Vaclav Klaus in Melbourne

The question has always been why so many people would passionately believe something that is so patently unlikely and for which there is hardly a sliver of serious evidence. Take this which has just been released today by NASA:

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

The evidence for global warming is tenuous at best with repeated exposures of lying and bad faith across the entire spectrum amongst those who have argued that such warming is actually taking place. “Hide the decline” has been the approach at almost every turn. No one who was genuinely open to the science could doubt that there are many flaws in the theory. And with the undeniable fact that global warming has stopped during the last decade while CO2 concentrations have increased, there ought to have been some serious questioning of the conclusions that are being drawn by those who support the warming thesis.

Vaclav Klaus, the current President of the Czech Republic, spoke to us today in Melbourne. And since the core question, given the flimsy evidence, is why are they so hard at work trying to convince the rest of us about a climate that may not be warming, that even if it is warming may not be doing so because of human activity, and even if it were human activity may not cause us any harm, why they are so hard at it is indeed the central question of our time. And this is the answer Klaus gives:

They are not interested in climate – they are interested only in restricting our freedoms.

Global warming is an issue that a bunch of people who would otherwise be total nonentities are attempting to ride towards power and wealth. I, too, agree that the science is settled. It is the politics alone that remains open and it is an issue that has the potential to impoverish us while creating positions of power for individuals with terrifying authoritarian personalities who have not a single useful thought about how to successfully manage any single one of our collective affairs. They may be able to save us from a global warming that is not actually taking place, but as for everything else that matters, such as how to make our economies productive, they have no answers. Why we should trust such people with rule over our lives was the question Vaclav Klaus asked for which none of us in the room tonight could think of any reason at all.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

111 Responses to Vaclav Klaus in Melbourne

  1. C.L.

    Another blow to the warmening faith system.

    Thanks, NASA.

    ‘Global warming’ always served only one purpose and that purpose was political. It was thought by lefties that if they did enough scaremongering, the public would accept the hoax and, naturally, turn to lefty governments as natural fits for ‘combating global warming climate change.’ Unfortunately, too many ‘conservative’ dupes like Malcolm Turnbull and the British Tories decided to counter this by entering the moral bidding war by embracing the hoax. Many ‘libertarians’ have also behaved shamefully, some even hailing such Monty Pythonesque ideas as ‘trading’ schemes and a ‘market’ for carbon dioxide. Most ‘climate scientists’ – being economically and politically illiterate clowns – decided that scam or no, the ‘threat’ of ‘global warming’ would encourage good outcomes anyway so corners were cut, lies told, declines hidden, polar bear holocausts invented, Biblical floods predicted and so on. The more they lied and exaggerated – and the more immune to scaremongering people became – the more baroque became the scares and the more totalitarian the policies to ensure everyone accepted the ‘science.’ For lefties, the beauty of it was that it was unfalsifiable and nobody would be sure anyway for centuries. Warmenism became the perpetual motion machine of the Western left – a fantastical, self-driving system for perpetual governance; or, at least, perpetual control of the ideological narrative.

  2. Abu Chowdah

    Too bloody right, Steve. I refuse to allow the kind of people I wouldn’t invite to a street party to make the rules. Bunch of socialist puritans.

  3. JC

    He gave a great speech, steve. He’s knows the totes because he was mugged by them having lived in a commie state.

  4. Abu Chowdah

    In fact, I always think a good rule of thumb is, “never vote for anyone you wouldn’t invite around for dinner”. Quickly rules out weirdos like Brown and Rudd.

    Try it.

  5. JC

    I’m not sure that works. I want Duck Bum to lose 73 seats so she;s the last person standing and walk in parliament alone to take her seat, but I don’t think she would be a bad party guest, as long as you didn’t discuss politics with lardulass.

    People that live in her electorate say she’s a very nice person too.

    I think she’s wasted. She should have married and had kids as she isn’t cut out for this crap. Leftie politics fucked her up.

    You’re right about Rudd.

    We’re the right the political isn’t all there is.

  6. Abu Chowdah

    It’s just a Rule of thumb.

