110 comments

1. SueDecember 27, 2013 at 1:23 am

   I wonder if Mr Abbott is concerned that Professor Plimer’s credibility may have been compromised by his colossal conflict of interest.

2. dave farrellDecember 27, 2013 at 5:20 am

   One would have thought this would be front page news ,on any analysis,at the Turdoch press.Whay a weak,lilley livered bunch their journalists are.

3. M. R.December 27, 2013 at 5:27 am

   Dave Farrell, PLEASE! – do not sully the respectable calling of ‘journalist’ by applying it to these politically biased bastards who have no ethics.

4. RoswellDecember 27, 2013 at 5:56 am

   Kaye Lee, your last paragraph, in summing up Abbott, sounds awfully like Andrew Bolt as well.

5. mikestasseDecember 27, 2013 at 6:32 am

   As a member of Malcolm Turnbull’s shadow cabinet Abbott cheerfully championed the work of the prominent Australian climate sceptic Professor Ian Plimer.

   Plimer is NOT a climate scientist. He’s a geologist. He’s paid by the fossil fuel industry to find and extract the very things that cause climate change, so he’s not about to tell us that what he does for a living will destroy us……

6. mikestasseDecember 27, 2013 at 6:40 am

   Plimer’s book is so full of crap, it has actually inspired entire books to debunk the junk science within it…..

   Debunking Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth”

7. AnomanderDecember 27, 2013 at 8:00 am

   The MSM has a LOT to answer for when it comes to obfuscating the truth of Climate Change.

   Every time a story on Climate Change surfaces, a countervailing argument needs be presented, in other to maintain “balance”. Yet this alleged “balance” exists in no other sphere.

   You don’t see a story about police locking-up drug dealers only to have drug addicts appearing to defend the dealers actions – as a necessary means of balance?

   When the Pope’s message are broadcast on national TV news, you don’t get a corresponding story from a bunch of atheists claiming there is no evidence to support a god hypothesis – religion clearly doesn’t need balance?

   When a story about someone dying as a result of drink-driving, I’m surprised the AHA aren’t fronting the cameras pointing out that manufacturers should be making cars out of rubber to allow people to indulge in the “legal pastime” of drinking?

   Out of over 13,000 published peer-reviewed articles on climate change between 1991 and 2102, less that 25 disagree with the hypothesis of global warming. Notice how Plimer is publishing books and not scientific papers? Because his scientific method is so poor – none of his research or findings would ever make the grade, yet his voice is so disproportionately heard.

8. DaveDecember 27, 2013 at 8:07 am

   Hey abboptt! Seen this?..Read this?..It’s you that’s full of crap?..And hunt!

9. John FraserDecember 27, 2013 at 9:32 am

   <

   A bit unfair asking "Slick" Abbott to read documents while he is riding his bike.

   Its also unfair to expect "Slick" Abbott to talk to other people when he is busy listening to Peta Credlin giving him his 20 second sound bites.

   It takes a while to learn all those words ……. "Labor's mess", "Labors heritage", "emergency economy", "disastrous economy" etc etc.

   On the bright side ……. it is down to 2 word slogans …… and it gives "Slick" Abbott more time to ride his bike.

   The probability exists that soon it will be down to zero words and slogans and Aussies will be reading front page news what Angelina and the Queen are up too …… which is what "Rosebud" Murdoch is already doing.

10. Dan RowdenDecember 27, 2013 at 9:47 am

    Mike,

    Plimer is NOT a climate scientist. He’s a geologist.

    That’s actually irrelevant. David Suzuki isn’t a climate scientist either but we all hang on his every word. Besides, Geology has something meaningful to say with respect to Climate Change. It’s not a primary player, yet a player in the rubric of disciplines that makes up the science of Climate Change.

    He’s paid by the fossil fuel industry to find and extract the very things that cause climate change, so he’s not about to tell us that what he does for a living will destroy us……

    There ya go. That’s the key point. Plimer cannot be taken seriously because of this and his total failure to make proper scientific arguments. He’s a propagandist for Mining, nothing more. That’s why he writes for the “average” person.

11. VoterBentleighDecember 27, 2013 at 9:55 am

    John Fraser and Anomander, you are both so right!

12. VoterBentleighDecember 27, 2013 at 9:58 am

    Kerry O’Brien honed in on how Mr. Abbott operates: one week he is saying “x” and the next week he is saying not “not x”. Mr Abbott has shown himself unconcerned with any policy except where it helps him gain or maintain a winning position. This may explain why he sees scientist who feel strongly committed to evidential material as “evangelical”. Apparently he also regards scientists as “cold fish”, incapable of feeling emotion. The next time a scientist makes a medical break-through which will save millions of people from suffering, I suggest they and the MSM not sound so enthusiastic about the effects of their discovery in case Mr. Abbott suggests that they are being evangelical.

    Mr Abbott operates and behaves purely in relation to maintaining the position of “winner”, as though achieving and staying in government is purely a competition.

    As evident from the graph, climate change has been occurring for decades. Over a decade ago, in 2000, the Australian Parliament produced a senate report on climate change and in that report the Howard Government members stated:

    “The scientific evidence brought before the Committee has confirmed for Government members the certainty of the rate of increase in anthropogenic emissions and the increase in surface temperature as a result. It is certain that if global action to reduce emissions is not taken, there will be substantial changes in climate over the next century and beyond.”

    (Report of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and Arts Reference Committee, November, 2000, “The Heat is On , Australia’s Greenhouse Future”, page 415)

    Of course, being two-faced and untrustworthy, the Howard Government members then went on to say that it was not clear how the “living Earth, especially the biosphere” would adjust to these changes and that other gases besides CO2 needed to be considered, thereby leaving the Government loopholes to do nothing on CO2 emissions.

    Nine years later, Tony Abbott rejected even the basic findings of Howard’s Government. Since then, how many times has he had differing and contradictory views on climate change? Who really knows what Mr. Abbott thinks about climate change, or, for that matter, anything? (On the only non-wrecking policy which he developed – not even an original policy, but an adopted and an expensive version of ALP policy – he once had the completely opposite position claiming that paid parental leave would occur over his “dead body”.)

13. VoterBentleighDecember 27, 2013 at 10:04 am

    Oops! A double negative! That should read one week saying “x” and the next week saying “not x”.

14. John FraserDecember 27, 2013 at 10:05 am

    <

    @VoterBentleigh

    "Slick' Abbott has a well founded belief in Pell and everything he stands for.

    I'm taking the trash out now.

15. Dan RowdenDecember 27, 2013 at 10:15 am

    Kaye Lee,

    Prof Plimer has written several books, not for scientists, but for ordinary people. He was convinced his new book denying the science of climate change, Heaven+Earth. Global Warming: The Missing Science, would be a best-seller even when he could not find a publisher. It was rejected by ABC Books, Random House, which had published an earlier best-selling book, Telling Lies for God, Allen and Unwin, Reed, and the niche South Australian publisher East Street.

    Eventually Plimer sought out Connor Court, an independent publisher based at Ballan in Victoria, that publishes Catholic books, including one by the Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, another climate change denier who quotes Plimer’s arguments. Plimer called, emailed, and 10 minutes later had his proposal accepted. “We know who you are,” they said, and began preparing artwork before the manuscript had even arrived. He later met the publisher, Anthony Cappello, and reassured him he had done the right thing. “I told him, ‘Anthony, this is going to be the biggest book you’ve ever had. This book will put your kids through school’,” Plimer says. “He didn’t believe me but I knew it was going to be good.”

    Glad you changed that up a bit because if there’s one mob that pursues copyright stuff it’s publishers. 😉

16. Kaye LeeDecember 27, 2013 at 10:37 am

    That’s an interesting point Dan. As I said to John Lord, I am more a collator than a creator, so I am putting together information from various different sources that are available online. I usually include links and should have for that information which came from an article in Adelaide Now.

    http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/why-id-put-global-warming-on-ice/story-e6frebt3-1225718191684

    I am reminded of some graffiti in the toilet at Forest Lodge Hotel (a Sydney Uni drinking hole) from back in the 70s. Someone had scrawled “Knowledge isn’t private property so stop putting footnotes on your essays”.
    At the time I understood their pain, but I have grown to understand the importance of quoting sources not only to acknowledge the author, but also to check their credibility.

    Guess I will have to read up on copyright obligations when quoting online sources.

17. John FraserDecember 27, 2013 at 10:58 am

    <

    Speaking of "tame experts".

