When did mothers start to think that they have some special licence on wisdom and knowledge. This is clearly the case when it comes to our Cate.
It’s what I’m passionate about as a mother. That’s where it gets me in the gut. I can’t look my children in the face if I’m not trying to do something in my small way and to urge other people.
Note to Cate: you are not the only mother in town.
But don’t worry, Cate, because our Ross doesn’t seem to think women count in any case. He is quoted as saying:
When you next hear someone say that he is worried (women are never worried, I guess) that Australia might get ahead of the rest of the world in reducing green house gass, take him by the hand and reassure him that he has no reason to fear.
(Ross might argue that he was taught to express such ideas this way at Perth Modern – believe me, the world has moved on on this one.)
Hey, maybe the person taking him by the hand is a mother? It all makes sense, now.
I’m glad she’s concerned about the future but what exactly is her game plan here? To reduce global warming? An Australian carbon tax won’t do that.
Maybe she should run ads in China, to convince them of a need for a carbon tax.
daddy dave
1 Jun 11 at 10:05 am
Why does it feel China is far more democratic than Australia today?
Gabrielle
1 Jun 11 at 10:16 am
To gut the middle class.
The GovCorp has a lot to fear from a large, prosperous, self sufficient politically active middle class. Hence the last 40 years of hollowing out the middle class in every western country.
RodClarke
1 Jun 11 at 10:24 am
They’re not democratic. They’re prospering and experiencing good times, and in such times the bad things don’t seem so bad and the good is magnified. Lucky them.
However, I note that they have no plans for a carbon tax.
daddy dave
1 Jun 11 at 10:28 am
Alan Jones talking to Prof Carter 31/5
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=9032
well worth listening to
I’ve never heard Prof Carter so angry
val majkus
1 Jun 11 at 10:33 am
“However, I note that they have no plans for a carbon tax.”
They favour Abbott-like ‘direct action’.
Jarrah
1 Jun 11 at 10:40 am
I won’t be able to look my kids in the face if we don’t build more hydro power and isntall Toshiba 4S reactors.
.
1 Jun 11 at 10:42 am
I have no idea why a biological function became so whorshipped in this world – but sometimes I blame catholics.
coz
1 Jun 11 at 11:10 am
???
.
1 Jun 11 at 11:13 am
The pedestalisation of motherhood, dot.
coz
1 Jun 11 at 11:18 am
Blaming Catholics?
Catholics haven’t been a threat to anyone other than themselves since 1798.
.
1 Jun 11 at 11:26 am
By god, do I love her acting. But while she is a genius with other people’s words, and when being led by a director, she really needs to STFU, and stick to her knitting, as every time she graces us with one of these epistles on her own thoughts, she sounds more and more like an airhead.
Peter Patton
1 Jun 11 at 11:30 am
She wouldn’t have written it, merely voiced it.
coz
1 Jun 11 at 11:34 am
I won’t be able to look my kids in the face until we shackle the Federal bureaucracy.
This is fun!
I won’t be able to look my kids in the face until I only have to pay a quarter of my income in tax rather than half.
I won’t be able to look my kids in the face until Islam as a political ideology is castrated.
I won’t be able to look my kids in the face until we unleash Australia’s full productive potential.
Wee!!
twostix
1 Jun 11 at 11:38 am
Well, good for Cate. Funny how Gillard labelled me, mother of three (under 13) as an extremist for choosing to do something in my small way and to urge other people at a No CTax rally to wise up to this fraud. Yes, let the sun shine in.
Medusa Knows
1 Jun 11 at 11:40 am
They favour Abbott-like ‘direct action’
Only in a token sense. China’s not cutting emissions.
In fact their emissions are skyrocketing.
daddy dave
1 Jun 11 at 11:47 am
If it wasn’t for Pope Pius V and his Holy League fleet, Europeans and Brits would be interrupting this thread to pray five times a day.
A simple ‘thank you’ will suffice.
C.L.
1 Jun 11 at 12:19 pm
d-d, how can it be sold as an equitable thing for the US and Australia (wealthy and comfortable countries) to say to China – you really need to stop your emissions growth first, otherwise we won’t bother doing anything to ours?
Isn’t the insistence that there is no value in Australia acting alone the surest way to ensure China can ignore any urging from us (or a collective of nations including us) to reduce its emissions growth?
steve from brisbane
1 Jun 11 at 12:19 pm
Not a lot of difference between womb worshippers and phallus worshippers, they both get it wrong.
coz
1 Jun 11 at 12:23 pm
Very profound, Coz.
Spoken like a true barren woman.
C.L.
1 Jun 11 at 12:30 pm
SFB
1. China doesn’t give a toss what we do
2. The fact that China ran a lunatic communist economy that impoverished its citizens was its choice. That their per capita income is low is a result of that choice. So Australia should somehow be made to pay? Que?
Judith Sloan
1 Jun 11 at 12:45 pm
Why, of course. Now that Steve explains it, everything makes sense. What’s needed to transform China’s political and economic policy is the moral authority of Julia Gillard – a woman they laugh at as an unmarried oddball.
C.L.
1 Jun 11 at 12:52 pm
I’ll slap my kids in the face if they ever see another of Cate’s movies
Tal
1 Jun 11 at 12:58 pm
Did you see her last, Tal? It was Robin hood. Talk about mutton dressed like lamb. She’s a looker obviously, but far far too old to be Maid Marian. I mean, she’s obviously hyper self absorbed, but who the hell is she kidding playing Maid M in that movie. I wanted my money back as a I felt cheated.
And I noticed her voice has become more masculine too, which was even more off putting.
JC.
1 Jun 11 at 1:03 pm
Of course, one of the oddest things in this whole debate is that even the Chinese think climate change “skepticism”, as displayed and praised in Catallaxy, is a crock:
Now, if ever there was a country that had a motive to deny it, so as to dispute the need to reign in their emissions growth, it would be China.
But no, they are more sensible than that, and base the argument on equity grounds.
steve from brisbane
1 Jun 11 at 1:10 pm
Sorry, rein mis-spelt.
steve from brisbane
1 Jun 11 at 1:11 pm
After the Tiananmen Square massacre, the whole world (including Australia) brought influence and their own superior example to bear to effecting political change in China.
As we all recall, this did the trick.
C.L.
1 Jun 11 at 1:12 pm
This “I know better than you because I’m a mother” shit is not that uncommon.
Pamela Stephenson (Billy Connolly’s missus) was big on it when her kids were small, campaigning against some sort of chemicals. She has/had a psychology degree and nice tits, which obviously qualifies here for some things, but motherhood didn’t qualify her for anything.
DavidLeyonhjelm
1 Jun 11 at 1:12 pm
China wants money?
Crafty celestials. They always screw Twiggy.
.
1 Jun 11 at 1:13 pm
You’re better off just linking to alarmist sites as your argument. Look, you moron, China is doing few things which are entirely within its national and economic interests.
It is eliminating dirty coal plants and so reducing local air pollution and is reducing it’s carbon intensity per dollar of GDP. However absolute emissions are going to rocket faster than a Saturn V going through the atmosphere.
Here, this is what China looks like. (and here) By 2050 it wants it’s intensity to look as efficient as the US’s, which looks like ours.
You have no fucking business talking about this shit steve because you simply don’t understand it. It’s more than apparent you don’t because you cloak all your arguments in moral terms as you have nothing else.
Now go away.
JC.
1 Jun 11 at 1:21 pm
Bollocks.
If you knew your history CL, you would remember that it was Charles Martels’ defeat of the Musslemen at Tours in 732 which Gibbon famously said meant that they don’t study the Koran at Oxford.
The Pommies would have completely destroyed the Turks if they had tried to invade England at that time. Like the Spaniards who tried in 1588, the Turks couldn’t match the English in naval technology.
Considering the Catholics themselves tried to conquer England in 1588, I think your idea that they somehow saved Britain is incredibly laughable.
Rococo Liberal
1 Jun 11 at 1:24 pm
Rococo
What are your views on Edmund Campion?
jtfsoon
1 Jun 11 at 1:27 pm
DavidL
Yes, the “nice tits” argument is always a discursive trump card.
Peter Patton
1 Jun 11 at 1:32 pm
None of your blather addresses my point, JC, which is not about their rate of increase, but how they justify the rate in the context of climate change concerns.
steve from brisbane
1 Jun 11 at 1:32 pm
Sure it does. You don’t understand the difference between absolute emissions and intensity. That’s all.
Who gives a shit about how they justify it, you clown. It’s going up. It’s going up at the rate of knots which by 2050 will be around 4 times the US 2006.
Go away.
JC.
1 Jun 11 at 1:36 pm
from the good book: “For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.”
coz
1 Jun 11 at 1:45 pm
Hey let’s raise money to send Cate Blanchett to China to spread the word. Honestly I’d donate, and if she’s serious about it she’d accept.
daddy dave
1 Jun 11 at 2:09 pm
If there’s one thing CCP has demonstrated it cares about, it’s “carbon dioxide” pollution. Top of the list, right there above mountains of radioactive slurry from rare earth mining in towns, and poisonous brown air.
Seriously, I mean man, SERIOUSLY Asia doesn’t give a fuck about your white, western, self flagellating, puritanical eco religion.
We won’t go into the unhinged egotism that would have you seriously considerering that a country of one billion people, surrounded by a dozen other countries, would give the slightest shit what a country with the population of one of it’s *towns* in the middle of the ocean thinks about ANYTHING.
twostix
1 Jun 11 at 2:10 pm
RL, the Pommies were too preoccupied and, at the time, backward to beat the Muslim fleet. I know you’re a lawyer and not an historian so I’ll give you a pass. But yes, Pope Pius V saved Europe. He was a forerunner of John Paul II – who played the pre-eminent role in destroying the USSR. It was in the protestant countries that moral cowardice towards the Soviets was most pronounced. Not so, Poland.
Gibbon was a great writer, by the way, but is regarded as a poor historian when it comes to details – and he was a notorious anti-Catholic fruitloop.
We’ll say nothing about the illogicality of your argument that saving Europe in the Middle Ages somehow meant it never needed saving again. This would come as news to Normandy veterans.
Without the papacy, Europe and possibly Western Europe would be even more Islamic than they are now. Thankfully, England now glories in a Druid presiding at a stolen abbey and a divorced Anglo-German with ambitions of being a tampon ruling the ‘realm.’
A simple ‘thank you for saving civilisation’ would suffice.
C.L.
1 Jun 11 at 2:12 pm
Your pap certainly sucks.
C.L.
1 Jun 11 at 2:13 pm
have the last word
coz
1 Jun 11 at 2:17 pm
okay, if you insist.
daddy dave
1 Jun 11 at 2:19 pm
^^^ this.
daddy dave
1 Jun 11 at 2:20 pm
well yeah, gaia worshipping and womb worshipping are where it all meets. I do not worship human fertility, not being a pagan, consciously or unconsciously.
coz
1 Jun 11 at 3:17 pm
People get very grumpy here when you point out their disbelief of climate change is not shared by the scientists or government of a country that has every political motive to disbelieve in it too.
You’re on the losing side of the science debate, such that it still exists, but don’t know it yet.
steve from brisbane
1 Jun 11 at 3:31 pm
Memo to sceptics: you were also on the wrong side of the ‘scientific consensus’ about the looming Ice Age back in the 70s.
Dummies.
C.L.
1 Jun 11 at 3:32 pm
Losing side?
Bitch please do the CGMs even backtest properly? Then they forecast 89-189 years into the future!
Are you fucking kidding me?
Climate science is a work in progress and those forecasts are rubbish.
Then we have the travesty of econometric forecasts out to 2100.
Better off getting some tarot cards. Unlike a poorly back tested CGM, at least you’re using a full deck.
.
1 Jun 11 at 3:34 pm
“Why does it feel China is far more democratic than Australia today?”
Because you’ve lost all touch with reality. That’s the only possible explanation, really.
BBB
Bingo Bango Boingo
1 Jun 11 at 3:35 pm
We’re disputing the carbon tax, not whether “climate change is real.” But for some reason, whenever anybody questions the latest hairbrained government plan to stop climate change, you start accusing everyone of being ‘climate change deniers.’
Granted, some people here are skeptical about the science, but the science isn’t under discussion right now.
You’ve admitted before that the carbon tax is indefensible.
daddy dave
1 Jun 11 at 4:30 pm
Thank god for that coz. I was always a little worried that would be an unconscious fertility worshiper but now feel better. You’ve gone way , way up in my estimation of you. Good work.
JC.
1 Jun 11 at 4:54 pm
Steve
What Dads said in bucket loads. Stop spamming the site with your morality obsessions, as no one’s interested.
go away.
JC.
1 Jun 11 at 4:56 pm
SFB – What are you talking about? China has every reason in the world to hype up global warming! They can act in their own self interest (it’s only “equitable” after all) while getting wooly headed Western idiots to cripple their own economies.
I’d be all for my competitors to voluntarily pay xx% more than I do for their costs too!
Jim Thomason
1 Jun 11 at 5:18 pm
Has anyone seen the “Ode to Cate” over at unleashed?
Tal
1 Jun 11 at 5:45 pm
d-d, my comments about China followed directly from your comments.
It was a pertinent observation to make that China does officially believe in AGW, yet argues on equity grounds that it is doing as much as it should.
You always pretend that Catallaxy commenters are open minded and fairly assessing the issue of a carbon price as if their frequently repeated ridicule and skepticism of the very idea of dangerous AGW was irrelevant.
Of course, they are not.
I don’t recall saying that a carbon tax was “indefensible”. Care to enlighten me by a paraphrase of my earlier comment that led to that conclusion?
steve from brisbane
1 Jun 11 at 7:13 pm
Tal, I liked this one from the comments:
Ahahahahahahahaha.
C.L.
1 Jun 11 at 7:17 pm
Steve
Go away please.
JC.
1 Jun 11 at 7:18 pm
Dreadful ,it would get a standing ovation at a writers gig
Tal
1 Jun 11 at 7:31 pm
China also “officially” believes in Communism. And that Taiwan is an illegitimate, separatist province that will one day fall back into the red state, and that Tienanmen square never happened and that freedom of expression is important.
Here’s a hint, just because CCP hacks say something out of one side of their mouth to the western useful idiots (like you), doesn’t mean they actually believe it, nor care in the slightest about it.
China, India and Brazil are never going to ever implement a carbon anything. And as those economies ramp up they’re going to make todays emissions look like a ninety year old asthmatic smoker during an asthma attack.
So if as you cultists like to squeal “AGW is going to kill us all”, you’d all surely better get your things in order.