  7. Ivan Denisovich

    It is the politics alone that remains open and it is an issue that has the potential to impoverish us while creating positions of power for individuals with terrifying authoritarian personalities who have not a single useful thought about how to successfully manage any single one of our collective affairs. They may be able to save us from a global warming that is not actually taking place, but as for everything else that matters, such as how to make our economies productive, they have no answers.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100095817/un-reveals-its-master-plan-for-destruction-of-global-economy/

  8. manalive

    They are not interested in climate – they are interested only in restricting our freedoms

    That deals with the baptists, but don’t forget the bootleggers — and I don’t just mean dodgy solar panel installers etc.

  9. Well, a post which opens with a sentence of breath-taking ignorance, and ends with grandiose statements illustrating the vanity of the climate denialism movement.

    Poisoning the Right of politics is your achievement. Congratulations.

  10. Frank Roberts

    The loss of Freedom is history revisited with the totalitarian states of the 20th century virtually abandoned now attempting a comeback by way of the blind faith of Climate Change. The next step has been revealed in the newspapers this morning with the AFP now planned to be used as stormtroopers for the ATO as they will extend their duties to be carbon tax police. How different is that than what the world experienced with the SS, brown shirts and the secret police of the communist and fascist states. These state police enforced the ideology of political class in restricting freedom. Another feature of these States was that Propaganda is used to hood wink the masses. This is happening with the government advertising and selective journalism. What is the difference between what we have moved from to where we are heading??? I thought Australia was beyond that. Then again without a constitution that enshrines a Bill of Rights any thing is possible with a majority in Parliament. We are living a nightmare and it seems there is nothing can be done.

  11. I attended the same dinner for Klaus in Sydney on Monday. He’s quite impressive in a restrained sort of way. No wild claims or exaggeration, just a deep seated concern that the benefits of liberation from communism are being unwound in the name of saving the planet from climate change.

  12. manalive

    The question has always been why so many people would passionately believe something that is so patently unlikely and for which there is hardly a sliver of serious evidence

    Well, a post which opens with a sentence of breath-taking ignorance

    It must be self-evident (at least to believers) because I’ve never seen anyone produce evidence of dangerous man-made global warming and computer models which merely verify the initial assumptions are not evidence.

  13. Louis Hissink

    I suppose most will need to live in a police state before they understand the threat – and those of us who did (or had parents who did) are in the minority.

    Little wonder history repeats itself.

  14. Gabrielle

    Louis it’s not like the Communist revolution. There’s no overt invasion with tanks and guns. It’s more sinister now.

    Revising privacy laws
    Bulldozing through a carbon [sic] tax
    Inquiry into media and “bias”
    Internet filter
    Big government getting bigger and bigger
    Cattle export industry wiped out on a whim
    Wind/solar farms taking up arable land
    No nuclear plants
    No new dams
    No new coal plants

    OMG this is really scary.

  15. Eyrie

    Louis,

    We’re about to find out what living in a police state is like.

    Niven, Pournelle and Flynn wrote “Fallen Angels” in 1990 as satire(and a lot of fun). It seems to be being used as an instruction manual by the totalitarian green left (3 self referential redundancies there).

    Steve, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

  16. Rafe Champion

    The rise of the climate change movement can be seen as another phase of the push that blocked atomic energy in Australia and set back the industry worldwide. The late John Grover did us a great service with a book called Struggle for Power (1981) which provides a blow by blow account of the anti-nuclear movement worldwide. No promises but I hope to convey the substance of the book in one or more posts.

    The movement rode on the back of the “Ban the Bomb” groups and infilitrated the rapidly expanding conservation movement. Parallel to that was the rise of State-funded research and the massive proliferation of “normal” scientists who have no serious scientific concerns but act as well-trained technicians for hire. Increasingly it is the government who hires them, especially in the cause of climate studies (see O’Brien’s testimony).

    Throw in the move of the white-collar unions into political activism (beyond salary and conditions), the decline of competence and integrity in the politicized public service and the partisan stance of most media people. Etc.

  17. Louis Hissink

    Rafe,

    In other words the culmination of Gramsci’s slow march into society’s institutions – it’s like boilg frogs from cold – slow and steady and before you know it, you are done for.