    Should Murdoch's Courier Mail "dob in" the author of this "Comment" in relation to this article :

    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/we-should-accept-our-collective-responsibility-for-disabled-citizens-with-better-grace-shouldnt-we-kevin-andrews/story-fnihsr9v-1226790217148

    "Bill 56 minutes ago
    I have been on the DSP for about 15 years now, the reason I went on it in the first place was because I could not obtain a permanent position after trying to do so for 5 years, the only work that I could get was casual or permanent part-time which gave me about 16 hours a week, I can remember working upwards of 16 – 18 hours a day for only 2-3 days a week, knocking off from one job going to the next for a few more hours and ocasionly if I was lucky on to another casual job for a few more hours, all because the income from permanent part-time job (16 hours) was just enough to put me above the earnings limit that made me eligible for any govt. assistance which meant that by the time I paid for petrol I was worse off than if I had of sat back and put a load of bull shite on the dole form every 2 weeks.".

    I imagine Centrelink would be very interested and it should be the civic duty of Murdoch representatives here in Australia to do exactly what they have been telling Aussies to do.

    Feel free to write a Letter to the Editor … ( http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/letter-to-the-editor )
    … asking them to do exactly that.

    Just imagine not having to hack into a phone for that information … the dummy handed it out for all to see …. and he deserves all that's coming to him …. so go get him "Rosebud" Murdoch.

18. Steven Subhash JamesDecember 27, 2013 at 10:38 am

    Any truthful thinking person questions their own thoughts on many issues. and makes adjustments to their thought processes. Obviously Plimer and Abbott are not truthful thinking people ! never has and never will be !

19. ananda1955December 27, 2013 at 11:42 am

    I agree Paul Raymond Scahill, The bully needs to be bullied !

20. Paul Raymond ScahillDecember 27, 2013 at 11:00 am

    Abbott continues to be a denier even when most respected scientists are advising that they have scientific proof and graphs depicting climate change. I truly think that someone has to strongly put the point of climate change to Abbott so forcefully that he shows his true colours and challenges (physically) any such person. We all know what a bully he is but he has such a small fuse that it may be the only way to ignite the clown. He has no FACTS with which to defend his obstinate views, which is why I am suggesting a forceful challenge

21. cornlegendDecember 27, 2013 at 12:36 pm

    I didn’t read Ian Plimer’s book, don’t intend too either.
    I get enough scientific knowledge off “The Big Bang Theory”
    Sheldon knows

22. diannaartDecember 27, 2013 at 12:45 pm

    Let’s face it, experts who are climate change denialists that have any credentials are few and far between…

    I decided to do a search for actual climatologists who remain sceptical towards human action as a significant factor in climate change. The search parameter was quite simple and basic:

    “climate scientists who are climate sceptics”

    Could not locate too many, the closest I got to actual climate scientists were:

    Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

    William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University

    William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology

    John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC

    Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology

    Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

    Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia

    I extracted the above scientists from a list collated by Wiki – no doubt there are some more about… somewhere. Link to Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

    What I couldn’t find were any actual credible groups/universities/organisations-private or government presenting any significant doubt about human influenced climate change.

    By credible groups or organisations, I tried to find equivalents to NASA, CSIRO, who as a collection of peer reviewed climate scientists dispute the findings of the majority of the world’s climate scientists. I couldn’t find any. The search results pulled up places like the Heartland Institute, IPA, Watts-up-with-that – not much else.

    This exercise took me about 20 minutes – a leisurely 20 minutes at that… Tony Abbott, our Prime Minister, a Rhodes Scholar is incapable of doing the same? OK, he’s too busy, I get that. Doesn’t he have minions for that type of information gathering? In the interests of balance should not Tony Abbott be seeking advice from the CSIRO as much as he is the IPA? At least one of the aforementioned groups actually do science as opposed to right wing rhetoric.

    Too much is at stake for climate change to become a political football – but it has. So WTF are we going to do about it?

23. Truth SeekerDecember 27, 2013 at 1:25 pm

    Dianna, good work 😎 and well said 😀

    Cheers 😀

24. cornlegendDecember 27, 2013 at 3:01 pm

    I have taken the advice of post below.
    Saves me arguing with right wing nut jobs.

    https://twitter.com/StanSteam2/status/416353653495054336/photo/1

25. Kaye LeeDecember 27, 2013 at 3:13 pm

    Very good advice cornie. Adding it to my list of reminders to self 🙂

26. Murray JamesDecember 27, 2013 at 3:14 pm

    Abbott is right, CC GW is CRAP.
    How’s all that melting ice working out for you in the Antarctica?

    And its summer down there? Must be that co2 Tax at work. Great foresight Julia…LOL

    British and Australian climatologists have confirmed that summer ice melt in Antarctica is now ten times as intense as it was 600 years ago—the melt is now happening faster than it has at any point over the last 1,000 years.

    NASA Announces New Record Growth Of Antarctic Sea Ice Extent
    Date: 22/10/13

    Spiegel Online

    Researchers have measured a new record for sea-ice extent in the Antarctic. Why the white splendour is extending there while it is rapidly disappearing in the Arctic is a mystery?

    So can someone explain this? Is it going to be Ice Free? or Not? and if it is when will this happen? These questions need answers? Maybe if I apply for a Green Grant I can get the Answers?

    What happened to all These so called Predictions?
    In the 1970s, “a major cooling of the planet” was “widely considered inevitable” because it was “well established” that the Northern Hemisphere’s climate “has been getting cooler since about 1950” (New York Times, May 21, 1975). Although some disputed that the “cooling trend” could result in “a return to another ice age” (the Times, Sept. 14, 1975), others anticipated “a full-blown 10,000-year ice age” involving “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation” (Science News, March 1, 1975, and Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976, respectively). The “continued rapid cooling of the Earth” (Global Ecology, 1971) meant that “a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery” (International Wildlife, July 1975). “The world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age” (Science Digest, February 1973). Because of “ominous signs” that “the Earth’s climate seems to be cooling down,” meteorologists were “almost unanimous” that “the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century,” perhaps triggering catastrophic famines (Newsweek cover story, “The Cooling World,” April 28, 1975). Armadillos were fleeing south from Nebraska, heat-seeking snails were retreating from Central European forests, the North Atlantic was “cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool,” glaciers had “begun to advance” and “growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter” (Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 27, 1974).

    in 1980 Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford scientist and environmental Cassandra who predicted calamitous food shortages by 1990, accepted a bet with economist Julian Simon. When Ehrlich predicted the imminent exhaustion of many non renewable natural resources, Simon challenged him: Pick a “basket” of any five such commodities, and I will wager that in a decade the price of the basket will decline, indicating decreased scarcity. Ehrlich picked five metals — chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten — that he predicted would become more expensive. Not only did the price of the basket decline, the price of all five declined.

    An expert Ehrlich consulted in picking the five was John Holdren, who today is President Obama’s science adviser. Credentialed intellectuals, too — actually, especially — illustrate Montaigne’s axiom: “Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know.”

    As global levels of sea ice declined last year, many experts said this was evidence of man-made global warming. Since September, however, the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began. According to the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.

    Dark Green Doomsayers
    By George F. Will Sunday
    February 15, 2009
    The Washington Post.

    Its the Wacky Wacky world of CC GW.

    And what about all those Predictions from the God of CC GW in Australia Tim Flannery?

    Tim, Al Gore, David Suzuki and many more should be cell mates with Bernie Madoff, all have a lot in common, FRAUD.

27. diannaartDecember 27, 2013 at 3:43 pm

    Thanks Kaye Lee for filling in the back story of those few Climate Scientists who dispute the 97% of Climate Scientists.

    Didn’t take you very long to find these few scientists as not having much credibility by way of peer reviewed literature. That’s just how it is. Credible climate sceptics are so hard to find these days.

    I really hope the 97% are totally wrong – bring on the science to prove them wrong, say I. If the 97% are wrong, that means we can continue to pollute with impunity, strip the earth of fossil fuels, shred all the timber, pump effluent, fertilisers, pesticides endlessly into our waterways – with no consequence. A kind of ‘get out of jail free’ card – magical ain’t it?

28. nickthiwerspoonDecember 27, 2013 at 3:49 pm

    Where did the data for the chart come from. I would like to fit my own curve (a Henderson Curve) to it.

29. Murray JamesDecember 27, 2013 at 4:28 pm

    @diannaart And your point is?

    Winter Storm Brings Record Snowfall To Wisconsin
    Milwaukee, Green Bay, and Madison all had record snowfalls for Dec. 22: Milwaukee had eight inches, breaking the previous record for the date set in 1896; Green Bay’s new record is six inches; and Madison accumulated 5.9 inches. WOW 1896?

    Lawrence Solomon: For global warming believers, 2013 was the year from Hell?