For starters the Climate Change minister had better sell his beach front home…
twostix
1 Jun 11 at 7:54 pm
Yes we are.
1. The CGM models are shit.
2. Their projections are absurd.
3. Mitigation fails a CBA.
4. The policy response is ineffectual and economically damaging.
5. Simply liberalising energy sources (i.e ‘doing *nothing*’) such as nuke and hydro in particular exporting them is much more effective in mitigating climate change and has massive economic benefits – with no tax which would otherwise put hundreds of thousands of us out of work.
.
1 Jun 11 at 8:05 pm
Steve. The government has every motive to believe in anything which gives rise to collection of more tax revenue and they need it; to save their arses from their surplus promise and to quench their fabian thirst.
The settled science in the 70′s was that an ice age was coming.
Tiny Dancer
1 Jun 11 at 8:17 pm
Tiny, I remember the “ice age coming soon” period in the late 1970′s too. It was relatively brief, and as has been explained many, many times, was a view held by a minority of scientists in the field.
As usual, I refer the interested and objective readers of Catallaxy to the short and succinct explanation at Skeptical Science.
steve from brisbane
1 Jun 11 at 8:35 pm
Yep Steve. Who to believe… the opinion formers of the time like Time and Nsewsweek or an alarmist site like your link.
James Hansen was one of the propagators of global cooling at the time, you fucking moron.
And do us a favor, stop linking to useless sites your that one or others such as realbeat.org as no one here would believe their propaganda. You may as well link to Shiny for all it matters.
JC.
1 Jun 11 at 8:56 pm
Steve. Great website. Make sure to clean up the ejaculate from the keyboard before you go to bed you moron. Your shit would go down well at the Lavatory with Fran B.
Tiny Dancer
1 Jun 11 at 9:06 pm
JC, that Hansen predicted global cooling is simply false.
Read what he said about this rumour here.
If you can find any quote anywhere on the net from Hansen in the 70′s that he thought global cooling was happening, do share.
Or just admit, you’re a lazy gullible twit who couldn’t be bothered to check if a propaganda story was true.
steve from brisbane
1 Jun 11 at 9:08 pm
A very wise, measured and useful contribution from Tiny.
steve from brisbane
1 Jun 11 at 9:12 pm
steve from brisbane,
you seem to suggest that the media can misread the findings of science.
what additional safeguards had emerged since the 1970s to prevent a repeat this time around?
Jim Rose
1 Jun 11 at 9:15 pm
People probably believe it because Hansen is a well-known nutcase. He has, for example, called for oil executives to be arrested and tried for “high crimes against humanity and nature.”
C.L.
1 Jun 11 at 9:15 pm
JC.
1 Jun 11 at 9:17 pm
No, be careful on this point. That’s playing into the warmenists’ manufactured excuse for the Global Coolening scare. The Ice Age hysteria of the 70s wasn’t a media misreading or a magazine prediction. It was the considered opinion of the world’s leading ‘climate scientists.’
Whoopsa-daisy.
C.L.
1 Jun 11 at 9:18 pm
CL
Hansen is trying to deny it, but it looks like he’s doing what all the teamsters do, which is play with words and general word games.
Hansen developed … you guessed… the model that another scientist used to input variables which created a global cooling prediction.
Hansen later suggests he ummm wasn’t involved.
” who me… it was my model that said it was cooling. Not me” is Hansen’s excuse.
The Teamsters are unbelievable. You really want time to run faster so their all freaking gone as they poison everything they touch. What a disgusting bunch of fowl eggs.
JC.
1 Jun 11 at 9:23 pm
Clean it up stevie boy and give it up.
Tiny Dancer
1 Jun 11 at 9:26 pm
Meanwhile, Gillard has lied to miners tonight at a dinner in Canberra.
In fact, the carbon dioxide tax will do absolutely nothing to affect or alter the climate. I repeat: anyone claiming otherwise is either a) a person mendaciously treating average citizens like gullible morons – in a way that is morally evil (‘save your children’); or b) mentally ill.
C.L.
1 Jun 11 at 9:28 pm
Bullshit.
Ignatius Reilly
1 Jun 11 at 9:28 pm
Yes it was.
C.L.
1 Jun 11 at 9:30 pm
You’ll be able to name them there scientists then, and list the scientific academies that supported the hypothesis. Off you go.
‘Til then I’m calling bullshit. (And I’m old enough to have been around and engaged that the time.)
Ignatius Reilly
1 Jun 11 at 9:33 pm
That’s a worry because you’re the only person worth convincing, Iggie.
JC.
1 Jun 11 at 9:36 pm
That’s right, JC. Hansen had a colleague who wrote a paper. He let them use a program he had done for working out light scattering by aerosols.
Only by CL debating standards (basically, rhetorical casual dishonesty) could anyone claim that to be proof that “James Hansen was one of the propagators of global cooling.”
Jim Rose: of course the media can give a false impression of science. It does it continuously, by promoting climate skeptic arguments long after they have been satisfactorily answered.
But these days of the internet, you can easily find out how many papers supporting AGW are being produced, as well as how many scientific bodies have made statements in support of mainstream climate science.
So it is harder to be misled these days; if you are willing to look in the right places, at least. Problem is, people are willing to be misled on this issue, as contrarianism has its own psychological appeal.
steve from brisbane
1 Jun 11 at 9:36 pm
Steve says:
Hansen
Lol…
Jimmy the coal-executives slayer says:
” It wasn’t me that said there was cooling. It was my program”.
What a low faced turd he is.
JC.
1 Jun 11 at 9:38 pm
Hansen writes of the program his colleagues used:
steve from brisbane
1 Jun 11 at 9:39 pm
Aye-aye…
Time
‘Another Ice Age?’
Monday, Jun. 24, 1974:
C.L.
1 Jun 11 at 9:40 pm
Steve says
Eggscatly as I said Steve. let me repeat Jimmy the coal-executives slayer by paraphrasing.
” It wasn’t me that said there was cooling. It was my program”.
JC.
1 Jun 11 at 9:42 pm
Steve, and this is a straight forward question,do you feel the way Cate feels?
Tal
1 Jun 11 at 9:43 pm
Also folks, be aware that warmenists are terribly embarrassed by the great Global Coolening scare of the 1970s and some of their sites now feature ‘fact-sheets’ on the subject (face-saving spin) for use by warmening zealots. The most common of these canned excuses, stated simply, is ‘just tell ‘em it was a media thing.’
C.L.
1 Jun 11 at 9:44 pm
Charming. Is that what passes for reasoned debate in these parts? Let’s accept for a moment the real possibility that the overwhelming world-wide scientific consensus on climate change is spot on. In which case, Hansen will certainly be regarded by future generations as a scientific hero, a man with the courage of his convictions who spoke early and often. In any case, he’ll be remembered long after the towering non-entity who posted that ugly slur is recalled, if at all, only by the worms feeding on his corpse.
Ignatius Reilly
1 Jun 11 at 9:44 pm
This sounds awfully like The Flannery
I wonder if he lifted it from this dude not realizing it was written in 1974 about cooling .
JC.
1 Jun 11 at 9:45 pm
thanks steve from brisbane,,
since when has counting of numbers for and against has anything to do with the growth of knowledge?
are you aware of Thomas Kuhn who wrote on the history, sociology and philosophy of science.
Kuhn has made several claims concerning the progress of knowledge:
1. that science undergoes periodic paradigm shifts instead of progressing in a linear and continuous way;
2. that these paradigm shifts open up new approaches to understanding that scientists would never have considered valid before; and
3. that scientists can never divorce their subjective perspective from their work.
Kuhn also argues that rival paradigms are incommensurable — it is not possible to understand one paradigm through the conceptual framework and terminology of another rival paradigm.
During the period of normal science, the failure of a result to conform to the paradigm is seen not as refuting the paradigm, but as the mistake of the researcher, contra Popper’s falsifiability criterion.
As anomalous results build up, science reaches a crisis, at which point a new paradigm, which subsumes the old results along with the anomalous results into one framework, is accepted. This is termed revolutionary science.
Can you point to any part of the philosophy and sociology of science which suggests that voting and sampling the majority opinion are kernels of new truths?
Jim Rose
1 Jun 11 at 9:47 pm
JC, by your dishonest standards, Bill Gates gets credit if a Microsoft finance program suggests I need to find a cheaper mortgage rate.
CL, he of the tedious lengthy quotes, of course edits out of the Time article:
steve from brisbane
1 Jun 11 at 9:47 pm
Is that all you got? Three or four scientists does not a consensus make. That is not even what passes a debate in science. So that is it? One magazine article. If you look hard enough you’ll find and article in Time on UFOs. You convinced by that as well? BTW, where are the science academies that support the “cooling” hypothesis? You won’t be able to name one, nor one group representing a scientific discipline that supported it.
Your claim of a consensus remains bullshit.
Ignatius Reilly
1 Jun 11 at 9:50 pm
Certainly a lot nicer than what the piece of shit has said about people involved in the energy industry. When Hansen says he wants energy executives to be jailed and that democracy needs to be suspended all bets are off. As far as I’m concerned time should speed up and toss him off the planet, as he’s nothing more than poisonous garbage.
JC.
1 Jun 11 at 9:50 pm
Or yours more likely as you’ll no doubt get buried in a rag sack, Metro.
JC.
1 Jun 11 at 9:51 pm
Aye-aye.
How about John P. Holdren – advisor to President Barack Obama for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
Ice Age – Tidal Waves!!!
It’s true that Holdren thought a Warmening Age might come after the imminent Coolening Age (if there were any survivors from the Great Tidal Wavening around to care) but his comical catastrophising illustrates once again that ‘climate science’ is more art and craft (maybe even hobby) than genuine science.
C.L.
1 Jun 11 at 9:57 pm
No you dickhead. Hansen is claiming plausible denibaility yet he worked in the same department and closely together and it was Hansen’s program.
Yet Jimmy the energy-executive slayer and suspend democracy guru wants us to believe that he had no involvement at all in the other scientist making a cooling prediction.
To repeat:
” It wasn’t me that said there was cooling. It was my program”.
And I’ll add.
As I said.. What a low faced prick.
JC.
1 Jun 11 at 9:58 pm
This is Steve’s oldest trick. Unless you quote an entire article verbatim (which is technically unlawful), he’ll claim you ‘edited’ something.
I was asked to illustrate what scientists (and/or institutions) predicted an imminent ice age. As I said, the leaing ‘climate scientists’ in the world were predicting one.
When Steve claimed the Global Coolening scare of the 70s was just a few feature articles run off by magazine writers, he was lying.
C.L.
1 Jun 11 at 10:02 pm
Joe you dishonest bastard
Tal
1 Jun 11 at 10:04 pm
One more scientist … merely speculating about the possible effects of “urban air pollution .. agricultural air pollution .. and volcanic ash” does not a scientific consensus make. (Holdren was not publishing research findings or giving a scientific paper.) Still not one scientific group or academy. You won’t name up because they don’t exist. Your claim of a “cooling consensus” is bullshit, pure and simple. And four scientists still does not make a quorum for a scientific debate.
Ignatius Reilly
1 Jun 11 at 10:05 pm
Jim, all very fine these philosophical arguments, but let’s be more practical here:
a. people pragmatically go with majority opinion all the time in matters of science and medicine. Medicine is particularly apt, as treatment success is often tied up with probabilities and uncertainties too; just as climate scientists are still at this stage just estimating the possible ranges of temperature increase. Climate is complex – no one’s denying this.
b. there are always contrarians in science, and to over-emphasize Kuhnian ideas of how revolutionary science runs the risk of being taken to mean that every contrarian may just be onto something useful.
In fact, we all know they generally aren’t. Good examples include otherwise sane engineers and academics who cling to conspiracies like the WTC were a controlled demolition ideas; doctors who think vaccines are dangerous; and doctors who think HIV doesn’t cause AIDS; geologists who think Venus nearly sideswiped Mars a few thousand years ago.
Unfortunately, I think it is the internet and modern communications that are letting contrarians in climate change find each other and have an influence far beyond the value and credibility of their actual arguments.
So how do you tell a contrarian is not one of the rare few who do go on to cause a revolution in science? You have to look at their arguments and why other scientists reject them, and make a judgment.
I think no skeptic argument stands up to scrutiny to be anywhere near a killer argument against mainstream climate science.
steve from brisbane
1 Jun 11 at 10:06 pm
My God you’re a dishonest hypocrite CL.
steve from brisbane
1 Jun 11 at 10:08 pm
Ignatius -he will be remembered as a moron who also happened to be a nutcase.
Another case of scientists running around being infallible and guess what. You help Stevie clean that mess up because you just made it worse.
Tiny Dancer
1 Jun 11 at 10:09 pm
Okay Iggsie… Let’s double back and go the other way. What consensus in the climate science community at that time came out and said the cooling theory was wrong?
Lets see a letter with Jimmy Hansen’s name on it for a start. There would have been no shortage of letter writers from the science crowd after the Time and Newsweek stories came out seeing they were pretty close to being the opinion formers of that era.
I’m here waiting and counting the seconds…
one cat and dog, two cat and dog, three cat and dog…
JC.
1 Jun 11 at 10:10 pm
Steve, you claimed the great Coolening Scare of the 70s was just a bit of media nonsense.
Not so. It was backed by the world’s leading ‘climate scientists.’
You’ve been caught lying.
You know, just as you were when your faithful student of Benedict routine fell apart with your rather militant support for abortion. I ambushed you with that cup of coffee like De Niro did to the fake commando in Ronin.
C.L.
1 Jun 11 at 10:13 pm
Don’t know enough about this fellow to comment one way or the other. But I do know he doesn’t know a scientific consensus from a hole in the ground. And shows medieval tendencies when it comes to science and reason. CL is not a hippy is he? You vaccinated CL? Your kids? Just wondering what other mainstream science you presumptuously dismiss. You sure you are not a pagan earth worshipper?
Ignatius Reilly
1 Jun 11 at 10:13 pm
Did Holdren say all that… lol
hahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahaha
Man what a fucking lunatic. Of course he’s Nobama’s science adviser. Who else would be better qualified that John Holdren is what i ask.
JC.
1 Jun 11 at 10:14 pm
Conspiracies are the province of the left.
The Left does go on about class war, the bosses and the workers, price fixing cartels, oligopoly, multinational corporations and western imperialism.
The left got where its weas bt rejecting the recieved wisdom.
The Royal Society’s forgotten motto is Nullius in verba. Latin for “Take nobody’s word for it”.
Jim Rose
1 Jun 11 at 10:15 pm
Four scientists were quoted discussing the possibility in mass media essays. That is not even the beginnings of a scientific consensus – that is not science. The “cooling consensus” claim is total bullshit.