  18. Ooh Honey Honey

    Hey Rafe I remember that book well! Bought it in a Boronia op shop in the 80s and still quoting it – the granite walls of New York Station emit more radiation than a power station etc. Wish I could find the damn thing…must’ve lent it to someone.

  19. Ooh Honey Honey

    I read all this stuff, and Bolt, and ACM, and James Delingpole, and wonder “It is so clearly refuted here, why is the climate change thing still happening? Why must my children grow up in a world so rotten with medieval stupidity?”
    And it’s no good blaming others. We must blame ourselves. We insist on seeing the problem on our terms – “evidence”, non-fallacious arguments etc.
    But that isn’t the problem. The problem has nothing to do with science, or climate, or C02.
    The problem is that political power rests on numbers, and there is a number of people who, if you can get them all to say (not necessarily believe) a thing, will incur a cost to anyone who tries to disagree with that thing.
    And the cost is not monetary. It is social. They would be sacrificing the pleasant, day to day lifestyle that they share with their neighbours and work colleague, where debatable issues are strictly limited so as not to get in the way of white wine or interior decorating ro teh Saturday quiz.
    Inevitably it is rich countries who are vulnerable to this. Poor people are more honest in their political debates. But my wife (who agrees with me), and friends, and employees, would tire very quickly if I tried saying to all of them “You HAVE to read every word on Catallaxy today!” and it would cost me dearly.
    Those are the shackles we must break.

  20. Why must my children grow up in a world so rotten with medieval stupidity?

    Because we’re all still medievally stupid. 🙂

  21. Bolt, and ACM, and James Delingpole

    Well, there’s your problem.

    Look, if you think Bolt or Delingpole or Catallaxy assess and report on the science fairly, without a pre-judgement that it’s a crock, you truly are a gullible fool, and have got no right to be talking about medieval stupidity.

  22. I suppose most will need to live in a police state before they understand the threat

    There’s a reason immigrants who have roots in socialist &/or totalitarian regimes are gravitating toward the Tea Party in America. click

  23. Ivan Denisovich: Thanks for that “Green Neowosers” link – I’d missed that. Good read.

  24. Viva

    why is the climate change thing still happening

    ?

    Because instead of laughing in disbelief when Gore’s film was launched and the steady drum of propaganda started to brainwash the kids and scare a lot of the adults, the rest of us should have immediately pushed back with letters, articles, talking tours, blogs etc.

    The carry on about greenhouse gas had being bubbling away for years until it took off with Gore’s film with the IPCC and Stern chiming in at the same time. We took our eye off the ball. Let’s never do that again.

  25. Ooh Honey Honey

    Leaving aside which side we happen to be on, Steve is delightfully unconstrained. But that’s because I’m anonymous to him and there is no social cost. But I expect like everyone else he must rein in his politics for social reasons at some point.
    That side has the numbers at the moment, so the number of people in Steve’s milleau who agree with “the thing” reward him socially for pushing AGW and saying things like that (and perversely for coming here and abusing us) but outside blogs, personal relationships are on the block if you try to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy.
    This won’t be won with rational debate, because it is the same dynamic as schoolyard bullying.

  26. Gabrielle

    Yes and Steve supports bullies. Like he supported the bully that Casey Haynes decked. In fact Steve was so incensed people here rallied Casey’s fightback against the bully, that Steve spat the dummy and then slinked off for a few weeks.

    Catallaxy enjoyed the peace.

  27. Louis Hissink

    Steve from Brisbane

    Science is involved with explaining the here and now using the scientific method.

    Global warming isn’t a scientific fact, it’s a prophesy, something is is assumed to happen. Just because it’s dressed up in scientese does not mean its science; It’s actually pseudoscience.

    So who are the gullible?

  28. FDB

    “Science is involved with explaining the here and now using the scientific method.”

    Where did you find that definition Louis? It demonstrates a breathtaking ignorance of the philosophy of science.

    Science is about making predictions based on evidence, then testing those predictions and generating more evidence. Rinse and repeat.

    Now what does one do when the overwhelming majority of scientists in a field (one where predictions and complex modelling are front and centre) start predicting something very very dangerous will soon occur, unless humans change what they are doing? There’s no way to test the predictions without bringing about the potentially dangerous situation.