    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/12/19/lawrence-solomon-for-global-warming-believ

    2013 marks the 17th year of no warming on the planet It marks the first time that James Hansen, Al Gore’s guru and the one whose predictions set off the global warming scare, admitted that warming had stopped. It marks the first time that major media enforcers of the orthodoxy — the Economist, Reuters and the London Telegraph – admitted that the science was not settled on global warming, the Economist even mocking the scientists’ models by putting them on “negative watch.” Scientific predictions of global cooling – until recently mostly shunned in the academic press for fear of being labeled crackpot – were published and publicized by no less than the BBC, a broadcaster previously unmatched in the anthropogenic apocalyptic media.

    Australia Hot in Summer, Nth America cold in Winter? Go figure.

30. Greg of SW SydneyDecember 27, 2013 at 4:44 pm

    @Murray James – with regard to the Antarctic ice extent, I ask you, can you say anything of the character of that ice? How much of it is multi-year sea ice (and therefore persistent for longer periods) and how much of it is sourced from the ice sheets of the Antarctic continent or is only year old ocean ice pushed further out by increased winds and larger weather systems than have been recorded for the polar ocean before? When providing a measure of ‘ice extent’, are you aware that the NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado) measures ice cover as any area of ocean with 15% or greater ice cover? That still means that there can be a lot of water between those bergs… It also relates to the effects of the winds, which for the Antarctic push ice outwards from the continent, . Because these winds are coming down from the high Antarctic ice mass, cold air is now circulating much more widely out to the Southern Ocean, which allows the ice to remain intact for longer. The actual mass of ice (refer to the GRACE satellite experiment) in both polar regions has also decreased markedly – which means that while there is more ice in Antarctic waters, it does not have the same mass as before, so it has melted and joined the great global waterdrop. The ice sheet on the southern continent is over 4km thick at it’s deepest – loss of a relatively small amount from the edges can give the impression of a large increase in ice evident in the Southern Ocean. This ice may well be sourced from more rapid movement of glaciers into the ocean, something reported by many organisations with researchers in the Antarctic.
    Of course, I don’t have a strong leg to stand on – I am only an ecologist and need to understand multi-decadal changes, drivers and forcing agents to make sense of the world I investigate. However, my late father was researching the ‘impending ice age’ as a physicist in the late 1960s, and many times told me that there was no cooling trend – using evidence that is not dissimilar to that seen in the graph with this article.
    As to the determination of fraud, have you actually dissected the work of these scientists? I take it from your expansive knowledge you must be a practicing scientist, and can point to where, in their original works (not the second-source reported materials) where these matters they state are fraudulent? The predictions made by Flannery were for a general decrease in rainfall in areas that are below about 900mm per year, and an increase in rainfall in those areas receiving about 1500mm per year (both observed), with the rain to arrive in heavier rainfall events that will run away more quickly, while the longer periods between will be drier (less cloud cover and lower humidity) and will last for longer than typical dry spells of the past. Storages may well run dry if the period between rainfall events becomes too long, and large rainfall events may cause these storages to fill quickly. Now, I am sure you can see that explaining it in that detail for the general mass of Newscorp readers will be best distilled down to, lets say – hotter and drier with more likelihood of dams running dry. My area has only had 11 rainfall events >20mm this year for a total of 651mm of an annual median value of 796mm in 39 years of records – 125mm of that fell on one day in January – a January rainfall record.

31. diannaartDecember 27, 2013 at 3:48 pm

    All the temperatures plastered across the map of Australia can all be verified, confirmed, proven true by simply checking with the BOM.

    http://e.bom.gov.au/link/id/zzzz511c1e9ea3591734/page.html

    …and 2014 is on its way.

32. Greg of SW SydneyDecember 27, 2013 at 5:09 pm

    @Murray – in response to your latest comment: The amount of snowfall itself should be a warning. That you get more snow is actually in line with warming models. The warmer air can hold more moisture. If air at -5 holds a small amount of moisture, it may not fall from the sky as the accretions are not large enough. However, air at -4 can hold more moisture, meaning that there is a greater chance it will fall from the sky. When you warm the air, it holds more moisture. Nature’s only ‘bottom line’ is -273.15 degrees Celsius (any scientist will know what that number is) and above that value moisture can be held. If you have the warmer air at -4 holding sufficient moisture to precipitate, the temperature alone will make it fall as snow. Therefore, as the temperature moves upwards, it may still snow… Go figure!
    Australia was hotter in summer, and as you say, that is unremarkable (apart from the fact that it was so widespread and typically in the highest decile for so long), but what of the warm winter we got? It was warmer than average too – in some places by much more than 1 degree Celsius. Does that mean you got a cooler than average summer in your northern hemisphere location (which I surmise from your references and referrals)? I don’t think you did.
    As to the 17th year of no warming, is tha a ‘year on year’ value, or over a longer trend of say 10 years, or even the internationally recognised 30 year standard? I only ask because the stock market provides a somewhat similar means of tracking a single element (in this case, the value of stocks). Looking at the data for 26th December 2013, between 10:45 and 11:15 (http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/index/djia) it fell, yet the daily value continued to rise – in this case to it’s highest close ever. Yet, anyone would say that there was no change between the values of say 10:45 and 11:20, and so the market didn’t change, yet in that time it lost 10-15 percent of the total daily change. If you are playing with stocks worth a billion dollars, that 100 million right there… gone. Just lucky I guess that the stock market continued to rise so the value was retained. Looking at the whole year, between the end of May and the end of October, there was no change in the value of the stock market, but it was higher at the end than it was at the start, but pluck any period of less than the full year (say all of June or all of August, or mid-September to mid-October) and the markets were trending sharply downwards.
    The temperature graph is showing a curve similar to that of the stock market. How many people put their full trust in that? And I can also assure you, anyone who works on the stock market as a trader is making 4-5 times more than I do, as one of those poorly paid government scientists. Maybe I should go and play with non-existent money like those folks. After all, the accrual of value is dependent on what – hearsay from one bloke about how much the stuff they produce could be worth… There are rules against insider trading because you can blame someone in particular when they start to force change in a stock to their advantage. How do we quantify the damage against an individual who says ‘nah, it’ll be right, keep digging up that stuff that 97% (32 in 33) scientists say is doing harm. The bloke who didn’t, he must be right!’

33. diannaartDecember 27, 2013 at 5:09 pm

    Climate extremes; Heat waves, tornadoes, deluge of rainfall here, unprecedented snowfall there.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1015

    https://blogs.csiro.au/climate-response/stories/fire-and-climate-change-fire-risk-needs-to-be-managed/

    A new European report on climate extremes is out

    All of the above links to CREDIBLE climate science – something that the AGW deniers cannot do: provide credible science that human induced climate change is not happening.

    Prove we can pollute our air, waterways and earth without consequences, please, prove it.

    Prove we can inflict anything on this planet earth and there will be no changes, prove it.

    Please.

34. Murray JamesDecember 27, 2013 at 5:36 pm

    I’m just asking the question when will it melt? 5ys 10ys 20ys maybe a 100ys? The planet is over 4 billion years old. And just think the Antarctica was once ice free? I’m just highlighting a lot of nonsence re CC GW. Anyone who can predict the weather or climate in 1 year let alone 100 ys is a Fraud.
    Check all those previous posts Re predictions CC GW.
    But we don’t want to talk about those do we?

    The Oronteus Finaeus map (Oronteus Fineus map) shows an ice free Antarctica.

    It too shows an ice free Antartica with no ice-cap. It was drawn in the year 1532. There are also maps showing Greenland as two separated islands, as it was confirmed by a polar French expedition which found out that there is an ice cap quite thick joining what it is actually two islands.

35. John FraserDecember 27, 2013 at 5:49 pm

    <

    The other day The AIMN had "Greg O" commenting on taxation and this was his story :

    "Hi Guys, I am back. Sorry, I have a business to run, 5 children to support, suppliers to get off my back, ATO to appease, etc, as I am sure all of you do too. If I could address the “fairness” of the amount of tax that big mining companies pay, a point from Kaye Lee I think? The issue of what is “fair” in taxation is just about the most subjective thing there is. In the end, the only truly “fair” rate of tax for everyone is zero. "

    When pressed on taxation "Greg O" changed the subject to an esoteric discussion of rich and poor.

    Today we have "Murry James" who apparently is speaking for IPA & the vatican.

    Out yourself "Murray James" and give a brief description of yourself.

36. 'george hanson'December 27, 2013 at 5:05 pm

    DAVID FARRELL…….’kin’ cliff’s sake …….you really need english lessons .