Ignatius Reilly
1 Jun 11 at 10:16 pm
should be “The left got where it is by rejecting the received wisdom.”
Jim Rose
1 Jun 11 at 10:16 pm
Iggise..Stop the pretense that you’re somehow not Metromick by suggesting you don’t know who people are here.
That’s just a cheap shot and will be treated that way. Now go turn off the fridge please. Chop, Chop.
JC.
1 Jun 11 at 10:16 pm
Tal: I would not put it as quite as strongly as Cate does, but of course concern for my children’s future is an appropriate thing to consider in the political debate.
steve from brisbane
1 Jun 11 at 10:17 pm
Extremist kookball James Hansen speaks to the Guardian:
Leading climate scientist: ‘democratic process isn’t working’.
The democratic process isn’t working.
Such an original, scientific observation.
C.L.
1 Jun 11 at 10:18 pm
OF course not, but that Scumbag and human garbage, Hansen’s word is though, right iggisie, you loon.
JC.
1 Jun 11 at 10:18 pm
Thanks Steve x
Tal
1 Jun 11 at 10:25 pm
Nice diversion attempt there, from this thread’s hippy “science is for squares man” earth worshiping pagan, but what have Hansen’s views on climate change policy difficulties in 2009 got to do with your bullship “cooling consensus” claim? And where are the academies and science groups supporting this hypothesis? Don’t exist. A figment of a some addled hippy’s brain. Let me guess … Mullumbimby Madness is your toke of choice CL?
Ignatius Reilly
1 Jun 11 at 10:27 pm
No it’s not. It’s what the mentally unbalanced sack of turd said.
He also thought the CIA or the FBI was after him too.
JC.
1 Jun 11 at 10:35 pm
Ah, we have a scientific consensus being conjured once again.
dover_beach
1 Jun 11 at 10:35 pm
Yes! By that “science doesn’t know the whole story, man, it’s so left-side of the brain and rational” hippy CL. Reckons there was a scientific “cooling consensus” in the ’70s.
Ignatius Reilly
1 Jun 11 at 10:38 pm
He also thought the CIA or the FBI was after him too.
ahahahahahahahahahahahaha that’s the funniest thing I’ve heard today. Seriously he really thought the CIA/FBI had heard of him?
Was he wearing a tinfoil hat at the time?
Gabrielle
1 Jun 11 at 10:42 pm
Yea gab the fucking loon thought da Bush administration was after him and had sicced all these intel agencies against him from what I recall reading.
Imagine working with him. No wonder Algore idolizes him.
JC.
1 Jun 11 at 10:47 pm
Yes! By that “science doesn’t know the whole story, man, it’s so left-side of the brain and rational” hippy CL. Reckons there was a scientific “cooling consensus” in the ’70s.
Wrong. I’ve gone over CL’s remarks and no where does he refer to a “cooling consensus”; he does refer to “leading scientists” but that is not a consensus.
dover_beach
1 Jun 11 at 10:49 pm
We see here another common warmening technique. When their argument has been shot to threads, they just crash-land, hop out of the wreckage and repeat the lie.
The world’s leading climate ‘scientists’ predicted a Great Encoolening in the 70s – another Ice Age. President Obama’s top ‘science’ adviser also predicted a Great Tidal Wave that might drown everyone.
C.L.
1 Jun 11 at 10:51 pm
I don’t worship the earth, Iggy Pap. You’re thinking of dinosaur poo graduate, Tim Flannery, a Shiite Warmenist who has predicted that Gaia is about to come to life as a corporeal being.
C.L.
1 Jun 11 at 10:53 pm
Iggie
you around. Please stay.
JC.
1 Jun 11 at 10:59 pm
Oh and then there was the money. Hansen the energy executive slayer also the dollar.
What a world class scientist.
JC.
1 Jun 11 at 11:07 pm
“Wrong. I’ve gone over CL’s remarks and no where does he refer to a “cooling consensus””
CL at 3:32 today:
Oops.
Jarrah
1 Jun 11 at 11:07 pm
Hansen: ‘You know what will encoolen the world right now? The Chinese police state, that’s what.’
More ‘science’ predictions from Hansen, made in 1988:
C.L.
1 Jun 11 at 11:08 pm
According to Mr. Hansen, compared to China, we are “the barbarians” with a “fossil-money- ‘democracy’ that now rules the roost,” making it impossible to legislate effectively on climate change.
Yep Jim… It’s fossilized and you kinda like some of it too it seems.
JC.
1 Jun 11 at 11:16 pm
Uh-oh.
LOL.
C.L.
1 Jun 11 at 11:17 pm
CL: answer honestly, if that remains a possibility:
a. the Time story says “a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval.”
A normal honest person reading that would take the implication to be that it was a minority view, and a tenative one at that. “Beginning to suspect”.
Yeah, real conclusive sounding that…
b. the article mentions:
a climatologist from Columbia and his wife;
a climatologist from University of Wisconsin and
a climatologist who is not actually quoted as having a firm view on the issue, but instead notes drought and food supply concerns.
How can an honest reader think you have proved your claim that it was “backed by the world’s leading ‘climate scientists.’ ”
Go on, try to be honest. Do try. God and George Pell wants to you.
steve from brisbane
1 Jun 11 at 11:21 pm
I am sick of being Mr Reasonable. There is a perfectly valid, scientifically orthodox reason for steering away from mitigation. I’ve outlined it over and over again. You’re just illiterate and a simpleton.
.
1 Jun 11 at 11:28 pm
Hansen verballed again, twice in a day, by a dishonest Catallaxian.
Indirectly this time, because although CL does not mention the time frame, he links to Andrew Bolt’s 2009 post which claims that Hansen was predicting 20 years into the future from 1988. In fact, even WUWT acknowledges, this was an error, and Hansen was talking 40 years in the future. Furthermore, Hansen says it was “if CO2 doubles”, giving him some more wriggle room.
Interestingly, I see Andrew Bolt has not corrected his post, confirmed his dishonest approach of never (or rarely?) retracting a wrong claim that he repeats on his blog.
steve from brisbane
1 Jun 11 at 11:38 pm
Steve, I was asked to provide evidence that any actual scientists backed Global Coolening – in contradistinction to ‘the magazines done it’ excuse conventionally used by embarrassed warmenists.
This was easy to do.
So you’ve been proved a liar again – because you too wheeled out the canned ‘the magazines done it’ whopper. You know, just as you were when your faithful student of Benedict routine fell apart with your rather militant support for abortion.
One Global Coolening enthusiast is the US President’s chief science adviser, for heaven’s sake. A frightening thought.
…this was an error, and Hansen was talking 40 years in the future.
Oh. Large tracts of Manhattan will be submerged in 2028 rather than (the now missed) 2008. How silly of the world’s press not to pick up that prediction in the IPCC report. Is that theory backed by railwayman Dr Pachauri?
Reminds me of the as yet uncorrected claim by warmenist Robyn Williams that we’ll be drowned beneath a 100 metre sea rise and Tim Flannery’s apparent belief that eight storey buildings are in danger.
C.L.
1 Jun 11 at 11:58 pm
Oh yea right. Lol
$250,000 from the Kerry campaign after the endorsement.
$750,000 from Soros to go liable Bush saying he was being muzzled despite the fact that he spoke 20 ood time to the media the month in which he qas making the accusation and then went around the country on a soros funded media excursion.
The honest scientist doing gods work.
Steve you’re such an irritating dummy.
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 12:06 am
CL you’ve named 3 climate scientists via Time. Where is the citatation for them being “
Steve from brisbane
2 Jun 11 at 12:26 am
“the world’s leading climate scientists.”.?
Steve from brisbane
2 Jun 11 at 12:28 am
Great point Steve.
Yea Cl. Steve wants to know the citations of discredited climate science from 40 years ago, some 20 years before the beginning of the internet i might add.
Come on, hurry up and find it please, as Steve is impatient with you. LOl
Steve, you interminable, innumerate, moralizing goose.
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 12:35 am
And citing a climate scientist from Columbia university, one of the top 10 universities in the world, does not technically mean a top scientist unless s/he eventually made his/her way to East Anglia University and worked under Phil Jones.
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 12:37 am
And of course repeating the fact that in those days Newsweek and Time were both the standout most respected weekly news magazines in the US and the world for analysis and opinion… of course they wouldn’t be able to get any time with important scientists to assist them in writing the cooling columns with facts etc.
They were so influential that I recall reading the Pentagon was asked by the US government to prepare contingency plans if famine as a result of cooling came to be true and develop plans on how best to deal with it from a national security perspective.
Of course, all this was just magazine chatter of the day.
You complete impertinent clown stave.
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 12:47 am
As luck would have it, Ace also picked up an hilarious warmening claim about tornadoes yesterday and compared it with what ‘climate scientists’ were saying in the 1970s – back when they were worried about an Ice Age.
First Newsweek’s now:
Newsweek then:
And here is one of the Newsweek articles (PDF) – citing some of the world’s leading ‘climate scientists’ – warning of Global Encoolening. The year is 1975.
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 1:01 am
Steve. the keyboard must be well and truly fucked by now.
Tiny Dancer
2 Jun 11 at 1:07 am
That Newsweek PDF is amazing. The climatologists were then advocating we melt the northern ice-cap by apply black soot in order to warm the world.
That’s amazing. LOl.
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 1:26 am
A 1978 article from Engineering and Science arguing way back then that we are facing global warming via CO2.
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/370/1/consequences.pdf
John H.
2 Jun 11 at 1:37 am
Hi John
Just going from memory now, so do hold me to it. I recall that there were two schools of thought that appeared in the 70′s the first one was the cooling theory, which again don’t quote me, was centered on the premise that the soot and crap we were tossing into the atmosphere was dimming the sunlight and this would cool the earth.
Later in the decade the warming theory began to appear.
I don’t recall how the difference was ironed out between the scientists. However the big scary side was the cooling and that’s the side the took the public’s attention. It took the warming side until the late 80′s to have an impact which was when Thatcher took at interest and began to advocate nuclear. Of course she was using nuke to hammer the unions even more, so she was trying to kill two birds with a stone there.
I think there is also some degree of the cooling theory still being used in that there are some people who think soot, which is carried at certain latitudes works to dim the sunlight and therefore the warming is held down.
There are also others who think that as we’ve cleaned up a a large amount of the soot the warming began to take hold.
So in effect the two theories may be running concurrently in some quarters.
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 1:52 am
So in effect the two theories may be running concurrently in some quarters.
Yeah I know what you’re getting at. The big push on air pollution did begin in the 80s. The looming ice age argument though never gained that much traction, it was an idea being explored not affirmed. AGW is affirmed. While there are still some who dispute AGW even skeptics tend to be those who have problems with the solutions not the central argument. I’m in that camp and I have no clear idea how to approach this problem. Just today I read that in Britain, France, and Germany it is conservative leaders who are advocating action. Australia is, as usual, just tagging along with the USA. The coalition needs to be very careful here, if the USA changes tact(and consider how much research the US military is putting into alternative fuels, even recently testing an F22 on the same), the coalition are going to be left standing like shags on a rock.
As I have stated before JC I believe the whole public debate about this is a shambles of nonsense. A little more honesty wouldn’t go astray, a standing back from the barricades and asking ourselves to completely rethink our approach to this issue(I’m with Dyson and the Royal Society, admittedly a minority view). When first confronted with a problem our first proposed solutions are often very wrong.
John H.
2 Jun 11 at 2:32 am
That’s a worry because you’re the only person worth convincing, Iggie.
It’s Wayne, FFS, not Iggie.
Wayne.
Michael Fisk
2 Jun 11 at 2:58 am
I know it’s metromick. He just can’t help himself. I tell you if we catch him he’s going off straight to the carbon slave jail.
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 3:03 am
I think I’m with John H as well.
We need a good economic solution which is radically good for the environment. Surprise surprise we already have it – nuke and hydro.
.
2 Jun 11 at 7:04 am
So you blokes have been at this all night and all you’ve shown is that our resident anti-science hippy CL did falsely claim there was a scientific “cooling consensus” in the 70s and that apart from a couple of speculative mass media articles, can produce no evidence to back this false claim. Natch.
Now, let’s suppose that there had been such a consensus 40 years ago. What happened then? Scientists reviewed the evidence over time and realised the world was warming. The facts changed so the prevailing view changed. That is what science does. As opposed to anti-science cranks who make it up as they go along. But do tell us how you reach your scientific conclusions CL. My guess is you mull up some of your fave Mullum Madness, inhale deeply, then get out your special crystal hanging on its string made from the seeds of Tibetan gogi berries and you ask “Is climate change really happening?” If it spins clockwise, the answer is NO! Always a pleasure to watch the anti-rational, faith-based mind at work.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 8:47 am
Correct, and as I say, this is even bleedingly obvious from the opening of the Time article
It is also confirmed by counts of papers published on it, as noted at my earlier Skeptical Science link.
CL’s honesty problem, wherein this becomes (in his words) there was a ‘scientific consensus’ about it that was “backed by the world’s leading ‘climate scientists’” is on display for the world to see.
He could admit to exaggeration, at the very least, but will he?
We all know the answer to that, don’t we boys and girls?
steve from brisbane
2 Jun 11 at 8:55 am
CL at 3:32 today:…Oops.
Damn, did not go that far back.
dover_beach
2 Jun 11 at 9:44 am
Naish,
I was really doing work last night. I promise.
How well do the CGM climate models backtest? I don’t truck with anyone who has magic eyes of healing crystals.
.
2 Jun 11 at 9:46 am
um magic eyes OR crystals…I swear I haven’t touched to bucket bong this morning sir.
.
2 Jun 11 at 9:48 am
Which is why I give the scientific pronoucements of “science is sooo 20th century, man, can you dig it” CL a wide berth.
I’m sure you haven’t sir, but can CL say the same?
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 9:53 am
If you want a carbon penance, get religion.
Here is a solution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S
Innovating to zero! Bill Gates on TED.com
At TED2010, Bill Gates unveils his vision for the world’s energy future, describing the need for “miracles” to avoid planetary catastrophe and explaining why he’s backing a dramatically different type of nuclear reactor. The necessary goal? Zero carbon emissions globally by 2050. (Recorded at TED2010, February 2010 in Long Beach, CA. Duration: 27:49)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF-fq2Zn7I
.
2 Jun 11 at 9:57 am
Sorry, Steve, won’t work. I’m going to nail you to the China mast every time this comes up. to wit:
d-d, my comments about China followed directly from your comments.
Indeed they did. However, your lame explanation that China are really good guys who care about polar bears and low-lying micronesian nations was, well… lame. They don’t care. Their emissions are going through the roof.