    Do you:

    1) Take on board the recommendations of those scientists regarding the best way to avoid the potentially looming catastrophe, and work hard to change the way people live?

    2) Ignore, slime, slander and vilify those scientists, let whatever happens happens, then blame the scientists, commies and greenies when the shit hits the fan?

    I favour option 1. But that’s because I understand the scientific method and respect the work of scientists.

  29. C.L.

    Science is about making predictions based on evidence, then testing those predictions and generating more evidence. Rinse and repeat.

    There is no evidence of anthropogenic global warming.

    None.

    Ask Tim Flannery. He just bought a house by the seaside.

  30. twostix

    start predicting something very very dangerous will soon occur,

    They predicted eternal drought for Australia. We did something: that is built very expensive desalination plants, implemented draconian water restrictions and refused to build any dams, entirely due to that advice.

    Their “predictions” where 100% entirely wrong. Not just kinda wrong but still sorta right.

    Just absolutely, (disgracefully for the amount of money they get) wrong.

    Yet so shameless are the political hacks that are now infesting uni’s that you call “scientists” that they simply move on (10 metre sea rises), and on (arctic will be gone by 2010, 2012, 2014, 2050, 2100) and on.

    Then we see that the “hundreds” of scientists are actually just a few, and that they’re all mates and colluding with each other to “hide the decline”.

    Climate change is dead. Every country has walked away from it except (as is typical) us here in Australia. And that is only due to an anomaly in our current political climate.

    If the greens didn’t have that one single seat in the lowerhouse we wouldn’t be having this discussion, there would be no “carbon tax” and Labor would be at 40-50% in the polls.

    Nobody cares anymore.

  31. FDB

    “They predicted eternal drought for Australia.”

    Citation please.

    “they simply move on (10 metre sea rises), and on (arctic will be gone by 2010, 2012, 2014, 2050, 2100) and on”

    Citations please.

    “Every country has walked away from it except (as is typical) us here in Australia.”

    Pure poppycock, no citation required. Most of the developed world is doing much more than we are.

    “Nobody cares anymore.”

    See above.

    When someone can be this wrong, and yet so convinced they’re right, we have a serious communication problem.

  32. twostix

    Poisoning the Right of politics is your achievement. Congratulations.

    Says Steve, Catallaxy’s official Moby and concern troll.

  33. twostix

    Citation please.

    Fuck you, do your own research.

    You make grand sweeping statements galore no “citations” needed, someone mentions recent fucking history and apparently it becomes an acadmic paper. Typical lefty dishonesty.

    If you actually need to be convinced that QLD, NSW and Victoria spent billions on unnecessary desalination plants based on their various Climate Departments and Boms predictions that it wouldn’t rain enough to fill dams again and that one of the most frequent arguments against new dams in this country was that…Climate Change meant it wouldn’t rain enough to fill them again, then there’s no helping you.

    Seriously though? You actually want me to “prove” common fucking knowledge and recent (as in twelve months ago) history to you.

    And you have the audacity to lecture like a haughty know it all. What a joker.

  34. FDB

    CL, you just love fallacies don’t you?

    1) Flannery is not a climate scientists. Therefore your argument from authority has none.

    2) Flannery thinks AGW is real, so your argument from authority makes no sense even on its own paltry terms.

    You are not a serious person, or originator of ideas, or an interesting commentator. You’re just a cipher for a particularly boneheaded species of Catholic conservatism; one whose attempts at humour occasionally succeed, and form the sum total of his worth.

  35. Viva

    Now what does one do when the overwhelming majority of scientists in a field (one where predictions and complex modelling are front and centre) start predicting something very very dangerous will soon occur, unless humans change what they are doing?

    Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University writes:

    “.. I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.”

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/07/eminent-physicists-skeptical-of-agw.html

  36. FDB

    “Fuck you, do your own research.”

    Charming.

    Look, you lay into me after I made a comment to someone else about the philosophy of science and the scientific method. This is the context.

    So, in response to my comment, about the philosophy of science and the scientific method, you post a bunch of complete fucking bullshit with no attempt made to reference anything, and containing massive exaggerations and blatantly made-up crap.