37. Greg of SW SydneyDecember 27, 2013 at 6:11 pm

    From the site Bad Archaeologists: (http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=979)
    “Although there are fairly obvious similarities between the general depiction of the southern continent by Orontius Finaeus and modern maps of Antarctica, they do not stand up to close scrutiny; indeed, there are more differences than similarities, much as one would expect from a map drawn without genuine knowledge of the southern continent! To show that Orontius’s Terra Australis corresponds to the outline of Antarctica, it was necessary for Hapgood to rotate the depiction by about twenty degrees, move the South Pole by 7½° (1,600 km) and alter the scale, as Terra Australis is 230% the size of Antarctica. Hapgood used this change in scale to explain the absence of the Antarctic Peninsula (Palmer Land), which he believed Orontius Finaeus had to omit from his map as it would have overlapped with South America at that scale; he explained that Finaeus confused latitude 80° south with the Antarctic Circle. Just as with his treatment of Piri’s map, Hapgood also had to shuffle whole sections of coastline to make them fit. It is unclear how the hypothesised original map had become fragmented and wrongly recombined; it is even more unclear how the fringe writers can go on to claim that various geographical features are shown in their correct places and at the correct scale. ”

    A number of the sites used to look for information about the map seem to all cite and contercite each other – even to the text in some being identical to that in others. Therefore, sheer number of websites is not a good measure. Additionally, where on the map is Australia? I would think that, having found an ice free Antarctic the ancient mariners may well have bumped into a relatively large landmass in the middle of the ocean. I would also consider that the proximity of the ‘large estuary’ to the position of the Gulf of Carpentaria should be considered a suggestion that maybe, as with others, the southern coastline of Australia was largely untravelled, and ‘assumption of similarity’ meant that the land was extended southwards to ‘balance up’ the mass of land in the northern hemisphere.

38. Kaye LeeDecember 27, 2013 at 6:44 pm

    Murray, climate models can’t predict year to year variations but the long term trends are clear. Reducing emissions isn’t like turning a light off…the effect is not seen immediately. We are locked in now for a certain amount of climate change between now and 2030 no matter what we do, but what we do now will have a stark effect on what happens in 50 years time or 100 years time.

    It’s true that after rising rapidly in the 1990s, global average temperature increases at the earth’s surface have slowed since 1998. But warming hasn’t stopped.

    The past decade was the hottest on record globally. Each year from 2000 to 2010, except 2008, was in the 10 warmest recorded globally.

    A lull in solar activity from 2005 to 2010, combined with two very strong La Niña episodes from 2010 to 2012, would be expected to produce a strong decrease in global temperatures.

    Yet the world hasn’t cooled. On the contrary, global surface temperatures are moving in the opposite direction to natural climate variations, due to greenhouse gas warming.

    Ocean heat content provides a more comprehensive measure of global warming, because the oceans are vast heat reservoirs. The oceans absorb about 93 per cent of the additional heat trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

    Recent studies show that natural cooling in the Pacific Ocean has counteracted some of the warming effect of greenhouse gases as heat is pumped down into the deep ocean.

    Changes in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation can help explain the slowing of warming at the surface. This is a natural ocean cycle that plays out over decades and has been in a cooling phase since 1998.

    Greenhouse gas warming certainly won’t be linear, with the same increase in heat recorded in each successive decade. But the overall trend is clear – global warming hasn’t paused and the climate system continues to warm.

39. olddaveyDecember 27, 2013 at 5:50 pm

    Murray James @December 27, 2013 • 5:36 pm
    Muzza,
    Most of us here will read your posts and consign them to the trash can of the mind.
    You’d be better off cuddling up to the Bolter, but you’re probably a bit to far to the left for that.

40. Kaye LeeDecember 27, 2013 at 7:58 pm

    Very interesting that there are increasing concerns in the investment market about carbon intensive assets being stranded by tighter regulations, carbon prices or other constraints. Shareholders are reviewing their portfolios to guard against the danger that the coal, oil or gas reserves that make up the bulk of some companies’ valuations are not as valuable as companies or investors think because they will not be allowed to exploit them.

    “It is no surprise that a number of the world’s largest companies – including the world’s biggest oil companies – are already factoring in a carbon price of up to $60 per tonne when they consider their future investment plans.”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2013/12/11/fossil-fuel-assets-in-danger-of-being-stranded/

41. Murray JamesDecember 27, 2013 at 8:16 pm

    Still a long way to go to match the Medieval Warm Period.

    After the little ice age which began in 1650 and ended in 1850 temperatures are finally returning to normal?

    Of course it is was a warm decade, if you can massage the figures to say so. This is the Central England temperature record – largely raw data:

    http://www.climate4you.com/CentralEnglandTemperatureSince1659.htm

    This is the same temperature set after Hadcrut got hold of it:

    http://artofteachingscience.org/images/mean_england_temp.gif

    Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years.
    Science 1 November 2013:

    Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.

    Global warming is popularly viewed only as an atmospheric process, when, as shown by marine temperature records covering the last several decades, most heat uptake occurs in the ocean. How did subsurface ocean temperatures vary during past warm and cold intervals? Rosenthal et al. (p. 617) present a temperature record of western equatorial Pacific subsurface and intermediate water masses over the past 10,000 years that shows that heat content varied in step with both northern and southern high-latitude oceans. The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events, and they provide a long-term perspective for evaluating the role of ocean heat content in various warming scenarios for the future.

    A paper published today Dec 26 2013 in the Journal of Quaternary Science notes that during the last interglacial, “global temperatures were 2 °C higher and rates of sea-level rise [greater than 5.6mm/year], leading to sea levels 6.6–9.4 meters [22 to 31 feet] higher than present. The source(s) of this sea-level rise remain fiercely debated.”

    Thus, during the last interglacial, the globe was naturally 2 °C warmer, sea levels rose 5 times faster than at the present, sea levels were up to 31 feet higher than the present, and Antarctic sea ice was much less than the present, all with “safe” levels of CO2. There is no evidence that climate change within the present interglacial is any different, unprecedented, unnatural, unusual, or due to man-made CO2 ??

    So what’s next??

42. Kaye LeeDecember 27, 2013 at 8:45 pm

    Rosenthal: “Our reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures suggests that in the last 10,000 years, the Pacific mid-depths have generally been cooling by about 2 degrees centigrade until a minimum about 300 years during the period known as the Little Ice Age.

    After that, mid-depth temperatures started warming but at a very slow rate. Then, since about 1950, temperatures from just below the sea surface to ~1000 meter, increased by 0.18 degrees C. This seemingly small increase occurred an order of magnitude faster than suggested by the gradual change during the last 10,000 years thereby providing another indication for global warming.”

    Rosenthal’s study has confirmed that warming is happening at a far faster rate now and added to the research that shows in recent times, the Earth has been out of energy balance and changes we are observing in the climate are unprecedented, at least as far back as we measure.

43. Kaye LeeDecember 27, 2013 at 9:00 pm

    There have been periods of warming and cooling before Murray. No-one disputes that. There are also natural cyclical warming and cooling events. The problem is that we are warming much quicker than ever before and continuing to warm in opposition to cyclical cooling events.

44. Murray JamesDecember 27, 2013 at 9:12 pm

    @ Kaye Lee …It is no surprise that a number of the world’s largest companies – including the world’s biggest oil companies – are already factoring in a carbon price of up to $60 per tonne when they consider their future investment plans.

    Nice to see the Big Polluters get in on the scam.
    Hell there’s enough money for all in sundry, why not?

    Carbon Trading…
    A Ponzi scheme? If you create a market based on trading something intangible which can’t ever be redeemed (unlike even the worst types of derivatives) and simply imposes costs on its victims which they pass on to their customers etc, eventually moving the same money around in spirals and other pretty patterns, it’s called a Ponzi scheme. Nothing is created, traded or added to the total, it just recycles the same money until the supply dries up.

    Carbon trading was created by Enron.

    The funniest joke no one ever tells: Enron helped develop the Carbon Trading Scheme.

    A lot of business leaders are changing their positions. New businesses and CEO’s and corporations every week are now joining this new bandwagon saying we want to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.I thought businessmen just wanted to pad their bottom line; now they want to save the planet?

    Carbon markets can and will be manipulated using the same Wall Street sleights of hand that brought us the financial crisis.

    Thank God for GW CC. It’s about the Money Money Money ??

45. Kaye LeeDecember 27, 2013 at 9:26 pm

    It’s about changing behaviour and funding clean energy alternatives. And I don’t know that Enron created the carbon trading scheme though it would make sense to have industry consultation.

    The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has observed that:

    “Policies that provide a real or implicit price of carbon could create incentives for producers and consumers to significantly invest in low-GHG products, technologies and processes. Such policies could include economic instruments, government funding and regulation,”

    while noting that a tradable permit system is one of the policy instruments that has been shown to be environmentally effective in the industrial sector, as long as there are reasonable levels of predictability over the initial allocation mechanism and long-term price.

    The mechanism was formalized in the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement between more than 170 countries, and the market mechanisms were agreed through the subsequent Marrakesh Accords

46. Murray JamesDecember 27, 2013 at 10:13 pm

    @ Kaye, You mean funding this clean energy alternatives?