It was a pertinent observation to make that China does officially believe in AGW, yet argues on equity grounds that it is doing as much as it should.
You really fell for that? “Equity grounds”? Mate, this is a global emergency, remember? If you’re serious then you have to stop China’s emissions. “Equity” is a luxury you get when the planet’s not in peril.
You always pretend that Catallaxy commenters are open minded and fairly assessing the issue of a carbon price as if their frequently repeated ridicule and skepticism of the very idea of dangerous AGW was irrelevant.
Of course, they are not.
Two points here. First, the catallaxy authors (Sinclair,Judith, etc) don’t express skepticism about the science . their focus is the economics, and there’s plenty of skepticism on that. You choose to engage with science skeptics such as cat regular, CL, then pretend that everything here is science skepticism.
Maybe you do this because you’re more comfortbable arguing the science than the economics.Or maybe it’s just a big attempt by you to slander the entire site as anti-science.
I don’t recall saying that a carbon tax was “indefensible”. Care to enlighten me by a paraphrase of my earlier comment that led to that conclusion?
I seem to recall you said you woudn’t defend it – but I’m happy to retract. Would you care to prove me wrong by offering a defense of the carbon tax?
daddy dave
2 Jun 11 at 10:14 am
Haven’t followed Catallaxy long enough to know about Judith, but Sinclair has, does and not doubt will express scepticism about climate change science. As is his right. But you do wonder why a man of learning aligns himself with the anti-science cranks. The betrayal of the Enlightenment by so-called conservatives for partisan reasons is one of the great tragedies of this debate. The idea that conservatives would attack the scientific establishment, which would rely on The Greens (those children of the Children of the Revolution) to defend and promote science, would have seemed laughable 40 years ago. That is where the great betrayal of science has left conservatives and the right these days – sounding like spaced out hippy stoners in a Nimbin cafe.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 10:31 am
This sword cuts in both directions, Ignatius.
We can point out that the left ignores the science of economics, and specifically of free markets.
And while I understand that “the left” is not monolithic, but there are anti-science sentiments in pockets on the left on the following topics:
- opposition to phonics;
- sympathy for all varieties of ‘alternative medicine’;
- opposition to genetically modified organisms;
- opposition to nuclear power;
- opposition to globalisation and free trade;
- hostility to pharmaceutical research;
- belief in socialist economic policy;
oh – and refusal to debate scientifically and technologically plausible alternatives to a carbon tax or ETS. These are just examples. So run off and police your own, thanks, before walzing in here with your “SCIENCE BELIEVER” chest badge.
daddy dave
2 Jun 11 at 10:47 am
Ignatius, my point still stands.
There is no scientific justification for an Australian carbon tax in the absence of global action. If climate change is happening then the urgent priority is to reduce China’s emissions in absolute terms.
If China’s emissions continue to grow then climate change can’t be stopped, and can’t be slowed.
Steve tried to change the subject. You’re trying to help him change the subject. Won’t work, sorry.
daddy dave
2 Jun 11 at 10:50 am
You mean like Prof. Linzden and Carter?
Fail.
.
2 Jun 11 at 10:53 am
and Freeman Dyson.
daddy dave
2 Jun 11 at 10:54 am
Daddy, review my comments (please do a better job than your initial CL review) and you’ll see I’ve said nothing whatsoever about a carbon tax. Not a word. Hard to see how I could be changing the subject when in fact I’ve stayed on the same subject – that is, the false claim of a “cooling consensus” and the betrayal of science by the lunar right that have left them barking at the moon louder than any hippy stoner ever did. Not sure what makes you think I’m part of some “change the subject conspiracy” with Steve – you haven’t been sucking the Mullum Madness out of CL’s bucket bong have you?
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 10:54 am
Yes, I do mean like Lindzen, Carter and Dyson … those poor lonely science outliers on this issue, aligning themselves with the anti-science cranks against the world’s science establishment (and evidence, reason, facts on the ground). It is sad, pitiable and pathetic. A tiny hand full of aging, out-of-date, no longer active in the field sceptics not allowed to travel on the same plane together lest the whole sceptical edifice be wiped out the face of the earth as one.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 10:59 am
Ignatius, the original post was about Cate Blanchett’s endorsement of a carbon tax. Steve likes to shift any debate onto “climate science” so he can post links to his favourite blogs, but carbon tax is policy, not science, and moreover it’s bad policy regardless of ‘the science’.
Are you on Steve’s side: do you think a carbon tax is a good idea? If so, why? It won’t make a dent in global warming and will be economically costly.
daddy dave
2 Jun 11 at 11:01 am
Dad.
It’s metro alright, Wayne sando to his friends. If he breaks out in a Bush obsession like he did on another thread treat him harshly and without any remorse.
I think he’s developing a CL obsession like Sando did with SL. All he spoke about for a month was about SL when he first appeared here. It was really psychiatric stuff.
Metro, the fridge please. Off.
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 11:01 am
I mean, WTF would these idiots know…
Naish – tell me how the CGM models backtest. Tell me why the Greens are anti nuclear and pro tax.
.
2 Jun 11 at 11:02 am
But you do wonder why a man of learning aligns himself with the anti-science cranks.
Pielke Sr, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Douglass, Kotsouyannis, etc. are not anti-science cranks.
The betrayal of the Enlightenment by so-called conservatives for partisan reasons is one of the great tragedies of this debate.
If anyone has betrayed the Enlightenment it is they who claim a uniformity of opinion on scientific matters.
Also, it seems incongruous that you should be complaining that conservatives, or anyone for that matter, are betraying the Enlightenment by being sceptical about the claims of establishments, scientific or otherwise.
dover_beach
2 Jun 11 at 11:04 am
daddy, why should anything Steve writes mean anything to me? Why should I need to declare an interest in Steve’s views about a carbon tax, one way or the other? I see you have conceded in effectthat I played no part in “changing the subject”, thanks for that, but why should I join in with your Steve obsession? My zero tolerance for your substance of choice, Mullum Madness, could be an insurmountable impediment I fear.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 11:05 am
A tiny hand full of aging, out-of-date, no longer active in the field sceptics
Pielke Sr is no longer active in the field? Someone should tell his research group at Uni of Colorado. Nor Koutsoyiannis? The same. And so on.
dover_beach
2 Jun 11 at 11:15 am
My apologies. A couple of these aging, out-of-date outliers practice some non-peer reviewed, flaky pseudo-science dismissed and disregarded by the science establishment and mainstream … but taken as holy writ by anti-science and reason lunar cranks. There are more national science academies supporting the science of climate change than there are individual science “sceptics” (four at last count). It is fringe lunacy. Much respected here I see. Party on, stoners! And pass the healing crystals.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 11:21 am
my point was that you were treating Steve’s trollish derailments as the topic of this discussion, when it’s not. but let’s move on.
Fine then. Here’s the question for you, no mention of Steve.
Do you think a carbon tax is good policy? If so, why? In other words, what will be the benefit for Australians of an Australian carbon tax?
daddy dave
2 Jun 11 at 11:21 am
see, the thing is, we get lots of people – like you – coming along and huffing and puffing about skeptics, and science, and Plimer, and popes, and poor-put-upon Cate, but nobody will come here and defend the carbon tax.
So let’s hear it. What’s in it for Australians?
daddy dave
2 Jun 11 at 11:24 am
Before we move on daddy, I jumped on that hippy-stoner CL’s nonsense about a “cooling consensus” … nothing to do with Steve or his alleged trolling. That out of the way, why on earth should I engage in any of your obsessions – Steve, “change the subject conspiracies” or a carbon tax that, at this stage, we know absolutely nothing about. As a well-grounded conservative, I like to stick to fact and reason and not go off barking after speculative hypotheticals. When we know some details about this tax, I may have some thoughts on it. Until then, not so much – unless I develop a CL-like taste for Mullum Madness in the meantime.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 11:28 am
Lol
“Hi Alan. I’m metromick, a conservative. I want to complain about the level of discourse coming from my side about da climate science… and other stuff”.
Are all lefties conservatives now?
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 11:31 am
Hi Wayne. You didn’t ‘jump’ on anything.
I demonstrated conclusively that some of the world’s leading ‘climate scientists’ were predicting another Ice Age in the 70s. One of them is now Barack Obama’s chief ‘science’ adbviser. He also predicted a Great Todal Wave that might kill just about everyone.
I win.
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 11:32 am
There are more national science academies supporting the science of climate change than there are individual science “sceptics” (four at last count). It is fringe lunacy.
This is the voice of the ‘Enlightenment’ nowadays. I’m still baffled by the claim that Pielke Sr and Koutsoyiannis are on the fringe given their academic positions and their status in their respective fields.
dover_beach
2 Jun 11 at 11:32 am
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 11:33 am
You don’t need to. but if you scroll up you’ll see that this post is about Cate Blanchett’s endorsement of the carbon tax.
Fine with me. Don’t defend the carbon tax. I don’t blame you. It’s indefensible.
Actually I’m glad, because the first tactic you’d probably use is the tedious feel-good stuff about “doing our bit.” Then we’d have to spend half a day eviscerating that illogical nonsense (for example, by referencing China AGAIN) before inviting you to an actual, not-kindergarten-level, defense of the policy. So thanks for not putting us all through that.
daddy dave
2 Jun 11 at 11:34 am
Hey, remember the ‘consensus’ that 50 trillion people were killed in the Iraq War? The Lancet even ‘proved’ it with several ‘scientific’ ‘studies.’
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 11:35 am
My, you have been on the toke this morning. Infantile as well as delusional. You demonstrated that, 40 bloody years ago, a few scientists joined in a speculative debate in the popular press about the chance of global cooling. As they do. Your failure to name one science academy supporting this alleged “cooling consensus” proves it was yet another fabricated claim from an anti-science crank. Did your magic crystal tell you there was a “cooling consensus”?
Do you know how many science academies and scientific bodies support the climate of science change? More than you’ve had bucket bongs at summer equinox festivals. (Well, perhaps not that many, but lots and lots of science groups.)
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 11:40 am
Wow, loopy stuff.
.
2 Jun 11 at 11:40 am
d-d: stop being a hypocrite.
Disbelief in the science is routinely brought up by many commenters, not just CL, in any discussion of a carbon pricing issue. But you chose to get upset with one person – me – who pushes back on the issue.
This post was about, when you come down to it, moral reasons for adopting a carbon tax. I answered that in the context of China. I also pointed out, relevantly, that it’s not (on the face of it) that there should be any argument with them on the science. Reducing our own carbon admits a joint responsibility that gives us some “face” with which to further engage with China on their reductions.
Judith, you and all your mates dismiss that. I have presented a logical and moral case, you dismiss it, that’s the way it goes.
CL and JC then went off on a spiels about global cooling and what Hansen said in 1988.
Why didn’t you leap on them and say “guys, this isn’t a discussion about the science.”
No, you complete hypocrite, you got upset with me for showing there claims were wrong.
steve from brisbane
2 Jun 11 at 11:41 am
Steve, for example, who believes Australia’s carbon dioxide tax will not only cool the earth but persuade China to abandon totalitarianism.
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 11:43 am
Yes, it is. And yes, you answered that, and clearly believe that China’s emissions are not skyrocketing. In which case, there’s nothing more to say. run along now.
Ignatius Reilly:
Many, many more than support the science of vaccination. Yet ironically vaccination will save more lives than a carbon tax (which, like us, you obviously don’t support).
daddy dave
2 Jun 11 at 11:48 am
Their steel production is going to rise 25% over the next five years. This alone will gainsay any tax or ETS based mitigation we do.
.
2 Jun 11 at 11:48 am
Not just that, but many more things were mentioned about this decrepit.
1. Taking $250,000 from the Kerry campaign after endorsing him
2. Taking $750,000 through circular channels from Soros/moveon
3. Saluting the Chinese regime and telling them their political system was superior to democracy
4. Advocating the jailing of energy company executives
5. Advocating the suspension of democracy in the west.
6. Outright denial he was a cooler before he became a warmer.
This dude is poison in any discussion and yet you support him steve. Why?
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 11:49 am
Their broader point – that the scientific community can be wrong, and wrong on climate specifically – seems valid.
There are skeptics now, there were skeptics then. There were people who believed in global cooling. We’re talking about mainstream scientists here, not Appallachian preachers.
This obsession with headcounts of who believes what in the scientific community is counterproductive.
daddy dave
2 Jun 11 at 11:50 am
d-d, you are clearly demonstrating your decision that there is no moral argument relevant to an Australian carbon tax.
There are other more practical arguments, to which the Productivity Commission report will be relevant.
But it’s already clear, your mind is made up on carbon pricing, which is entirely consistent with your approach that climate skeptics in comments threads should be free to lie and distort without challenge.
steve from brisbane
2 Jun 11 at 11:54 am
A debatable point, but in any case the view of a few outlier cranks does not refute the overwhelming body of facts and evidence, and it is the facts and evidence that have sway the world’s science academies and science bodies. That is, those people who rely on reason and stay away from “science” based on magic crystals and herbal highs.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 11:54 am
So why do Greenpeace and the Australian Greens oppose GMO and nuclear power?
.
2 Jun 11 at 11:55 am
I haven’t heard any arguments in favour of a carbon tax. I invite you and IR (who JC believes is a certain journalist) to defend it. You can’t because it’s indefensible.
magic crystals and herbal highs are popular with anti-science Greens supporters.
Frankly, you can both argue with CL all day about whether the ‘science’ is right, but you’re just trying to avoid talking about the carbon tax.
daddy dave
2 Jun 11 at 11:59 am
Look, I can’t put this any more nicely – how dumb are you?
The whole friggin’ point of the “cooling in the 1970′s” furphy is that it was not the scientific community that was wrong.
steve from brisbane
2 Jun 11 at 11:59 am
Don’t know, perhaps they’ve been joining CL on the toke. But what has that distraction got to do with the undeniable reality that facts and evidence have led the world’s science academies and disciplines to line up behind climate science, leaving the cranks – regrettably including the conservative side of politics these day – to betray science and reason. That comment is as useless as a magic crystal in laboratory.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 12:00 pm
There is no carbon tax to talk about. Mere speculation at this point. Let’s wait until we see the detail so that, you know, we know what we are talking about. But I can see why you would want to change the subject from that of the cranks and their voodoo science.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 12:06 pm
Thank you.
.
2 Jun 11 at 12:07 pm
Sooo….. what’s that ad on TV all about?
