Educating Australian Voters for True Democracy

Zionism, Imperialism and conflict in the Middle East

Sado-populism

A nation on the move: New tool tracks…

Thank You for Emitting: The Hypocrisies of COP29

ALP vs LNP: Similarities, Differences

Meet Malcolm Roberts, Pauline Hanson’s “expert” on climate change.

Like this:

Related Articles

260 comments

Leave a Reply

Union calls for Julie Bishop to be sacked from ANU…

Homelessness

Share this:

Like this:

Related Articles

260 comments

Leave a Reply