    The Telegraph Friday 27 December 2013

    Councils waste millions on ineffective wind turbines that will take 190 years to repay.

    Councils are wasting millions of pounds on wind turbines that are not working or will take hundreds of years to repay because they are generating as little as £13 worth of energy a month.

    Local authorities spent hundreds of thousands of pounds installing the turbines in an effort to meet renewable energy targets.

    And what about this clean energy alternative, The magic of Solar?

    Since 2009 many solar companies have gone out of business (edited).

    And how many Billions and Billions of Dollars has been wasted on Alternative Energy?

    And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. That’s if there are still any icebergs around? No pun intended?

47. Kaye LeeDecember 27, 2013 at 10:25 pm

    Murray posts like that are silly. Please state your case and then provide a link rather than that very pointless list that no-one would read.

    As an example of many, I mean these sort of investments …

    http://www.cleanenergyfinancecorp.com.au/reports/annual-report/investments-at-a-glance.aspx

48. Murray JamesDecember 27, 2013 at 10:28 pm

    http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Rest-in-Peace-The-List-of-Deceased-Solar-Companies

    Read away.

49. Murray JamesDecember 27, 2013 at 11:05 pm

    Rising Energy Prices: Germans Grow Wary of Switch to Renewables http://spon.de/adMfX via @SPIEGELONLINE

50. Kaye LeeDecember 27, 2013 at 11:08 pm

    Murray that list of companies you posted are American companies. You seem to just be randomly posting anything you can find rather than reading and developing a line of discussion. Did you have a look at what the Clean Energy Finance Corporation have done so far?

    The German article is over 12 months old. You will be pleased to hear that Angela Merkel won an overwhelming endorsement from German voters and was returned as chancellor so apparently the person that wrote that article didn’t quite have his finger on the pulse of German opinion.

51. John FraserDecember 27, 2013 at 11:24 pm

    <

    Finally and at last …. "Murray James" gives up something that shows where he is headed with this conversation …. nowhere, because he is just another pessimistic denier.

    http://ivanpahsolar.com/

    http://www.acciona.com/business-divisions/flagship-projects/nevada-solar-one

    http://www.abengoasolar.com/web/en/nuestras_plantas/plantas_en_construccion/estados_unidos/

    Have a look at the type of country surrounding these projects.

    Australia is being left behind because of people just like "Murray James".

52. Murray JamesDecember 27, 2013 at 11:03 pm

    Nothing beats Renewables.

    Life is so much easier when it comes out of someone else’s pocket?

    Energy Prices: Germans Grow Wary of Switch to Renewablesn.de/adMfX via @SPIEGELONLINE

53. Steven Subhash JamesDecember 27, 2013 at 11:18 pm

    another roll by another name

54. cornlegendDecember 28, 2013 at 6:56 am

    Murray.
    Your link to greentechmedia wasn’t in fact all doom and gloom.
    It pointed out the risks of Venture Capitalism.
    Sure some Solar companies fell over., lots didn’t and are blossoming
    Some sounded wacky to start with.
    The Venture Capitalists got burned.
    as some commented on the link you provided

    “25% of all American businesses fail in the first year.

    50% fail before they are five years old.

    People really like to take things out of perspective, don’t they?”

    or
    “Over 150 US computer manufacturers went out of business. Over 200 US car manufacturers.

    We still have both computers and cars. Both are incredibly better than what we used to have and very much less expensive for what one gets.”

55. cornlegendDecember 28, 2013 at 7:59 am

    Murray,
    some aren’t afraid to invest in the future .$323 billion in fact
    China outlines renewable energy splurge

    China’s spending to develop renewable energy may total 1.8 trillion yuan ($323 billion) in the five years through 2015 as part of the nation’s efforts to counter climate change, according to a government official.

    China may invest another 2.3 trillion yuan in key energy- aving and emission-reducing projects, Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, said Tuesday at a conference in Beijing. China stands by its pledge to cut carbon emissions per unit of economic output by as much as 45 per cent before 2020 from 2005 levels, he said

    http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/china-outlines-renewable-energy-splurge-20130730-2qx92.html#ixzz2oi8xeQS7

56. Murray JamesDecember 28, 2013 at 8:04 am

    Watch Listen and Learn?

    COP19: Marc Morano, Executive Editor/Chief Correspondent, Climate Depot: http://youtu.be/9_Im9B46TAc via @youtube

57. Murray JamesDecember 28, 2013 at 8:20 am

    100% on the money?

    Brilliant Marc Morano Skewers Climate Alarmists: http://youtu.be/pyPes7IR348 via @youtube

    Don’t choke on your Wheaties ?

58. Kaye LeeDecember 28, 2013 at 8:46 am

    As is always the way with the deniers, trace the money. Just in case you missed ME’s point….

    In 2009 Marc Morano became the executive director and chief correspondent of ClimateDepot.com, a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a conservative think-tank based out of Washington D.C. that has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations associated with Richard Mellon Scaife. Although he has no scientific expertise in the area, Morano has become a prominent climate change skeptic.

    From 2006 to 2009 Morano was the communications director for Senator James Inhofe who received more in donations from the oil and gas sector than any other Senator. Prior to working for Senator Inhofe, Morano was a journalist with Cybercast News Service, which is owned and operated by the Media Research Center (MRC). The MRC is supported in part by right-wing foundations and funding from industry, including over $200,000 from ExxonMobil.

    You want me to take the word of a tv presenter with no scientific qualifications who is being paid by the oil companies rather than the 97% of scientists who actually do and understand the research? Murray you have been duped. Always check the credibility of your sources.

59. OzFenricDecember 28, 2013 at 9:20 am

    It is true that some solar power companies have failed. Businesses fail all the time. And solar power and other renewables are fighting an up-hill battle as they try to develop profitable businesses against a cheaper and ubiquitous, albeit harmful, entrenched opponent. The fossil fuel industry is protected by governments and the recipient of huge handouts and subsidies. This is why the ETS in Australia included significant subsidies for solar and renewable energy projects – to help them over the line as competitive concerns. The government of the day saw the development of alternative energy sources as an important enough goal to be worth supporting, primarily because the technology and the market was not yet at the point where they could reliably stand alone against the behemoth mining companies.

    Fast forward six years. Now, in some cases, the support of national governments is necessary to turn large-scale, expensive extraction projects into profitable concerns, and increasingly the huge and rising costs of mining progressively more difficult fuel sources is leading to reassessment and cancellation of projects. Despite the system’s best efforts, the fossil fuel industry is dying. But without concerted effort to support alternative power sources and undermine the miners, it won’t die without a last massive push to dig up and burn as much fuel as humanly possible, enough to push us over any climate cliffs we haven’t already left far behind.

60. OzFenricDecember 28, 2013 at 9:29 am

    I gave up on Ian Plimer when he tried to claim that the sun is largely made of iron, with a solid core similar in composition to a meteorite. His climate change book is full of self-contradictions and unsupported claims, mis-quoted and bluntly misrepresented quotes from scientific literature, and ridiculous and mind-bogglingly bad science, but that claim has to take the cake.

    I have a masters degree in information management and IT. Maybe I should publish a book about insect behaviour and make the claim that the world’s ants are a massive hive mind controlling Wall Street’s financial markets through magnetic influence on the stock exchange databases. I might get some attention. Might even put my kids through school.

61. Möbius EckoDecember 28, 2013 at 8:29 am

    Thanks Murray James, that you endorsed it and stated it was spot on the money proved to me it wasn’t. You are so wrong in just about everything else it’s a given you are wrong on this.

    Also your diversions and not addressing questions and posts also proves you are just scatter gunning crap in a typical right wing ploy of if you state it often enough it makes it true.

    And do you know why you have it so wrong this time? Probably not as you are so far up your own arse your can only see your own shit, but here’s a hint.

    Marc Morano
    Credentials: B.A., Political Science, George Mason University. (note not climate scientist)

62. Kaye LeeDecember 28, 2013 at 9:33 am

    Checking now for Ozfenric’s links to the insecticide industry.

63. HaderakDecember 28, 2013 at 9:44 am

    Hi all,

    Before this discussion slides from meaningful debate and into declarations of faith in one position or the other, I’d like to propose a challenge to all comers on all sides.

    I’d like you first to clarify in your own mind what your position is regarding climate change – whether the science or the scientists can be trusted, whether you think there is a need for action, what you think the consequences of action or inaction might be. Where the thresholds of risk lie. What costs might be reasonable, in terms of dollars or lives spent.

    Now I’d like you to imagine what kind of proof, study, expert opinion or other impetus might be sufficient to change your mind on these positions. What would it take to move you to the other camp?