Seems like all you’ve got is name-calling. I’m not sure why I’d want to jump into such a rarified debate.
daddy dave
2 Jun 11 at 12:10 pm
You are welcome! I oppose cranks and anti-science loons whatever their politics.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 12:11 pm
Metro
Give “Bush” a shot on this thread. I know you can do it. Take a deep breath and push down.
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 12:12 pm
You are only half right. C.L is not an anti science crank. I think he also wants to know how well the CGM models backtest. You haven’t answered this.
.
2 Jun 11 at 12:12 pm
Anyone who thinks there was a “cooling consensus” in the ’70s and who presumes to refute, based on nothing, the overwhelming facts, evidence and institutional support for climate science is an anti-science, crystal-waving, hippy crank.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 12:21 pm
leaving the cranks
‘Cranks’ like Pielke Sr, Koutsoyiannis, etc? I don’t know of any other discipline in the world that lives under a like straight-jacket foisted upon climate science, for political purposes, by the idea of a scientific consensus.
dover_beach
2 Jun 11 at 12:22 pm
Where’s the fucking evidence? Did anyone write to Newsweek and tell them they were wrong?
.
2 Jun 11 at 12:25 pm
The important thing to remember is that many of the world’s leading ‘climate scientists’ predicted another Ice Age in the 70s. One of these Global Coolening believers even predicted a Great Tidal Wave that would wipe out most of humanity. That loopy individual is presently chief scientific adviser to Barack Obama. That would be the Barack Obama who told his Saddleback interviewer on the 08 campaign trail that he didn’t know when an individual human life begins. (The scientific answer is ‘conception’).
Today’s ‘climate scientists’ are equally, if not more, bizarre in their utterances and claims. From totalitarian fruitcake James Hansen predicting the imminent flooding of Manhattan to ancient poo analyst Tim Flannery predicting the coming alive of Gaia; from Robyn Williams predicting a 100 metre sea rise to porn novelist Rajendra Pachauri linking earthquakes to ‘global warming.’ There is a reason why Kyoto is being dumped and why electorates around the world no longer care much about warmenism. The reason is that climate catastrophism is now regarded as laughable.
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 12:25 pm
If the facts were overwhelming the institutional support would be superfluous.
dover_beach
2 Jun 11 at 12:26 pm
Them’s all you got? Tell you what, for every crank outlier with a current connection to the field you can name (be interesting to see if you can get passed 10) I’ll name two world science academies, chief scientists and/or science bodies who support the evidence-based science of climate change. Want to try it and see who runs out of candidates first? Sorry, but fortunately there are just not that many cranks out there.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 12:28 pm
…an anti-science, crystal-waving, hippy crank.
Right.
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 12:28 pm
Guess that depends how much Madness you’ve been smoking. Or whether you chose to ignore the recent US National Science Academy pronouncement, the UK conservative government’s decision to halve emissions, the push towards cap and trade in California, the views of the world’s scientists, the recent Bloomberg-Clinton initiative, the hundreds of peer-reviewed papers published each year …. and so on.
Denialism has got to be getting harder, even for the most ignorant of anti-science cranks. Time up load up the bong and drag out the crystals CL
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 12:35 pm
Kyoto deal loses four big nations.
Nobody cares.
Yeah, I got the attempt to project your own LSD fantasies about exploding planets and Gaia coming alive the first time. Still not working.
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 12:44 pm
I don’t know, I don’t rely on the popular press for my understanding of science. Ask CL. He’ll tell you just as soon as he gets finished reading some ’70s Time article about the UFO phenomena or why so many people are interested in crop circles. Articles that have as much relevance to what science thought then or thinks now as what one or two article about possible cooling did to any “scienfific consensus” on the subject. But that’s where you end up if you follow anti-science cranks like CL – traipsing off into the realm of UFO and crop circles. The guy is an irrational hippy – leave him be.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 12:46 pm
IPCC boss (and qualified railwayman) Rajendra Pachauri:
Humans cause earthquakes, claims the IPCC.
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 12:47 pm
Time, Monday, Jun. 24, 1974:
John P. Holdren – advisor to President Barack Obama for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
Newsweek, April 28, 1975:
And here is one of the Newsweek articles (PDF) – citing some of the world’s leading ‘climate scientists’ – warning of Global Encoolening. The year is 1975.
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 12:53 pm
Cranks of a feather flock together. CL gets some science from ’70s magazine articles, some from magic crystals and the rest from Andrew Bolt (I’ll leave it to others to decide which is the most reliable source.) As for what what allegedly said, as quoted in the popular press and relayed by Bolt … there is in fact a respected scientific hypothesis being explored that argues that the melting of the massive bodies of ice being seen as a result of global warming may allow the tectonic plates to move more readily which could result in more earthquakes. Put down the crystal, put the bong in its hidey-hole and go check out the literature on the subject CL (that does not mean magazines you find lying around at the dentist, OK?) I know that means you’ll run the risk of learning something scientific, but you can have a nice lie down in your geosometric tee-pee and get a crystal healing when you get back.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 12:56 pm
Them’s all you got?
No.
Tell you what, for every crank outlier with a current connection to the field you can name
So, you, with no experience in the field, judge them cranks and outliers. On what grounds? You’re not even familiar with their arguments.
I’ll name two world science academies, chief scientists and/or science bodies who support the evidence-based science of climate change.
Pielke Sr, Koutsoyiannis, Christy, etc. are active practitioners leading research teams and are regularly published in leading journals within their disciplines. If they’re ‘outliers’ or ‘cranks’ so is the entire field.
BTW, it is instructive that a supposed beacon of the Enlightenment what’s this settled by an argument from authority.
dover_beach
2 Jun 11 at 1:00 pm
OK – d-d, this is where you come in and criticise CL for adding nothing to a debate by doing his cut and paste trick (instead of, like, linking to the earlier comment which had the exact same words.)
D-d? DDDDDD-DDDDDDD?
No where to be heard. What a surprise.
steve from brisbane
2 Jun 11 at 1:01 pm
Why is CL still quoting long forgotten and discredited magazine articles that neither prove there was a “cooling consensus” nor have anything to say about the current, overwhelming, world=wide, evidenced based scientific consensus on climate change?
Must have been a potent crop down in Mullumbimby this year CL? Either that or you are picking up some weird messages during your sweat lodge trances. Come join the rational world CL. Lots more people live there for starters. Cranks-ville is a village, a mere fly speak on a map by comparison.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 1:01 pm
Ah, weirdo lefty ‘Andrew Bolt’ mania.
Sorry, no. Doesn’t work.
IPCC boss (and qualified railwayman) Rajendra Pachauri:
Note for the record that ‘science’ aficonado Iggy Pap believes that humans may be causing earthquakes!!!
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 1:04 pm
No dover, the argument is settled by facts and evidence, which is then adopted by authority. In this case … every reputable scientific academy and disciplinary body in the world. Bar none. Go off and count them. But of course, you know better right? How? Wouldn’t be because you base your argument on authority from the likes of Pielke et al now would it? Ummm? Surely you are not a hypocrite as well as an anti-science crank dover? Not a good look.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 1:06 pm
Let this be a warning of what too much mull and crystals will do to the mind. What “Iggy” actually believes, knows to be fact, is that respected scientists are exploring the possibility that melting of ice-sheets may cause tectonic plates to move more freely, thus triggering more earthquakes.
Did your magic crystal tell you this was unsound science CL, or is that what your tarot card reader told you over chai tea this morning?
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 1:10 pm
Well, it all makes a change on having a go at CL for being a Pell-ian aligned Catholic who thinks the Pope’s been fooled by his Vatican scientists on climate change. (Note for relevance – if Ignatius really hasn’t read this blog for a while, someone has to tell him the correct content of CL’s spiritual beliefs.)
D-d – this is where you come in and say it’s old how I raise CL’s catholicism. Which is kind of odd given that there is a moral argument about having a carbon tax even if China doesn’t, and Catholics are supposed to be interested in morals.
But anyway, we all know there is no argument and it all makes no sense in any way whatsoever and its very important not to mention CL’s religion because he has an uncontrollable tic that starts up whenever its mentioned.
steve from brisbane
2 Jun 11 at 1:10 pm
The United States Geological Survey stomps on Dr Pauchauri’s increasing earthquakes hypothesis:
FAQs
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?categoryID=6&faqID=110
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 1:13 pm
Apart from wanting to know about CL’s sex life, Steve also likes to faux-attack CL over Catholicism and brings this up at every opportunity.
Steve has also said that planes falling from the sky is “funny”. Steve spends most of his day discussing
But ask Steve to enlighten us as to why a carbon dioxide tax is good for the planet?
We just get crickets.
Crickets.
Gabrielle
2 Jun 11 at 1:17 pm
I’m not buying it. Pell is pretty there, but you can’t be the full monty, raving mad, anti-science crank that CL is by following Pell alone. Besides, the Vatican has long accepted climate change. Nuh, CL is a crystal waving, bong busting hippy. Gotta be. I’ve come across ‘em before. They are all full of the same self-assured, self-righteous, “I know better than that reductionist science stuff” twaddle. My money is on the crystals and the bong ahead of the incense and men in frocks.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 1:17 pm
“melting of ice-sheets may cause tectonic plates to move more freely, thus triggering more earthquakes”
Now I’ve heard it all!
Nanuestalker
2 Jun 11 at 1:19 pm
Steve is a ‘Catholic’ who supports abortion and rejects Benedict’s teaching that failing to respect human life will doom all other environmentalism to failure.
Steve believes the pope has been fooled by the right to life lobby.
LOL. Another gaffe from Steve. While pretending to be a Catholic a few months ago, he referred to “your church.”
I’m happy to be aligned with Cambridge doctor George Pell, Steve. You’re on the same page as Tim Flannery – who, in the first instance, had to do a La Trobe arts degree because his maths grades were too low to get him a berth in a science degree. He eventually stumbled out with an ‘earth science’ degree from Monash.
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 1:21 pm
You know it. I don’t need to say it.
what is that moral argument? Please state it. I haven’t heard any argument in favour of a carbon tax, moral or otherwise.
daddy dave
2 Jun 11 at 1:21 pm
This hippy retard has no idea how science works does he? One article does alone does not stomp on anything, prove or disprove anything. In any event, the scientific hypothesis being explored is that current and future melting of massive ice sheets may (or may not, that is the question to be answered) result in more frequent devastating earthquakes in the future. See what too much mull does to the rational mind. Let this be a warning to us all.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 1:22 pm
Ignatius: we get it. You accept the majority opinion on climate change, but are not familiar with the actual scientific arguments. Therefore, there doesn’t seem to be anything more for you to say on the matter, except to accuse others of being unscientific.
daddy dave
2 Jun 11 at 1:22 pm
Gab once again throws her body in front of CL. “Leave my Precious and his spurious arguments and repetitious cut and pasting alone!”
steve from brisbane
2 Jun 11 at 1:23 pm
That’s me, daddy-oh!
Strange criticism from you, though, Wayne – as we know you’re a man approaching 60.
——————————-
“…there is a moral argument about having a carbon tax.”
There certainly is. It is grossly immoral to increase the price of electricity, heating, food and employment to introduce a tax that cannot and will not alter the planet’s temperature.
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 1:26 pm
Meow, Steve.
Jealousy is just unattractive.
Hey Steve, why don’t you give us some evidence-based facts* on glowbull warmening?
*These do not include theoretical calculations which lead “climate scientists” to alarm us with prophecies of climate catastrophes.
Gabrielle
2 Jun 11 at 1:28 pm
No dover, the argument is settled by facts and evidence, which is then adopted by authority.
And yet you only refer to authorities.
But of course, you know better right? How? Wouldn’t be because you base your argument on authority from the likes of Pielke et al now would it? Ummm?
I never said I knew better nor that those I disagreed with were anti-science cranks because I understand that people can have differences of opinion as to the facts without failing into unreason. You evidently don’t which is why you believe that those that differ as regard to the dominant view must necessarily be unreasoned and anti-science.
dover_beach
2 Jun 11 at 1:29 pm
Interesting. If India begins moving in this way, following what’s happened in the UK, across Europe, in a number of US states, and with China moving to drive down in emissions intensity, talk of Australia “getting ahead of the world” is go to look as silly as the ravings of the anti-science cranks. With all due respect to what CL’s magic crystals have to say, denialism is on its death bed. Someone turn off the life-support, please.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 1:29 pm
Steve, the climate change debate does have a moral component, I’ll give you that. But a carbon tax won’t affect climate change.
It’s got nothing to do with climate change, in fact.
daddy dave
2 Jun 11 at 1:30 pm
You credulous fool.
daddy dave
2 Jun 11 at 1:31 pm
Porn novelist and railwayman, Dr Pachauri:
He’s saying the Great Enwarmening WILL cause earthquakes.
Amongst railway engineer Dr Pachauri’s qualifications to weigh in to the earthquake question:
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 1:31 pm
Yes, they can, but the problem for the anti-science cranks in this case is that there are no facts to support their “opinions”. That is the difference between genuine sceptics and this tiny clutch of anti-science climate cranks. Wackos the lot of them. A tiny lost brigade of loops fighting the armies of the scientific world.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 1:34 pm
“…China moving to drive down in emissions intensity…”
LOL. Mmyes, our coal exporters have noticed China’s increasingly heroic efforts to reduce its ‘carbon pollution.’
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 1:34 pm
Iggy finally condemns ‘Earthquakes’ Pachauri, ‘Gaia Alive’ Flannery, ‘Manhattan Atlantis’ Hansen and ‘Ice Age’ Holdren:
Agreed.
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 1:37 pm
So according to a possibly accurate quote from the popular press (never a reliable source) Pachauri may (or may not) have made a statement that, if uttered, would be getting ahead of where the science is at right now. And the impact of that on the actual science of the situation re earthquakes (currently being researched and considered) or that of the wider climate science evidence …. nothing whatsoever. Seems CL may have taken to drinking the bong water as well.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 1:39 pm
That is the difference between genuine sceptics and this tiny clutch of anti-science climate cranks.
Are Pielke Sr, Koutsoyiannis, etc. members of the former or the latter as your position seems to change with every comment because if they are members of the latter why are their opinions being published in leading journals if they are devoid of fact?
dover_beach
2 Jun 11 at 1:41 pm
Seems more than one commenter here does not understand what “emissions intensity” means. Cranks will clutch onto every last thread of ignorance in a futile attempt to sustain their anti-rational, ideogically-based anti-scientific “opinions”.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 1:42 pm
CLimate change is like God, if it didn’t exist it wuld be necessary to invent it.
Let’s face it the AGW thing grows because it is ideal for Governments and scientists to indulge in groupthink. The Government gets more excuse to control and tax us, the green millenarians get more chance to out on their hairshirts and tell us the end of the World is nigh and the scientists get much more government funding than could get if they engaged in real evidence gathering. Climate gate showed us that the ‘science’ is based on a wee bit of misapplied data that was circulated by a very few corrupt scientists.