    Now you have the hide to act all aggrieved and victimised? What a useless tool.

  37. FDB

    So, Viva – option 2 for you then?

    Blow me down with a feather.

  38. twostix

    Pure poppycock, no citation required. Most of the developed world is doing much more than we are.

    This has been so thoroughly discredite as to be that you’ve just embarrassed yourself by posting it. Welcome to July FDB! You’re only about six months behind the rest of the world.

    I’ve asked it before but I’ll try again, why in the age of the Internet, are the Australian left perpetually 12 months behind the rest of the world on any issue.

    Here’s a hint, go to a few foreign lefty sites, and notice the complete absence of Climate Hysteria anymore. Even they’ve given up.

    The US just walked away, not just from climate change, but from Kyoto. Canada was given up, the UK has said it’ll do something…when everyone else does and Germany is using it’s green energy funds to build coal fired power plants.

    Yes I agree, we should most definitely follow them.

  39. Ooh Honey Honey

    Of the many disconnects that have left thousands of otherwise educated and intelligent adults thrashing about in this climate hysteria, is the great forgetting of “He who asserts, must prove”.
    FDB, people who don’t believe in AGW don’t have to “cite” anything. They don’t have to prove anything. They aren’t making grand claims about the future and then trying to take your money from you on the assumption that they will all come true.
    You are. The onus of proof is on you. You’d get it if someone wrongly accused you of stealing their wallet, wouldn’t you?

  40. Frank

    But that’s because I understand the scientific method and respect the work of scientists.

    Getting pretty tired of this one. You would need a background in physics and mathematical modelling at least in order to make this claim w.r.t. to AGW. Having such a background and integrity would tend to induce a sense of humility in ones conclusions and how they are expressed. This would be apparent when you have to discount the inconvenient competing observations/theories that prove the spanner in the works for your favoured take on it.

    Much better to co-opt some abstruse differential equations (hieroglyphics) for another chapter in the culture wars, we’re on home turf there.

    Alternatively, this guy has as good a take on “predictions and complex modelling” as any.

  41. Infidel Tiger

    Getting pretty tired of this one. You would need a background in physics and mathematical modelling at least in order to make this claim w.r.t. to AGW.

    FDB can play Little Drummer Boy on the bongos, does that count?

  42. twostix

    So, in response to my comment, about the philosophy of science and the scientific method, you post a bunch of complete fucking bullshit with no attempt made to reference anything, and containing massive exaggerations and blatantly made-up crap.

    [Citation Needed]

  43. Listen, Possum, you haven’t exactly covered yourself in scientific glory today.

  44. Infidel Tiger

    Steve, I don’t claim to care about climate science. My stated position on AGW is that I neither care if it is true or not. It doesn’t phase me.

  45. Well, I take it you’ll no longer deride those who believe in it, then.

  46. Infidel Tiger

    No, they are wasting my money and time. I heap scorn upon them and their children’s children.

  47. FDB

    OHH:

    “FDB, people who don’t believe in AGW don’t have to “cite” anything.”

    People who make claims about what other people have said most definitely need to provide a citation. A hypothetical example:

    FDB: “The commenter known as Ooh Honey Honey at Catallaxy thinks that babies taste delicious, and that Stalin is such a hottie that his big manly mustache gives him/her wet dreams nightly.”

    I’d imagine you would want me to substantiate or retract this claim, right?

  48. manalive

    Well, I take it you’ll no longer deride those who believe in it, then..

    Believe what you like, just don’t try to force your beliefs on others.

  49. FDB

    IT:

    FDB can play Little Drummer Boy on the bongos, does that count?

    I can’t play Little Drummer Boy. I used to be able to, but since my sides split from the utter genius of your comedy.

    Seriously IT – sublime stuff. I thought you were going to warm up with a routine about my cat, or the fact that I live near the centre of a capital city, but BAM! straight for the big payoff drummer joke.

    Fucking AUDACIOUS dude.

    It doesn’t phase me.

    Fully [sic] mate! So you’re shit at jokes and you can’t spell.

    What are you good at?

  50. Infidel Tiger

    What are you good at?