    The more strongly you feel about the issue, the more important it is that you answer honestly.

    What would it take to change your mind? Whose opinion do you trust?

    There’s a lot of reasons why people might take a stand for or against, and if we’re serious about changing opinions then it’s critical to understand the reasons why people choose to believe as they do.

    The reasons might not be scientific. They might not be logical, or even rational. For most (and I’m guessing here, but I include myself in this category) the scientific knowledge necessary to reach a self-sourced decision simply isn’t within my grasp, so I am forced to choose someone else to trust.

    Some folks trust a body of scientists. Some trust a politician. Some trust a figurehead in the media.

    My point is this: if the person you are arguing at isn’t making a decision based on their own analysis of the evidence, but instead is trusting in the opinion of another, then no amount of evidence-based analytical proof is going to change their minds. Because they trust the opinion of their selected expert more than they trust their own ability to process and value the evidence you provide.

    If you wish to change such a mind, find out where they source their opinions and change THAT mind.

    Upside: if the source isn’t making science-based rational recommendations it means they have an ulterior motive – and that kind of mind is subject to other kinds of pressure in order to make changes.

    As a hypothetical for-instance: a shock jock won’t give a damn about how many kilograms of academic papers refute their opinion, but a very small amount of sharply worded email correspondence from radio station management can lead to revelatory change in their position.

    Sometimes you can’t push through the ignorance. It can, however, be outflanked.

    IMHO, of course.

    Oh, and merry Christmas Kaye Lee 😉

    …Haderak

64. Kaye LeeDecember 28, 2013 at 9:54 am

    Merry Xmas and welcome Haderak 😉

    Wise words indeed.

    Update on Ozfenric….as I suspected

    Ozfenric has been dubbed the ‘Man with the can of Mortein’ after writing several advertising jingles promoting aerosols. He was sponsored by Monsanto to do a singing tour after his song ‘DDT easy as 123’ rocketed up the conservative charts. He has just published a book that promises to be a bestseller which describes just what kind of ant’s nest we are dealing with, and it’s bigger and more insidious than almost anything you can imagine. If you think ants are just a minor pest stand back, hold onto your hats and take a deep breath as you read

    “It’s like living in The Antrix “

65. Möbius EckoDecember 28, 2013 at 10:02 am

    Well said Haderak.

    If the body of climate scientists came out tomorrow and had credible data and research that disproved the current anthropological global warming hypothesis I would probably change my mind, and indeed I’m hoping this happens.

    But the other factor you miss is the one of risk mitigation or the precautionary principal. It seems those opposed to the dominant climate science, mostly on ideological grounds, want absolute evidence of AGW, but only in this one thing, they don’t demand it for other science fields, and they are willing to have the planet greatly suffer before they will admit their error, and even then probably won’t.

    On the other hand if the chance is that the world may greatly suffer because of AGW then why not take every step to avoid that, whether it turns out to be true or not. The cost of avoiding a possible global calamity is far less than trying to fix it afterwards, and along the way new and cleaner technologies are fostered making life better for all.

66. cornlegendDecember 28, 2013 at 11:20 am

    Kaye Lee
    Where can I purchase “It’s like living in The Antrix “
    Seems like an enjoyable Sunday read.
    Do you think OzFenric would autograph the copy ?
    A signature increases the value significantly if I decide to submit it to Sotheby’s for auction.

67. John FraserDecember 28, 2013 at 11:21 am

    <

    @Haderack

    I believe in CC.

    "Stop the glaciers" ….. retreating and I will believe the deniers.

68. JohnBDecember 28, 2013 at 11:56 am

    Haderak,
    I agree with most of your comment of December 28, 2013 • 9:44 am, however I think your advice “If you wish to change such a mind, find out where they source their opinions and change THAT mind.” underestimates the enormity of forces opposing AGW action.

    e.g. “Conservative groups may have spent up to $1bn a year on the effort to deny science and oppose action on climate change, according to the first extensive study into the anatomy of the anti-climate effort. The anti-climate effort has been largely underwritten by conservative billionaires, often working through secretive funding networks. They have displaced corporations as the prime supporters of 91 think tanks, advocacy groups and industry associations which have worked to block action on climate change.”
    http://www.alternet.org/investigations/climate-change-deniers-backed-secret-network-billionaires?akid=11315.1148446.SzPOKA&rd=1&src=newsletter940918&t=11

    How do law abiding citizens outflank the criminal (IMHO) activities of unprincipled billionaire denialist industrialists intent on growing profits at any cost to the environment?
    Particularly when these corporate behemoths have strategically bought effective control of industrialised democracies – through propaganda via “owned” mass media and their sponsored “conservative” politicians.
    Tell me what would change the “opinion” of the Koch brothers.

    Greed and avarice abide no moral conscience and respect no limitation.
    The wealthy have little regard for popular dissent – they have the wealth, the political power and the weapons to prevail.
    We are expendable!

69. diannaartDecember 28, 2013 at 12:19 pm

    The cost of avoiding a possible global calamity is far less than trying to fix it afterwards, and along the way new and cleaner technologies are fostered making life better for all.

    Möbius Ecko

    You mean apply pragmatism and logic to achieve a workable solution? Dem’s fightin’ words… to our resident deniers.

70. diannaartDecember 28, 2013 at 12:20 pm

    And somehow my entire post ended up as a quote… spooky.

71. diannaartDecember 28, 2013 at 12:30 pm

    BTW

    No takers on providing evidence that our business-as-usual method of digging up safely sequestered carbon (that’s oil/coal/gas, climate deniers) and releasing into environment is having zero impact on our planet? The silence is deafening.

72. murray jamesDecember 28, 2013 at 1:56 pm

    Murray you have been duped. Always check the credibility of your sources?

    Sorry CC GW has lost all Credibility?

    Tim ”the nation’s dams would never be full again” Flannery. Climate Commissioner .
    And his Credibility,one big Fat Zero.

    Michael ”hockey stick” Mann Disgraced Penn State University (PSU) climatologist, Michael Mann, concedes defeat in his bogus claims to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

    Al ”an inconvenient truth” Gore more like an Convenient Lie. A high court judge who highlighted what he said were “nine scientific errors” in the film. Some of which, he said, had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration” to support the former US vice-president’s views on climate change. Not this Al Gore? The Climate Crusader Profits from Fossil Fuels http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Al-Gores-Hipocrisy-The-Climate-Crusader-Profits-from-Fossil-Fuels.html via @webdesignledger
    Credibility What Credibility the guy is a Fraud and a Con Man. But he is one of yours so I guess that’s ok

    Australia’s climate-warming guru, Professor Ross Garnaut. Lihir Gold a mining company of which Professor Garnaut is chairman, was dumping millions of tonnes of toxic-sludge into the ocean near its mine site on Lihir Island, north of the Papua New Guinea mainland. Another Al Gore in Disguise.

    What about Phil “not acceptable”Jones The director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Hacked emails suggest he helped to cover up flaws in temperature data from China that underpinned his research on the strength of recent global warming. That was in 2010.

    Credibility. The quality of being believed or trusted? And these people push the GW CC wheelbarrow.

    Sorry you people are losing the argument?

73. cornlegendDecember 28, 2013 at 2:27 pm

    Murray,
    you really do screen the articles to twist to your logic.
    The source you quoted above , oilprice.com has some exciting articles on the solar revolution.
    you didn’t mention these.
    You did however take delight in mentioning the failures, Those Venture Capital start ups a bit earlier.

    New Efficient Materials Promise a Photovoltaic Revolution’
    or

    Ceramic Converter Tackles Solar Cell Problem
    or

    Swedish furniture giant IKEA is now selling solar panels at its stores in the UK as part of the company’s renewable energy ambitions.

    For about $9,200 each, customers at IKEA’s UK branches can buy solar panels that are advertised as capable of returning consumer investments.

    According to the company, homeowners who buy IKEA solar panels see their investment returned in about seven years.

    I suggest that rather than the gloom you find, if people want to check out the site you provided, they may be pleasantly surprised at the good things happening in renewables

    http://oilprice.com/

74. cornlegendDecember 28, 2013 at 2:34 pm

    Murray,
    You quoted a source as
    via @webdesignledger

    ??
    Is that where the skeptics get their info ?
    What branch of Science is that ?

75. murray jamesDecember 28, 2013 at 3:23 pm

    @ cornlegend Not a Denier are we? Al Gore is a Fraud, as I said he is one of yours so I guess that’s ok?

    Hypocrisy & GW CC go hand in hand.

76. Fed upDecember 28, 2013 at 3:33 pm

    What I cannot understand, why anyone would not want to move onto renewals. In the long run, will be more efficient and cleaner than what we have now.