Rococo Liberal
2 Jun 11 at 1:43 pm
They are? Love to see those links. Even so, for every one paper from the tiny number of cranks who would struggle to fill a phone box, do you reckon about a thousand a year would be published substantiating climate science? Or would it be more than that?
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 1:45 pm
From Garnaut’s review, for d-d in particular:
It would seem that Garnaut is drawing a distinction between moral grounds and equity grounds. I was perhaps using “moral” in the broad sense of fairness and equity.
The CL argument that it is immoral to do if all it does is cause pain and no benefit is based on the undeclared presumption that it is unaffordable and an unbearable blow to the Australian economy and families.
There is no evidence to argue that until full details of the package are revealed. It is an Abbott-ian scare campaign, to which he is fully committed.
steve from brisbane
2 Jun 11 at 1:45 pm
Time to cue the X-files theme! Wow, thanks for that. The full crank science weirdo conspiracy in one fact-free paragraph. Completely nutty. And the full expression of the conservative betrayal of science and the Enlightenment, which now gets more support from The Greens in the public domain. Edmund Burke must be turning in his grave.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 1:50 pm
So by that logic, the only purpose of a carbon tax is to get other countries to adopt a carbon tax (or similar policy). This does not pass the laugh test.
The carbon tax is just a tax. Labor’s running a shameless propaganda campaign to convince people that it will have an environmental impact (on the climate or anything else). It won’t, and everyone who believes in reason and truth should say so.
daddy dave
2 Jun 11 at 1:52 pm
Am still waiting, Steve….
Gabrielle
2 Jun 11 at 1:53 pm
I actually laughed when I read that. See my earlier list.
The Greens are a Romantic movement.
daddy dave
2 Jun 11 at 1:54 pm
Sorry, the quote from RL was not the complete weirdo conspiracy theory. It missed out the bit about the black helicopters and the one world government. But I’m sure he’s getting to that. Either that or CL will when he refills the bong with water and fires it up.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 1:55 pm
Sure we do. It’s a weasel word to avoid the fact that absolute emissions are going through the roof.
daddy dave
2 Jun 11 at 1:56 pm
In fact, the world couldn’t care less what Australia does. We could sink into the ocean tomorrow and it wouldn’t make any substantive difference to the world’s carbon ‘pollution.’
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 1:59 pm
Agree with you to a point daddy – The Greens came out of the romantic movement of the 60s and early 70s. There have been some signs of real world maturity developing in recent years as they’ve had to face political realities, especially in jurisdictions where they have held power (usually coalition). That quibble aside, you make my point – it is remarkable that The Greens find themselves on the side of science and the rational (in this debate at least) while conservatives betray those same forces. Even more wierdly, The Greens are supporting a market-based approach to dealing with it, while the supposedly free-market Liberals are proposing a statist, interventionist, big Government approach. Just to make the betrayal complete – scientifically, economically and politically. These are dark days indeed for true conservatives.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 1:59 pm
That should clue you in that all is not what it seems. Neither side are being honest about their objectives. Neither side’s objectives are about the ocean level in 2100. I mean, come on, were you born yesterday?
daddy dave
2 Jun 11 at 2:02 pm
Iggy, we know you’re almost 60 and that you therefore speak with real authority about hippies.
But this doesn’t alter the fact that, scientifically speaking, nothing Australia does will make any difference to the planet’s temperature.
The upside is that even you are young enough to go sailing on what is now the West Side Highway in Manhattan if James Hansen’s prediction comes true (barring interference from earthquakes). Until then, we’ll just accept that I’ve won this debate.
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 2:03 pm
They are? Love to see those links.
I’ve provided them.
do you reckon about a thousand a year would be published substantiating climate science? Or would it be more than that?
I doubt there are even fifty papers published over the last thirty years that in some significant measure substantiate that the warming over the last century is principally the result of GHGs. That it has had some effect I do not dispute.
dover_beach
2 Jun 11 at 2:07 pm
There is no ‘market’ for carbon dioxide.
Sorry. Try again.
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 2:07 pm
haahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha
Breath
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhaahhahahaha
“Hi Alan.. I’m Metromick.. I have to say that as a conservative I have begun to support the Greens, as I think they are closer to my way of thinking.”
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 2:12 pm
Yes this is how this site works:
D-d – there is no moral argument, I’ve never seen or heard of one!
Me – yes there is, look here, in Garnaut’s review.
D-d – you call that a moral argument!? That’s absurd!
Gab – prove to me with real honest to goodness facts that AGW is real
Me – why don’t you read this summary, and this one too, of some of the key findings that confirm the reality of AGW at Skeptical Science.
Gab – Facts!? Those aren’t facts that convince me.
Why do you bother inviting arguments and “facts” that we all know you have already rejected?
Steve from brisbane
2 Jun 11 at 2:26 pm
Poor deluded boy. There is a site devoted to publishing the abstracts of every peer-reviewed climate science related paper ever published. Here is the index for those papers. Just the index, which is a list of the headings under which the actual papers are grouped. Check it out, there are at least a hundred subject areas containing must be thousands of papers in total.
Now, you were saying, you had some peer-reviewed papers published by denialists in leading journals … do some them to us, please. Oh, and don’t follow the resident hippy’s example of linking to out of date magazine articles about “cooling”.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 2:40 pm
Well you know, Steve, if you don’t like the site as you appear not to, you could always go away and next time not come back.
You realize that’s an option to you, right?
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 2:45 pm
Quite a good summary.
daddy dave
2 Jun 11 at 2:50 pm
A wordpress blog is the ultimate authority on climate change?
daddy dave
2 Jun 11 at 2:52 pm
Who compiled it?
So he’s excluding all academic material he doesn’t like.
A true warmenist, and his hobbies include “guitar & bass playing.”
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/about/
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 2:52 pm
Poor deluded boy. There is a site devoted to publishing the abstracts of every peer-reviewed climate science related paper ever published. Here is the index for those papers.
And you imagine that each of those papers substantiates the claim that the warming over the last century is principally the result of GHGs?
Thanks for that site, BTW.
dover_beach
2 Jun 11 at 2:53 pm
A link to the SS blog ahahahahaha
Am still waiting for your evidence-based facts, Steve.
Gabrielle
2 Jun 11 at 2:53 pm
You also have the option of not being an obnoxious, shouting, swearing bully boy who tries to chase away other opinions (and corrections of false claims) off this (allegedly) centre right blog, JC, but it’s not one you chose to take.
steve from brisbane
2 Jun 11 at 2:54 pm
The site’s author lives in Espoo.
The Es is for ‘scientific.’
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 2:54 pm
A
A substantial number at least. But what you seem to miss is the fact that climate science and the evidence for AGW is much broader than a mere focus on GHGs. The science is so sound, so complete, because it draws on so many disciplines.
Now, you were saying, you had some peer-reviewed papers published by denialists in leading journals – do show them to us, please. In fact, you even said you had the links, had already linked to them in fact. So, evidence please … talk is cheap, especially talk from anti-science cranks.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 2:59 pm
Steve
Yes of course I have that option, but the difference is that I don’t whine about this site like you do every day.
Oh Please I don’t chase lefties away. I do my best to make them cry as it’s fun.
Now as I said, if you find yourself always complaining about the site and the participants it would be a good idea if you went away.
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 3:00 pm
I thought Chris Landsea, Dick Lindzen and Cristie were all part of the IPCC process, Metro. Were they not?
Was George Bush?
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 3:02 pm
Looks like db has got exactly the same number of peer-reviewed denialist papers in leading journals as CL has science academies and the like supporting his weird belief (based on something he once read at the dentists) that there was a ’70 scientific “cooling consensus”.
Guess when you are an irrational, anti-science crank you have to resort to making stuff up. What else is there when fact, evidence, science and world opinion is against you. If only everyone could drink CLs bong water and follow his magic crytal, everyone could see the world in that special way that he does.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 3:08 pm
A substantial number at least.
Maybe you could point out at least fifty seeing as you’re so familiar with them.
But what you seem to miss is the fact that climate science and the evidence for AGW is much broader than a mere focus on GHGs.
Yes, obviously the science and the evidence is broader than the principal thesis of AGW. I understand that perfectly.
The science is so sound, so complete, because it draws on so many disciplines.
If it were so sound and so complete it wouldn’t be a continuing research program.
dover_beach
2 Jun 11 at 3:10 pm
Metro
You’ve certainly moved up in the world. In he old days you would send us to the Guardian as a reference link. But you now seem to have graduated to pee reviewed articles.
I’m impressed. No kidding.
Between you and steve, who I consider the only legitimate conservatives here… having him link to site like realbeta.org and having you reference pee reviewed articles.. I reckon you have a lock in winning all the argument by force of intellect.
This is a very impressive learning “curb” you’ve traveled, Metro. ( the fridge please)
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 3:11 pm
In fact, you even said you had the links, had already linked to them in fact. So, evidence please … talk is cheap, especially talk from anti-science cranks.
I’ve given them above. I’m not going to provide them a second time.
dover_beach
2 Jun 11 at 3:11 pm
You cranks really do not get the scientific method at all, do you? It never rests, it never stops, it checks, re-checks, argues, disagrees, tosses out the old, adds the new, researchs and argues some more. That is the whole basis for life in the West as we know it. Science, facts, evidence and reason. The Enlightenment. And then a bunch of cranks claiming to be conservatives, like you and CL, try to blow the whole thing up. Nutters.
Now, you were saying, you had some peer-reviewed papers published by denialists in leading journals – do show them to us, please. In fact, you even said you had the links, had already linked to them in fact. So, evidence please … talk is cheap, especially talk from anti-science cranks.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 3:14 pm
DB
Careful now as metro only does pee reviewed science now.
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 3:15 pm
Iggy, I won.
The End.
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 3:15 pm
Then give us the link to where you linked to them. Either that or cop on the chin the charge that you are not just an anti-science crank, but a liar to boot.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 3:16 pm
Metro
CL says you lost. Do you concede finally?
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 3:17 pm
Son of the Enlightenment.
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 3:19 pm
CL also says there was a scientific cooling consensus in the ’70s based on something he read at the dentists. Why would anyone believe anything this anti-science, crystal wearing, bong water drinking loon has to say. Of course, you should feel free if that is what you are into.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 3:20 pm
Metro:
Do you still have that ear ring embedded in the left ear? Is is a diamond?
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 3:21 pm
Has the bass player from Espoo got any pee reviewed science about Gaia becoming physically manifest?
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 3:21 pm
heh. Anagram of Ignatius Reilly = Ritualise Lying.
Climate science 101.
Gabrielle
2 Jun 11 at 3:22 pm
I think you’re projecting, Metro. The example of someone wearing a crystal is you in your ear, you boofhead. A diamond no less.
I think you’ve lost the argument here, Metro and as a gentleman conservative you need to acknowledge this and move on. It’s the right thing to do.
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 3:25 pm
So do you read journal articles IR?
But you didn’t answer the original question. Where’s the evidence?
.
2 Jun 11 at 3:26 pm
Acronym of global warming: Gaga Brown Mill.
Also known as the Climate Change Commission.
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 3:26 pm
Garble Lie is back. I mean, Gabrille.
steve from brisbane
2 Jun 11 at 3:29 pm
Woops..Gabrielle
steve from brisbane
2 Jun 11 at 3:29 pm
The brains trust is out in full today. Noticably talking about anything other than reality-based science. Just wondering, has anyone ever seen CL and JC in the same room? They both do a remarkably similar maddie shtick, waving their hands, yelling obscure phrases and names. But science .. umm, not so much. And db has no peer-reviewed denialist papers, CL has no cooling consensus papers … just weirdo conspiracies and wishful thinking. Conservatism and the centre-right is not what it used to be since the populists took over.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 3:29 pm
Of course he does, Dot. My Metro is a freaking wonderkid. Not a wonderkind but a wonderkid. Metro can read the most numerate filled pee reviewed articles going and he knows exactly what they are about. The diamond earring ring gives hims special learning powers.
Metro, the evidence please. Bu after to turn off the freaking fridge.
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 3:31 pm
“reality-based science”
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 3:31 pm
It’s how CL copes with losing…
steve from brisbane
2 Jun 11 at 3:32 pm
Quite true, and I blame Tony Abbott.
steve from brisbane
2 Jun 11 at 3:33 pm
Metro, stop being an idiot all the time please. For a start, CL like full figured gals and I prefer my off the bone.
Of course we’re different people.
He also makes far , far less typos than I do.
You’re such a moron. Nothing has changed over the past few years.
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 3:34 pm
But of course. At least Metro is far more discerning, Steve. He blames George Bush.
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 3:35 pm
What do Williams and Flannery have to do with the science of climate change … the actual, out in the field research of climate change. Nothing. And what do their views as expressed in the popular press have to do with climate science? Nothing. What do they have to do with CLs loopy claim about a 70s cooling consensus? Nothing. (As an aside, I thought CL had declared “The End” sometime back. Not only does he ignore reason, facts and science, seems he doesn’t even take any notice of himself. Which, as it happens, is arguably the most sensible decision he has ever taken. Pity he wouldn’t ignore himself on the subject of climate change. Like everyone else does.)
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 3:38 pm
It would be interesting if the end times were about a real life Gaia and the returned Son of God having to have a Transformer’s like brawl for the souls on Earth.
steve from brisbane
2 Jun 11 at 3:41 pm
Not much except The Flannery is the nation’s top gun glimate science commish now and Williams is the ABC’s science crack reporter, who suggested we could see 100 meter sea level rise.
The Flannery has been far more conservative though, as he at least predicted only an 8 storey building rise, but he ruined that by suggesting our cities were going to run out of water.
The Flannery has also a lot less hair and kind of pudgy, whereas Williams isn’t.
I find it hard therefore to figure out which of the two clowns is funnier.
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 3:45 pm
A peacenik Bodhisattva could turn up and try to get them to stop, only to have them both punch her out.
steve from brisbane
2 Jun 11 at 3:45 pm
Steve, honest question. Are you seeing anyone that helps with that sort of thing now.
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 3:46 pm
Now I just have to work the 12th Imam into it somehow…
steve from brisbane
2 Jun 11 at 3:46 pm
actual, out in the field research of climate change:
the Met’s principle research scientist John Mitchell told us:
“People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful,” adding, “Our approach is not entirely empirical.”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/13/downing_cambridge_climate_conference/
Myrddin Seren
2 Jun 11 at 4:02 pm
just weirdo conspiracies and wishful thinking.