    Making you rant n’ rave by the looks.

  51. FDB

    Manalive – what would you do if you had information that you honestly believed would save you and others from major hardship, as long as you could convince most of them to follow?

    Ignore AGW for the minute. What if it’s an imminent cliff collapse or something?

    There are exceptions to your rule about foisting opinions on others, you will concede.

    Wait… perhaps you’d just walk away from the cliff and leave the other lazy dumbarses to be crushed. That’s a possibility, and one pretty commensurate with the Randian strain of Libertarianism.

    But most climate scientists are decent folk.

  52. FDB

    So IT – it “wouldn’t [faze] you” if all the derision you’d heaped upon people who want action on AGW turned out to be misplaced? If they were right and you were wrong?

    That doesn’t sound like you at all.

  53. Infidel Tiger

    There’s no chance I’m wrong, FDB.

    I am ignorant twit, but I guarantee you AGW is the biggest load of shit since Dumbo had an enema.

  54. Viva

    Getting pretty tired of this one. You would need a background in physics and mathematical modelling at least in order to make this claim

    Well yes, one would think so Frank. And yet this character FDB apparently thinks he knows better than Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics at Princeton University.

  55. what would you do if you had information that you honestly believed would save you and others from major hardship, as long as you could convince most of them to follow?

    That’s exactly how most proselytizing evangelicals & born-agains reason, interestingly enough.

  56. Ignore AGW for the minute. What if it’s an imminent cliff collapse or something?

    If you were just warning one or two people to stand back, then yeah – they’d probably do it. The potential benefit would far outweigh the potential cost to them.

    But if you were demanding that an entire city relocate because you have a premonition that the earth was about to fall out from under it, you’d need more than just a “vibe” to justify such a great expense.

  57. Don

    Hey FDB – wanna offset some carbon with me?

    It’ll make you feel good

    How much are you willing to sacrifice financially now for your childrens childrens children?

  58. wreckage

    sdog; as a religious person myself, it’s amazing the degree to which the social aspect of the AGW idea is just Christianity, subverted, and stripped of some of its better points (admonitions to humility, for example).

    Coming apocalypse, no set date: check.

    Unlimited downside if you don’t act now: check.

    All our problems stem from our own implicit sinfulness: check.

    The messiah will save you: check (multiple check! Dozens of Messiahs!)

    Deceivers will turn you from the path, basically for no other reason than that they’re evil.

    And of course, there’s a bunch of people in the pews, and they all agree that everyone but them should tithe.

  59. wreckage: It’s their compulsion to proselytize & the messianic zeal with with they go about trying to convert non-believers (deniers! heretics!) to their particular belief system that really gets me.

    Seriously, if you’ve ever met a revivalist/born-again in the South, you’ll hear them use almost this same justification for trying to “bring God back into the classroom” and trying to convert as many “sinners” as they can: “what would you do if you had information that you honestly believed would save you and others from major hardship, as long as you could convince most of them to follow?” Now those are FDB’s words, not those of a Bible Belt PTA dad trying to get compulsory prayer-time introduced into his kid’s school… but it’s the same reasoning; the same motivation behind their compulsion to proselytize.

    Get thee behind me Satan Carbon!

  60. Rafe Champion

    FDB, if you think you know so much about the philosophy of science, tell us how Lakatos, Kuhn and Feyerabend improved on the philosophy of Karl Popper. Bearing in mind that Moncko is a great admirer of Popper.

  61. JC

    But most climate scientists are decent folk.

    Some aren’t. That’s also a plane fact. The echelons of this science is populated by some serious scum bags.

  62. squawkbox

    Wreckage,
    Amen. AGW is just the latest Judeo-Christian apocalyptic fantasy. See Norman Cohn’s Pursuit of the Millenium. To your list I’d just add the division of the world into the damned and the saved, and the release of the saved from conventional Christian moral strictures when dealing with the damned.

  63. Infidel Tiger

    But most climate scientists are decent folk.

    No they’re not. The layman in the street who has fallen for this bullshit is excused. Most of the scientific community will need to be tried and hopefully executed for grand larceny at a future date.