    No one can look back on the long history of burning cola, and feel proud. Look at the deaths it has caused over the last two or three centuries,

    One only has to recall Newcastle a generation ago, of those minting towns of England.

    Even today, the industry still has seen many die, in getting that cola out of the ground.

    We have a RC into four deaths that occurred putting insulation into roofs cavities..

    We ignore all the deaths, that result from mining and burning coal.

    Does not matter whether there is GW or not. This is the best way to go.

77. Möbius EckoDecember 28, 2013 at 3:59 pm

    Sorry murray james but you really are engaging in some right wing projection there. Calling AGW proponents frauds when the evidence is plainly that the deniers are the frauds putting out false and misleading information and then you top it by calling those proponents hypocrites.

    Better take care, your credibility is slipping by the post.

78. lawrencewinderDecember 28, 2013 at 4:03 pm

    The obfuscation and deliberate lying about climate change is criminal neglect and should be treated as such..

79. Fed upDecember 28, 2013 at 4:04 pm

    One does have big problems when they have to rely on shooting the messenger, or blaming their tools.

    The other problem I have, that they continue to use the same old discredited sources all the time.

80. Möbius EckoDecember 28, 2013 at 4:07 pm

    Isn’t that true Fu. Just continually rotate the same disproven and false crap deliberately put out there by paid by vested interest spruikers with no credibility and declare it the truth.

    They think if they keep putting this guff out there it makes it true. Poor gullible deluded fools they are.

81. cornlegendDecember 28, 2013 at 4:26 pm

    Murray,
    No, Al Gore is not one of “mine”
    I have no respect for the bloke, ever since he gave the election to GW Bush, the election he won, and gave up without a whimper, under pressure from the Republican court system.
    I guess “mine” would be the 97% of scientists who acknowledge Climate Change.
    I guess “yours” are the leftover dumb bunch of misguided fools , paid propagandists, and right wing nutters.
    Yeah, that sounds like yours

82. John FraserDecember 28, 2013 at 5:31 pm

    <

    I wonder if "Murray James" believes that smoking tobacco is harmful to humans.

    I wonder if "Murray James" believes asbestos is harmful to humans.

    I wonder if "Muray James" believes guns are harmful to humans.

    I wonder if "Murray James" believes radiation is harmful to humans.

    I said … I wonder.

    And I wonder how many times he's been had.

83. cornlegendDecember 28, 2013 at 5:50 pm

    John Fraser
    Don’t wonder too hard.
    There are the 3% of flat earthers still out there.
    The 3% of paid propagandists and their blinkered dumb arse followers.
    These 3% are so knowledgable the roll their fags in ultra thin asbestos papers, irradiate them to kill off the tobacco bugs and light them up off a smoking six gun for their kids to smoke on the way to bible study.

84. Kaye LeeDecember 28, 2013 at 6:14 pm

    I wonder about his friends at the top
    And I wonder about those who are not

85. cartoonmickDecember 28, 2013 at 6:37 pm

    Quoting selected data is an age old debate technique employed to fool some of the people all of the time, and after reading some of the responses here, it appears to have worked.

    I can vote, I can wave banners in some kind of street protest, I can write letters to the editor and even phone a shock jock. But none of that will alter the mindset of those who will eventually wreck this place we live in.

    So, instead of churning my gut and worrying about how long my grandchildren can survive, I resort to humour to get me through.

    Here’s 2 humorous examples on climate change . . . . . . .

    Editorial / Political

    …. and

    THE FINAL CHAPTER

    Cheers
    Mick

86. Matters not.December 28, 2013 at 10:33 pm

    murray james said:

    Sorry you people are losing the argument?

    I will assume that the question mark was not intended. And therefore I will again assume it’s an ‘assertion’. If so such an assertion has validity.

    While the ‘political debate’ has ‘tos and fros’ (pardon the German), the fundamental scientific debate has been settled, in the sense that ‘greenhouse gases’ drive climate change.

    While the scientific community overwhelming agree, (driven by testable evidence) the political ‘common sense’, driven by those who has the most power and influence, is still a contest.

    The clear failure to draw a distinction between the two is problematic.

    murray james doesn’t understand the difference, even though most people of average intelligence can grasp those concepts.

    Don’t shout at Murray. Just keep an eye on him and walk slowly backwards. Sudden movements are not recommended.

87. Matters not.December 28, 2013 at 10:39 pm

    Correction: “who have” Plural and all that.

88. murray jamesDecember 28, 2013 at 10:55 pm

    @ cornlegend I guess “mine” would be the 97% of scientists who acknowledge Climate Change.

    That old chestnut. The 97% of scientists? Another GW CC Fraud. http://tinyurl.com/Clim97pct

    Have a good read cornlegend its very interesting on how we got to the 97% ?

89. murray jamesDecember 28, 2013 at 11:14 pm

    @ John Fraser smoking tobacco is harmful to humans. Yes

    I wonder if “Murray James” believes asbestos is harmful to humans. Yes

    I wonder if “Muray James” believes guns are harmful to humans. Yes

    I wonder if “Murray James” believes radiation is harmful to humans. Yes

    And Driving a car is harmful to humans as well.

    John,Life is harmful to humans so your point is what.

    And I wonder how many times he’s been had. By all accounts John you have, its called GW CC.

90. Matters not.December 28, 2013 at 11:21 pm

    Again, murray James seems to think climate change is about the ‘politics’ of same. And he’s not alone.

    ‘Science’ is not about ‘opinion’.

    Perhaps murray might point me to a scientist, currently engaged in published research who has an alternative view?

    Murray, are you aware that all sorts of ‘awards’ await anyone who can ‘disprove’ the ‘science’?

    This lack of intellectual depth is astounding. The Dunning–Kruger effect is out and about for all to see.

91. murray jamesDecember 29, 2013 at 12:00 am

    @ Matters not I guess you didn’t read http://tinyurl.com/Clim97pct Educate yourself on the 97% or is that just to hard to understand.

    Dunning-Kruger effect is so common and what drives it. It mostly boils down to a cognitive bias related to confirmation bias (seeing only what we want to see, and ignoring the misses). In the case AGW or GW CC of the Dunning-Kruger effect, the bias is one where we cannot believe that we are wrong or less intelligent than others, so we have an artificially inflated sense of self-esteem. (And this effect is an ancient human foible, so it can’t be blamed on recent efforts to boost the self-esteem or even at the expense of telling them the truth about their level of competence and intelligence).

    That would be the 97% of Climate Scientists

    Global warming is a religion for many, and a means to acquire political power for others.
    Its not about the science anymore.

92. Matters not.December 29, 2013 at 12:31 am

    Educate yourself on the 97% or is that just to (sic) hard to understand

    … Its (sic) not about the science anymore.

    Someone who can’t handle the language loses credibility. It’s not that hard.

    As for:

    Global warming is a religion for many

    Possibly. But ‘denialism’ is certainly about ‘faith’. I again draw your attention to the working ‘scientist(s)’ who deny the ‘evidence’. Any links?

    and a means to acquire political power for others.

    Hilarious. Those in ‘denial’ of the science have so much to lose while those who ‘accept’ have little or nothing to gain.

    Perhaps you could point out where the Berkeley Earth study were or are in error?

    As the chief skeptic 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.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

    BTW, it was funded, in part at least, by the Kochs.

    And your best link is to a ‘broadcaster’. Bet you read the Bolta and listen to Jones.

    You are a scream.

93. Shaun JDecember 29, 2013 at 12:54 am

    Whoa, king hit Matters Not, hard to imagine a logically thinking individual coming back from that, especially as it is (was) one of his sainted deniers that realised the science was indeed real. Alas, MJ is not a logically thinking individual, I’m sure he’ll weasel out in some way, come up with some “tea party” lunatic or similar “non-scientific” “cherry picked” piece of data to say “nothing to see here, move along”. Never the less, my admiration for a cogent, structured put down.

94. murray jamesDecember 29, 2013 at 1:15 am

    ‘Science’ is not about ‘opinion’

    So what is it about, that’s right it’s about The Science.

    The true believers in AGW since renamed “climate change” claimed cold weather and snow would soon be just a memory.
    Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

    David Viner, senior research scientist at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, long considered an authoritative resource for global warming research, as saying snow would soon be “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. How did the Science Pan out on that, Matters Not.

    Maybe this is the true science.
    World’s top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER http://dailym.ai/1drB0rd via @MailOnline

    Maybe GW will happen, I might be wrong God forbid. This from The University of East Anglia
    the doyen of GW CC.
    Global warming will end life on earth (but don’t panic, you’ve got 3.5bn years left!) http://dailym.ai/14kgpCz via @MailOnline

    Is this the Science we should be talking about.

95. murray jamesDecember 29, 2013 at 1:33 am

    @matters not. I’m still waiting for your thoughts Re the 97% of scientists who acknowledge Climate Change. http://tinyurl.com/Clim97pct Crickets Chirping.