Sounds just like Climate Science: Communications
Gabrielle
2 Jun 11 at 4:10 pm
Ah no, Myrddin, a link to a internet based site containing some hack’s somewhat dubious report on what one scientist may (or may not) have said in a debate is not actual, out in the field research of climate change. Can it really be that science is so poorly understood here? Can it be that a good few centuries after it got going the Enlightenment has had no impact on the likes of Myrddin, CL, db, JC? Or is Catallaxy the place where reason, science and (in this case) the free market have come to die a death every bit as grisly as anything seen in an Indonesian abbatoir?
You would think a centre-right site would champion science and the free market. Instead, most commenters here laud that man Abbott who has done more to destroy both in his political betrayal of them than anyone in the entire history of the Liberal Party. Weird. You have lost your ideological compass and are following the cranks into la-la land. Worst of all, you leave those post-Romantics, The Greens, holding the intellectual and political high ground. It will take conservatism a long time to recover from the train wreck that is coming IF Labor can safely land a carbon tax. That is why Abbott is so frantic. He either kills this thing. Or gets killed. No wonder he is begging the miners to help. Because every day he looks more and more like a politically desperate dead man walking.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 4:15 pm
Thanks MS
That was a great summary of the arguments presented by people on each side. In fact it was the most interesting short discourse I’ve read in a while.
As an aside the dude that organized it… I used to work in the same firm as he did and he’s a really smart guy.
It seems the scientist that the introduced the issue of clouding and the latest experiments at CERN was the most interesting of the lot…
Wow , I hadn’t read his theory before that the pacific oscillation may have something to do with the warming tread after all.
It would be really good to get a vid of the day.
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 4:27 pm
“…following the cranks into la-la land…”
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 4:29 pm
MS
CERN seems to be a really serious place where science is done. I’m getting the impression over time that it’s becoming the most inluential big science organization in the world.
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 4:34 pm
JC
Not only serious science, but we didn’t all disappear into a black hole when they turned the thing on !
Good day at the office
Myrddin Seren
2 Jun 11 at 4:39 pm
Can CL be arrested for wasting pixels? Or maybe I just send Konsei-sama to wreck vengeance on him.
steve from brisbane
2 Jun 11 at 4:40 pm
MS
I know, I gotta admit that at the back of mind I thought that if I wasn’t around the following day it was mostly CERN’s fault and that I’d dropped in a black hole they managed to create.
RE CERN
It seems to me that they are the least politicized of the lot when it comes to big science.
This dude seems really impressive. I hope he’s right
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 4:45 pm
Anyone know if there is any counter to this dude’s theory. Not interested in what any teamster has to say though, so there would be no use linking to it.
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 4:48 pm
Here’s an interesting historical footnote that mentions the cycles too and that has just popped back up:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/1979-before-the-hockey-team-destroyed-climate-science/
Myrddin Seren
2 Jun 11 at 4:50 pm
What a maroon.
steve from brisbane
2 Jun 11 at 4:52 pm
Steve.
Fuck off.
There’s a good reason. The lot of them can be best described as reliably dishonest and poisonous to the entire debate.
If you don’t like my opinion then fuck off… (but I said that didn’t i)
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 4:54 pm
Sometimes, JC, I wish you wouldn’t beat up on Steve.
Only because he enjoys it.
Gabrielle
2 Jun 11 at 4:56 pm
Honestly MS
I hope those scientists in that last link are very very wrong and out of the two (cooling and warming) we have warming because if any bit of their projection comes true we’re serious, seriously fucked.
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 5:00 pm
Is Skeptical Science on your “banned” list, JC? Because if not, they have a recent summary of a paper that argues cosmic rays don’t contribute much to global warming.
steve from brisbane
2 Jun 11 at 5:11 pm
JC
Yup
Cold cycle is dry = droughts in parts.
Cold means a retreat of northern hemisphere grain growing areas = food shortages
Cold means windmills generally don’t turn – lot of people going to be squeezed on ‘lectricity right when they need it most.
Cold will be a bitch.
Myrddin Seren
2 Jun 11 at 5:14 pm
This just in:
Who would have thought a ‘market’ in carbon dioxide would turn into an hilarious debacle?
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 5:15 pm
That’s dreadful. Think of the poor carbon farmers.
How ever will we decarbonise the economy now?
Gabrielle
2 Jun 11 at 5:17 pm
Steve, your intellect is wasted here, you’re needed at the Lavatory
Nanuestalker
2 Jun 11 at 5:17 pm
Yep steve, Sorry. That site isn’t worth bothering with as it’s just a mini-me of the realbeta propaganda site.
Now let me ask you a question. Your site suggests cosmic rays are much to worry about. Why is that correct and the other theory wrong? How do you know? Is there a rejoinder from Henrik Svensmark? If not why not?
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 5:17 pm
That’s easy, Gab.
Renew balls. Base-load briquettes and emissions-free, they’re as yet uninvented but their adoption is common sense really.
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 5:21 pm
Uninvented? Not true.
Here’s the prototype.
Gabrielle
2 Jun 11 at 5:26 pm
I think the dope has given CL a bad case of late on-set Touettes. It manifests in this strange vocal tic where he keeps yelling “Williams … Flannery”. Either that or his mind is totally owned by that pair. Which does nothing to prove his failed claim about a “cooling consensus”, nor elevate him out of crank status with his anti-science ravings on climate change. Tragic really.
Not nearly so tragic as that gross populist Abbott trashing his conservative and Enlightenment heritage and everything the Liberal Party has ever stood for with his statist approach to dealing with what he describes as “absolute crap”. Being a good Catholic I wonder if he has ever pondered the meaning of the saying: What would it profit a man if he won the whole world but lost his soul. Which is exactly what this walking political zombie has done. With the full support of this “centre-right” site.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 5:27 pm
CL
It’s actually not a bad thing to have those markets around as we can see just how much the government here is ripping us off by.
Carbon credits last time I looked were trading at 1.70 cents a ton.
These thieving dickheads want to hit us with A$26 bucks a ton.
I don’t know why journalists and the useless liberal party aren’t making any noise about this.
Barneby Joyce
If you’re reading this go here… It’s the US carbon credit market..
Various contracts are trading at 1.70 per ton and this government wants to hit us with almost $US 28 bucks per ton. 16.50 times more!
Why aren’t you attacking them about the rip off.
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 5:27 pm
Politicians are there to do policy. Abbott opposes a carbon tax. So what? You’ve pointedly refused to defend the carbon tax, so why do you care about his position on it?
daddy dave
2 Jun 11 at 5:31 pm
I think readers can make up their own minds about who has the tic, Iggster. Let me abridge your contributions so far:
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 5:35 pm
Steve now has some serious competition in the CL stakes.
Gabrielle
2 Jun 11 at 5:36 pm
Do pay attention daddy. My complaint with Abbott is two-fold, neither to do with your carbon tax fixation. First, he is an anti-science ratbag on the issue of climate change. Second, in his political response to it, he trashes the role of free-markets and adopts a controlled economy approach. He therefore betrays everything that a genuine conservative leader ought to hold dear. He is the shallowist political leader in this country’s history (not including the likes of Hanson). And IF Labor can safely deliver a price on carbon, he is dead politically. In which case his defeat will be complete and ignominious. And deservedly so.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 5:36 pm
Metro
However you were singing the praises of the Greens only a few hours ago telling us they were you guiding light or your enlightenment, as you referred to Bob and Tubbsie’s party.
So how can you be upset if Abbott isn’t free market?
You
re confusing us here with your positions.
Perhaps you think the Greens are the free market party in Australia. Is that it?
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 5:40 pm
Abbott is a Rhodes Scholar, Ig.
What have you got, a TAFE certificate in sewing?
“…free-markets…”
The “free market” came up with a carbon dioxide business, did it, Iggy?
Ahahahahahaha.
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 5:41 pm
On the question of a response to the science of climate change, The Greens are the free market party. And the Liberals are the controlled economy interventionists. Strange days. Abbott at work. Australia’s shallowist and shonkiest ever national leader. A disgrace to everything he is meant to stand for. On this question, he betrays the leadership and direction offered by his “mother church”. He stands for nothing and betrays everything and anything that gets in the way of “my precious, my precious”. Sick bastard deserves what is coming.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 5:45 pm
Ah, the depth of the enquiring minds of Catallaxy on display again. And to think, you’re one of the “believers” here, JC!
steve from brisbane
2 Jun 11 at 5:47 pm
Sweet fuckin’ Jesus.
Loopy stuff.
.
2 Jun 11 at 5:47 pm
Betrays all that stand for as well. There is nothing this shallow, vacuous opportunist will not betray: science, reason, the free market, conservative orthodoxy, Liberal Party tradition, the leadership of his church … any and all are fair game. He is a political grub. If Labor can introduce a price on carbon, does anyone think any of the battlers he might have seduced with this fear campaign will vote for him knowing he will take their tax cuts away. Political dead man walking.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 5:50 pm
Do pay attention daddy. My complaint with Abbott is two-fold, neither to do with your carbon tax fixation. First, he is an anti-science ratbag on the issue of climate change. Second, in his political response to it, he trashes the role of free-markets and adopts a controlled economy approach. He therefore betrays everything that a genuine conservative leader ought to hold dear. He is the shallowist political leader in this country’s history (not including the likes of Hanson). And IF Labor can safely deliver a price on carbon, he is dead politically. In which case his defeat will be complete and ignominious. And deservedly so.
I think Abbott is playing a very dangerous game. Let’s say the Carbon Tax is dropped. Then people will start to look at the coalition plan. It is a crock. The choices we have is an effectual tax and a token coalition policy that has no legs. So when the public then looks to the coalition for a policy what they will find is something as dumb as the Carbon Tax.
Hey DOT and JC, would appreciate your opinion …
Fact is most current global initiatives are going to have a negligible impact on carbon emissions. What people don’t seem to understand is that irrespective of the ambiguity inherent in the models the idea that we can just keep pouring GHG’s into the environment doesn’t make sense. We can’t keep doing that.
Forget the initiatives, most of those are far too little far too late. Let’s just have a “carbon cost” on every consumer item. Not a tax but a numerical value for the average amount of GHGs required to produce each product. Then the people can decide whether or not to purchase this or that. If the people want to move to a low carbon economy they can reflect that desire not in votes but in purchasing. Now this will do little to address carbon emissions in the short term but as things unfold, and if those things increasingly indicate we have to deal with GHGs, then Joe and Jane Public can do something about it. It is the most democratic and market based approach I can think of. There will still need to be lots of research into various technologies to address the GHG challenge but many of those of research endeavours are already well underway and some are very promising. There are plenty of potential “get rich quick” opportunities lurking therein.
John H.
2 Jun 11 at 5:50 pm
Lol
Metro has gone troppo.
Metro, have you suffered a fractured skull?
Bob and Tubbsie would literally kick you to death if they heard you calling them a free market party, you illiterate numskull.
(Go turn off the the fucking fridge like I asked you too earlier. Now go as you’re no use to us here)
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 5:52 pm
The choices we have is an effectual tax
INeffectual!!!
John H.
2 Jun 11 at 5:59 pm
Um, so are the rest. He’ll screw us with a Machiavellian plan and Pilbersek would screw us by her ineptness.
Excellent point. But I think it’s to convince worry warts and sceptics who need to convince the worry warts with a coded rejection of the tax/ETS.
That’s not a bad idea John H. The thing is carbon accounting is actually very tricky.
.
2 Jun 11 at 6:03 pm
Thanks DOT. I appreciate the problem in accounting and that applies to every plan to address this. It doesn’t have to be dead accurate, just enough so consumers can discriminate carbon cost and make their choices.
John H.
2 Jun 11 at 6:10 pm
I agree with you on that, John. However, compared to Labor’s solutions, it’s cheap. So it’s a cheap crock, which in Australian politics, seems to be the best you can hope for in a policy. Be thankful for small mercies.
daddy dave
2 Jun 11 at 6:14 pm
John H – no, I think you’re totally wrong. I think that, for most people, carbon output and reducing carbon footprints is a complete non-issue. Tax, on the other hand, is a huge issue. Carbon is just a vector. Tax is the virus. The carbon tax is controversial and wildly unpopular because of the “big fat new tax on everything” aspect. Which is pretty much what it is.
Now, the coalition could have a completely shit “token” policy on carbon, but as long as it’s not threatening tens of thousands (or more, if the Greens have their way) of jobs, as well as industries that are the lifeblood of our economy and prosperous livelihoods (ditto), or looking like it’s going to rise the price of just about everything, the average punter won’t give a crap about the coalition’s carbon policy.
Repeat after me: CARBON IS NOT AN ISSUE for ordinary folk. New taxes are. Net tax increases are. Price rises are. That’s the carbon tax.
The end.
Oh come on
2 Jun 11 at 6:22 pm
John H – everyone here agrees the coalition plan will do diddly squat to drop emissions.
It is, however, as daddy dave puts it, a cheap crock, and that alone puts it miles ahead of the ALP and Green plans.
Quentin George
2 Jun 11 at 6:25 pm
I should add that the vast majority of the people who might fret about sooner ritually disembowel themselves with a blunt spoon than pull the lever for Tony Abbott and his mob. Abbott has absolutely nothing to lose by having a half-baked carbon policy. If his fiscal, immigration (like it or not, this is an issue) and (increasingly) IR policies are sound, he’ll be a shoo-in.
Oh come on
2 Jun 11 at 6:29 pm
Shit! PIMF. That should say
I should add that the vast majority of the people who might fret about a party’s carbon policy would sooner
Oh come on
2 Jun 11 at 6:31 pm
god I can’t even use push button formatting correctly
Oh come on
2 Jun 11 at 6:32 pm
It’s actually not a cheap crock. Some of it is quite interesting such as bidding for offsets, buying offsets overseas if the opportunity arises and reforestation.
Some of it is just picking the low fruit. But that’s okay too as we get to find out if the rest of the world moves or not over the next decade.
It’s a holding pattern plan primarily to buy time and see what’s happening.
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 6:40 pm
Barrie Cassidy, that popular commentator around here, has a new article out at the Drum, in which he notes:
steve from brisbane
2 Jun 11 at 6:40 pm
I think this is right, and there may well be tensions within the Coalition during 2012 as to whether dismantling it is really practically viable. I think they may be forced to keep it, with some modifications, but not wind it back.
steve from brisbane
2 Jun 11 at 6:46 pm
Oh well I guess it’s a bet steve.
ask old leather face to go and take a bet as the Libs are way ahead of the ALP in the betting market.
2.70 labor 37% chance
1.45 libs
Old leather face is a sporting man, so he should be laying out the mullah.
Ask him to prove his bet too.
http://centrebet.com/cust?action=GoSports&lang_choice=au
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 6:48 pm
Nope. IT will be wound back. those who have been told are getting more than they paid in are ALP’s constituency. Others that receive compensation get money will be net zeroed. Other get nothing.
Those zeroed out compers see it as a churn. Those getting will be pissed.
there’s also the perceived damage it will do to the economy too and the possibility that some of the plants will end up broke.
And don’t forget the lie.
In any event it will take another poll before the ALP backbenchers start to call meet and conspire to get rid of her.
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 6:52 pm
Most of the “compensation” for the tax will be in the form of spending, and concessions to companies. Given how inefficient they are with spending (eg, a few hundres dollars for a STB,) this will easy to stop, and concessions to companies won’t be needed either.
Removing handouts to people might be harder, but the problem for labor, is that it costs them more than $1 to give $1 away. So easily a net gain there in budget terms, which allows them to keep some of the tax cuts.
Fleeced
2 Jun 11 at 7:02 pm
Repeat it as often as you like but that won’t make it true. Every poll taken on the issue for years now shows majority support for action on climate change … so, IF Labor can deliver on that, and put extra money into punters pockets with compensation (likely to err on the side of generosity. And when the economic sky does not fall in … in that climate Abbott the venal opportunistic back-slider says he will go to an election promising to do away with the compensation (if he is not lying, that means cutting taxes and pensions) and do away with the carbon price scheme which by then is delivering a painless feel-good way to “do something” about climate change.
Remember, this is all supposed to happen two years down the track, by which time there will be even greater evidence of climate change and increasing international action (to a greater or lesser extent). Abbott reckons he will win by ripping out a complicated scheme that people have just gotten used to, that business has adjusted to. He will look like a mad, crazed wrecker. Which he is, but that is another story. This political grub has had more positions on climate change than CL has had bucket bongs and crystal healings. Abbott is a hostage to destiny .. his only hope is to kill this thing before it gets off the ground. Exciting political times.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 8:43 pm
Naish sez:
But from the Spencer Street Soviet:
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/more-oppose-than-support-carbon-tax-poll-20110504-1e75u.html
.
2 Jun 11 at 8:50 pm
Every poll taken on the issue for years now shows majority support for action on climate change …
It certainly is looking like an election winner. I hope Labour sticks with it to the end. They also need to keep reminding people there’s no point in having a tax that isn’t going to hurt. As Gaia says “pain will cleanse your enviro-sin”.
Michael Sutcliffe
2 Jun 11 at 8:50 pm
We all know the truth dot, where’s the fun in that? I say we stick with the illusion for more fun all round.
Michael Sutcliffe
2 Jun 11 at 8:51 pm
Not just scientifically illiterate, but illiterate full stop. I said “Every poll taken on the issue for years now shows majority support for action on climate change”, which they do. See any mention in there of a carbon tax? Nope. So why bang on about the carbon tax. Action on climate change
=a carbon tax for polling purposes. The facts are a majority have concerns about climate change and want action … it’s what form the action might take that worries them. But IF a scheme is successfully bedded down by the next election, that takes the worry away. Then the Mad Monk is going to come along promised the rip the whole scheme up, tax cuts and all, a replace it with state intervention and central control. Yeah right. Love to watch the slimy opportunist sell that lot.Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 8:57 pm
Should read: Action on climate change does not equal a carbon tax for polling purposes.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 8:59 pm
Okay Ignatius, I’m convinced. I believe, praise be to Gaia. I’m on the CC bandwagon from here on in. And why not? That’s where all the money is.
Gabrielle
2 Jun 11 at 9:02 pm
“They also need to keep reminding people there’s no point in having a tax that isn’t going to hurt”
This seems to be a common fundamental error, one propagated everywhere I look. It is entirely possible for every cent paid in CO2 tax to be returned in tax cuts elsewhere. That means if people don’t change their behaviour at all, they will end up no worse off. But how stupid would they have to be to do that, when they can make themselves better off by avoiding the CO2 tax by changing their behaviour?
It is a great pity that Labor, with the bad advice from the Greens and Independents, will insist on mostly “returning” the money via spending. That is a terrible mistake, but I can’t see any way it can be stopped.
Jarrah
2 Jun 11 at 9:03 pm
I completely agree. But Labor and the Greens want to introduce a carbon tax. Not, (say) iron seeding or replacing all coal plants with nuke plants. That’s the policy on the table. Can you see why it’s the focus of discussion?
daddy dave
2 Jun 11 at 9:06 pm
Then give us the link to where you linked to them. Either that or cop on the chin the charge that you are not just an anti-science crank, but a liar to boot.
There you go you lazy sod.
dover_beach
2 Jun 11 at 9:11 pm
Sure, but I don’t understand why it makes them illiterate (scientifically, economically and politically, as well as literally), obsessive and turns them into science cranks. And do bear in mind, the carbon tax is (apparently since we don’t know anything for sure yet) part of the transition to an ETS. I only hope Abbott is still leading at the next election to cop the drubbing he deserves. Then I hope all the mad hatters and science cranks will be driven out of the Liberal Party and it can return to being a party based on reason, science and free markets. For the health of our polity, for the health of conservatism – Abbott must be destroyed.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 9:12 pm
Naish,
You are being a sucker. People’s stated and revealed preferences are different.
.
2 Jun 11 at 9:13 pm
But how stupid would they have to be to do that, when they can make themselves better off by avoiding the CO2 tax by changing their behaviour?
Assuming something vaguely approaching full substitution can be achieved. It can’t even nearly come close without major upheaval such as physically restructuring how people live, not to mention restructuring their life expectations. Then even if you’ve endured the pain of this restructuring it can’t do it completely, probably not even nearly close.
You break the three golden rules of social engineering: the grass isn’t necessarily greener on the other side, if people wanted a different style of life they’d be doing it now, and there’s no free lunch.
Michael Sutcliffe
2 Jun 11 at 9:15 pm
Fuck me you’re an idiot.
.
2 Jun 11 at 9:16 pm
Seems someone claims to be able to divine the collective unconscious of the great bulk of the Australian people. Tarot cards or ouija board You been sucking on CLs party bong too? What is it with the sknaky hippies around here. So even though over a long-term there is majority support for (theoretical action on climate change), even though The Greens vote keeps going up, even though local government is always doing more green stuff, even though solar sales are through the roof, even though businesses are forever putting a greenwash over their activities … some illiterate tosser comes along and claims to know that the majority of Australian people do not actually support action on climate change. Must to a complete mystery to the likes of you why a sceptic like Howard took an ETS policy to the 07 election. Go figure. You are a silly, silly boy.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 9:22 pm
Ignatius on Abbott:
Ignatius, do you have a relative by the name of Jared Lee Loughner? Just want to check…
Gabrielle
2 Jun 11 at 9:26 pm
People’s stated and revealed preferences are different. You ignore reality and then have the gall to call others economic cranks.
The ETS will do bugger all for the ecology of our planet and cost us dearly.
You pompous dickhead. It’s called the median voter.
.
2 Jun 11 at 9:26 pm
It is firstly “so sound and so complete” then secondly it “never rests, it never stops, it checks, re-checks, argues, disagrees, tosses out the old, adds the new, researchs and argues some more”. Quite incredible.
dover_beach
2 Jun 11 at 9:31 pm
Wanker. It’s called knowing which way the political wind is blowing. People want action on climate change. Seems they are going to get it. They will barely notice it, and many will be over-compensated. Voters pay on delivery and they also reward political courage. So, after the scheme has been in long enough for it to have settled in, been adjusted to … Abbott reckons he can win an election promising to rip that up and replace it with Soviet style economic interventionism. Abbott is a disgrace to conservatism. Abbott must be destroyed.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 9:31 pm
dover thinking aloud as he struggles to come to terms with the scientific method. I blame the education system for failing to pass on the towering achievments of the Enlightenment. Unless dover struggled to learn his lessons. Possible. Abbott must be destroyed.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 9:35 pm
You sound like you’re assuring yourself.
Michael Sutcliffe
2 Jun 11 at 9:35 pm
No they don’t. Not really. American surveys now show warmenism at the bottom of Americans’ concerns. In Australia, 60 percent of people oppose a religiously motivated tax on carbon dioxide.
Would that be politicians sitting around deciding the ‘price’ for the carbon ‘market’?
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 9:37 pm
People more educated than you (who know what the median voter is and can explain how it influences elections) are wankers? Why are you so pro science then? Obviously you’re pro wanker. Do you vote in your own interests?
They don’t want the ETS.
Sure, and Kim Ill Carr’s industry policy is nothing like that…
No they don’t. They slaughtered Paul Keating in 1996.
naish – how do the CGM models backtest?
.
2 Jun 11 at 9:42 pm
Abbott must be destroyed.
We finally get to the nub of this argument.
dover_beach
2 Jun 11 at 9:43 pm
Fresh from his colonic irrigation and with his chakras perfectly balanced, the great (failed) cooling crank CL suddenly, and for no obvious reason, starts talking about polls in America and polls on a carbon tax. For no obvious reason. Fact is, the majority of Australians support action on climate change, as Howard well knew. IF they get it, they won’t vote to rip it up, give up the compo and the painless feel good factor and replace it with Soviet style interventionism, courtesy of Tony Abbott (now holding firm to his 10th policy position on pricing carbon). Abbott is a shallow opportunist, a disgrace to conservatism. Abbott must be destroyed.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 9:44 pm
To destroy Abbot, we must have a poorly designed and costly ETS which won’t actually reduce the raw carbon dioxide output of Australia…
Can you explain how this works?
.
2 Jun 11 at 9:47 pm
I’m thinking Iggy is in the employ of Green Labor to spread disnformation about Abbott, in particular.
Gabrielle
2 Jun 11 at 9:50 pm
Ignatius, CL already has the franchise at this blog for using violence tinged, hyperbolic and intensely competitive terminology where ever possible in political debate (or any debate, really).
steve from brisbane
2 Jun 11 at 9:55 pm
Worked on a lot of political campaigns. Never heard any of the hard heads talk about “the median voter”. They leave that to pseudo-intellectual wankers. They concentrate on finding out which way the political wind is blowing … talking to people, checking polls, sensing the mood. As Howard did when he supported an ETS. And people with a good political antenna know that Keating didn’t lose because of his political courage .. he lost because he was arrogant and out of touch. Don’t make the mistake of thinking you are always the smartest boy in the room dot … you then show want a wanker you are by showing off trying to prove it true.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 9:57 pm
It is with breath taking arrogance that you call other people economic cranks.
.
2 Jun 11 at 9:58 pm
Ignatius:
me too.
daddy dave
2 Jun 11 at 10:01 pm
That’s because they’re interested in getting the vote, not what the consequences are. Most likely you are uneducated as well.
Wrong. I’m an academic.
Previously you said voters reward leadership.
No I said Australian voters don’t reward courage.
Um yes I’m sure he was as humble as honest John Howard before he beat John Hewson.
.
2 Jun 11 at 10:03 pm
But that’s what I said. A pseudo-intellectual wanker.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 10:05 pm
What a load of cobblers. Intellectuals are pseudo academics. Being an academic is a real job.
.
2 Jun 11 at 10:08 pm
fool. It is one the the iron-clad rules of political life. That is not to say that it is enough on its own, or will get you through no matter what the circumstances. But there is a reward for it out there, as the political wise-heads know. And political history shows.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 10:09 pm
Know what a distinction without a difference is, dot? That’s what you are chasing. Wanker.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 10:11 pm
Um okay, then why did you say:
Gibberish. I’m an academic. Now you’re saying the logical corollary is that all acadmics are pseudo academics.
Get an education.
.
2 Jun 11 at 10:16 pm
No, that is not what I said, that is not it at all. Go back and read through. Try real hard. Focus on the words. If all else fails, get a grown up to explain it to you.
Ignatius Reilly
2 Jun 11 at 10:20 pm
My God. Hoist by own pretard.
It’s amazing that someone that takes pride in the lack of their education or its mediocrity at the same time boasts about their intellectual superiority.
The results are unsurprising, to say the least.
.
2 Jun 11 at 10:26 pm
OMG
Another glimate change tragic. Iggie Pap (metro)
What is happening to this country. They’re everywhere.
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 10:44 pm
It’s important to remember that hardly anybody cares. Carbon ‘trading’ is in ruins, Kyoto is finished, the American public couldn’t give a crap, the Chinese are building coal-fired power stations every other week and 60 percent of Australians oppose Green Labor’s carbon dioxide tax. Meanwhile, the Hockey Stick debacle and the ClimateGate scandal have torpedoed the scientistic pretentions of nutballs like Tim Flannery and James Hansen.
Sorry, warmies. It’s all over.
C.L.
2 Jun 11 at 10:49 pm
Iggie
You say you worked on a lot of political campaigns , which means you listened to what politicians say, right?
Did you ever bother to listen to what Howard actually said about an ETS, IG? Ummm
What Howard said was that he agreed with an ETS in principle, however he always had one big caveat and that was Copenhagen had to go through and be agreed to by all the big players. So under Howard’s terms there would be no ETS or carbin tax. If he decide there would be, it would be pwicing carbin at around .35 cents a ton.
I don’t believe you ever worked on any campaign and that you’re really Metro (Wayne) who in the first week he appeared, here attacking SL, spun the line that he was a Walkley Award winner. If I somehow find out that it’s you Metro, you realize that you’re heading straight to the carban slave jail which is 100 times worse than Abu Gharib.
You know how they dunked people in water there. Well in the carbon slave market you’ll be drinking all of it…. a bath tub full by the hour and there won;t be any herman right lawyer trying to get you out.
You boofhead metro.
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 10:55 pm
Iggie says
Dude , you better be a little careful saying things like that. The fed policy don’t like people making those sorts of comments without them investigating who said it.
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 11:02 pm
yes, my initial are now in blue as I have the pic of my runaway carbin slave up. Metro.
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 11:05 pm
oops
Should proof read.
Fed police
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 11:07 pm
I wish you’d keep your carbin slave under control, JC.
He’s made some very curious comments regarding Abbott. Almost bordering on threats..
Gabrielle
2 Jun 11 at 11:08 pm
yea I know Gab. I saw it. Not bordering, they really do appear to be outright threats.
Metro is out of control again. The boofhead.
You weren’t here for his SL and George Bush obsessions. It seems it’s now an Abbott obsession.
We used to whip and chain him when he got out of hand, but you can’t expect me to keep him under control since he’s escaped as that is unfair.
JC.
2 Jun 11 at 11:31 pm