96. murray jamesDecember 29, 2013 at 2:09 am

    Doing Advance Work: 1100 peer reviewed papers supporting argument agai… http://doingadvancework.blogspot.com/2013/03/1100-peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html?spref=tw

    Try this one.

97. John FraserDecember 29, 2013 at 2:23 am

    <

    @"Murray James"

    Your a sad piece of work who doesn't even know when he's being had.

    What's with the sudden flurry of "Comments" …. getting a bit tetchy.

    Humbly suggest you totter off and join your rapidly dwindling network of pessimistic deniers.

    Would like to be able to say that I have learnt something from your time here …. but alas it is not to be.

98. murray jamesDecember 29, 2013 at 2:06 am

    @ Matters not Possibly. But ‘denialism’ is certainly about ‘faith’. I again draw your attention to the working ‘scientist(s)’ who deny the ‘evidence’. Any links?

    Climate Study: Evidence Leans Against Human-Caused Global Warming http://shar.es/91lpk via @BreitbartNews

99. Möbius EckoDecember 29, 2013 at 6:19 am

    Ah the religion meme, was wondering when that one was going to come out.

    Mr murray ames is just cycling through the same old denier crap that’s been doing the circles for a decade now and scatter gunning anything he can find but real credited science.

    Reminds me so much of someone else on another board, and just as without any credibility.

    I could waste time pulling all his crap apart, as I and many others have done for such a long time now, but I’ll leave you with just one of his sources, and note the usual players he cites as being credible. (bold mine)

    In Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, which The Heartland Institute published and released on Tuesday, lead authors Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer worked with a team of scientists to produce a 1,200-page report that is “comprehensive, objective, and faithful to the scientific method.

    You do know murray james that Carter and Singer are paid for by vested interests to muddy the waters on climate change and have been discredited many times as well as proven to peddle misinformation, distortions and outright lies.

100. Möbius EckoDecember 29, 2013 at 6:34 am

     Sorry for shooting the messengers, but with this lot you have to as the same disreputable names come up time and again.

     Now if you go through james murray’s link on peer reviewed opponent papers, which are still a fraction of peer reviewed proponent papers, one author dominates, last name Sherwood B Idso.

     Coincidence?

     And who else appears in that list; S. Fred Singer

     Also note the papers written by non-climate scientists.

     His Popular Technology link doesn’t work at all, so couldn’t find out who wrote the peer reviewed papers there, but I grow weary of doing this over and over so will leave it there as we have already got the trend of Mr james’s scatter gun posts.

     Can you tell us james murray why you believe a handful of discredited and paid for by vested interest groups scientists and authors over many more times the number of credited scientists who have written thousands more papers and who have done far more research both empirically, theoretically and actually in the field over many decades?

     No need to tell us actually, the answer is blind ideology.

101. Kaye LeeDecember 29, 2013 at 6:35 am

     Murray,

     In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject ‘global climate change’ published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).

     A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of ‘global warming’ and ‘global climate change’ published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.

     Several studies have confirmed that “…the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 97% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

     We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

     In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.

102. Kaye LeeDecember 29, 2013 at 6:59 am

     A leaked memo from the Heartland Institute from January 2012 states:

     “We will also pursue additional support from the Charles G. Koch Foundation. They returned as a Heartland donor in 2011 with a contribution of $200,000. We expect to push up their level of support in 2012 and gain access to their network of philanthropists, if our focus continues to align with their interests. Other contributions will be pursued for this work, especially from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies.”

     -Heartland Institute’s global warming denial machine is chiefly – and perhaps entirely – funded by one Anonymous donor:

     “Our climate work is attractive to funders, especially our key 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…”

     -Confirmation of exact amounts flowing to certain key climate contrarians.

     “funding for high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message. At the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found.”

     -Forbes and other business press are favored outlets for Heartland’s dissemination of climate denial messages, and the group is worried about maintaining that exclusive space. They note in particular the work of Dr. Peter Gleick:

     “Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.”

     Note the irony here that Heartland Institute – one of the major mouthpieces behind the debunked ‘Climategate’ email theft who harped about the suppression of denier voices in peer-reviewed literature – now defending its turf in the unscientific business magazine realm.

     -Interesting mentions of Andrew Revkin as a potential ally worth “cultivating,” along with Judith Curry.

     “Efforts might also include cultivating more neutral voices with big audiences (such as Revkin at DotEarth/NYTimes, who has a well-known antipathy for some of the more extreme AGW communicators such as Romm, Trenberth, and Hansen) or Curry (who has become popular with our supporters).”

     -Confirmation that skeptic blogger Anthony Watts is part of Heartland’s funded network of misinformation communicators.

     “We have also pledged to help raise around $90,000 in 2012 for Anthony Watts to help him create a new website to track temperature station data.”

     I think that just about covers all your “experts” Murray.

103. Kaye LeeDecember 29, 2013 at 7:05 am

     The Heartland Institute has a long history of valuing the interests of its financial backers over the conclusions of experts. It has campaigned against the threats posed by second-hand smoke, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as the Endangered Species Act. With its aggressive campaigning using tools such as billboards comparing climate change “believers” to the Unabomber, Heartland makes no pretense at being a scientific organization.

     Heartland’s funding over the past decade has included thousands of dollars directly from ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute, but a large portion of their funding ($25.6 million) comes from the shadowy Donor’s Capital Fund, created expressly to conceal the identity of large donors to free-market causes. The Koch brothers appear to be funneling money into Donor’s Capital via their Knowledge and Progress Fund.

     Heartland’s credibility has been so damaged that mainstream funders have been abandoning the organization, and it has been forced to discontinue its annual climate conference.

104. Kaye LeeDecember 29, 2013 at 7:18 am

     Murray you keep mentioning the NIPCC as if they are a scientific body. They are not. They are a group put together and paid by the Heartland Institute.

     “The discredited Heartland Institute is attempting to present its new NIPCC report, Climate Change Reconsidered, as a legitimate alternative authority to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But the NIPCC report is not a credible scientific undertaking, and the Heartland Institute has no credibility, scientific or otherwise.

     The NIPCC vs. IPCC Process

     The IPCC is supported by hundreds of scientists, think tanks, and organizations around the world that assess and synthesize the most recent climate change-related science. The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), published in 2007, involved more than 500 Lead Authors and 2000 Expert Reviewers from more than one hundred participating nations. These authors and reviewers were all unpaid volunteers, and are required to identify and show consideration to theories that differ from conventional wisdom.

     Unlike the IPCC, the NIPCC examines literature published exclusively by climate contrarians who are paid to contribute their findings to NIPCC reports, according to leaked internal documents of the Heartland Institute. The 2009 NIPCC report Climate Change Reconsidered had two lead authors, Fred Singer and Craig Idso, and 35 contributors. Similarly, the 2011 Interim NIPCC report had three lead authors, Fred Singer, Craig Idso, and Robert Carter, and only eight contributors. The NIPCC does not employ the same rigorous standards and approval process used by the IPCC to ensure its assessment reports are accurate and inclusive.

105. Möbius EckoDecember 29, 2013 at 7:29 am

     Thanks Kaye Lee, your research is as impeccable as ever.

106. Kaye LeeDecember 29, 2013 at 8:15 am

     ME it is so easy because all these deniers are fed the same stuff. They are all on some loop. This is where his questioning of the 97% comes from and it’s debunking.

     Boston Globe Columnist Jeff Jacoby Distorts Survey And Study To Deny Climate Consensus

107. Möbius EckoDecember 29, 2013 at 10:49 am

     Yes Kaye Lee I’ve read the same stuff so many times it makes me dizzy. I used to have all the links and sources debunking the deniers bookmarked and in aggregator apps/sites ready to go, but the whole thing became so repetitious I just ditched it all. murray james has not offered one thing new, including throwing in the stupid religious meme that is far more apt for the deniers than the proponents of the AGW theory.

     But over time I have been seeing the decline of the deniers as the overwhelming evidence and consensus leaves them with nothing but the shonks and sponsored by vested interests.

     Thing is that there are genuine and interesting alternate theories out there, like a Swedish study into cloud forcing, which by the way is fully funded by government and climate bodies, disproving the accusation that only proponent climate change studies and scientists are funded.

     But the deniers cling to the proven shonks and charlatans, most who are not climate scientists and many who are not even scientists. This immediately tells you they are not interested in the truth or genuine scientific debate, but purely in right wing ideology and greed.

108. Pingback: Tin foil mitre « The Australian Independent Media Network

109. Pingback: Who do you believe? « The Australian Independent Media Network

110. Pingback: Australian government appoints climate science denialist | Dear Kitty. Some blog