  64. Gabrielle

    AGW is just the latest Judeo-Christian apocalyptic fantasy.

    It’s Voodoo.

  65. Steve from brisbane

    The facile appeal of this persistent “religion substitue” analysis saves you the bother of reading about the science, and renders you completely gullible when reading the entirely politically and ideologically motivated denialist pap of the Heartland Institute, Andrew Bolt, Anthony Watts and their ilk.

  66. Gabrielle

    Yes, Steve, she says with a polite nod and smile.

  67. Y’all even invoke the name of The Science the same way a preacher invokes the name of The Word.

  68. “Do you believe in The Word The Science, boy? Testify!”

  69. Louis Hissink

    FDB

    Your problem is discriminating reality from fiction.

    Science is restricted to reality, but yours….

  70. squawkbox

    Yes, thank God Steve wasn’t around a century ago. He’d be frantically insisting that da science proved plate tectonics was crazy talk and that masturbation caused blindness

  71. Quentin George

    “And of course, there’s a bunch of people in the pews, and they all agree that everyone but them should tithe.”

    Let’s not forget the Medieval steves of Brisbane.

  72. Further to the points you made, wreckage, John Brignell (curator of the famous warmlist) has a good piece on this:
    Global Warming as Religion and not Science

  73. wreckage

    SFB sez: Without proper attention to doctrine, one is easily swayed by heretics!

    I didn’t come to this conclusion before I started reading, steve. It’s a curious parallel I spotted as I went about my business. As I’m interested in both science and religion, I was going to come across the correlation eventually.

  74. wreckage

    From wikipedia: accompanying each psalm with a hundred lash-strokes to his back

    What a revolting perversion of religion, and defilement of ancient and beautiful poetry.

  75. A very, very accurate video of how most people from Catallaxy treat climatologists.

  76. We don’t need The Onion, mate. Climaticians more or less beclown themselves.

  77. wreckage: it’s been a “correlation” that been the standard canard of CL (amongst thousands of other denialist bloggers) for years now. Congratulations on catching up with the latest in “meta” analysis of why you can safely ignore science.

  78. Ivan Denisovich

    Ivan Denisovich: Thanks for that “Green Neowosers” link

    A pleasure, sdog.

  79. Ivan Denisovich

    The facile appeal of this persistent “religion substitue” analysis

    Tell it to the judge:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5504821/the-deep-green-sophistry-of-religious-equivalence.thtml

  80. Rafe Champion

    Thanks for the manipulation links Ivan! I kept out of the climate debate for a long time, thinking it would take too much time from other projects to get on top of the science, however a very modest input of time reveals the amount of fraud and also the very modest amount of science that is required to grasp the weakness of the arguments for urgent action.

  81. FDB

    IT:

    I am ignorant twit

    See? I just knew we’d find agreement on something substantial before long. It’s hard to square such a scathing self-assessment with the preceding “there’s no chance I’m wrong FDB”, but I suppose for a ‘twit’ the contradiction poses no problem.

    Louis:

    FDB

    Your problem is discriminating reality from fiction.

    That is hands-down the weakest comeback I’ve ever heard from someone who’s just had his arse handed to him. Why not just toughen up and admit that your “definition” of science was woefully inadequate? Because you’re weak.

    Rafe – Louis hasn’t even made it as far as Popper. Let’s take it in baby steps.

  82. .

    http://clubtroppo.com.au/2011/07/20/to-fisk-and-to-monckton/#comment-437018

    Me being Mr Reasonable:

    Anyone who thinks what Gillard and Abbot have offered up is palatable nay attractive needs their head checked.

    They are utterly woeful policies. They are awful in so many ways.

    What they are spending the money on is nuts. They would be better off planting trees and iron seeding. Iron seeding was banned under the “precautionary principle” even though it occurs naturally and can be used to revive ecologically dead areas of the ocean. No consideration is given to the precautionary principle as to what happens if we cut back emissions…

    Mitigation doesn’t pass a CBA. Stern double counted – he didn’t subtract preferences away from the opportunity costs of lower investment, he said the value of the preferences was the discount rate.

    Can you imagine insisting that you should get a home loan at the discount you get in the honeymoon period as the mortgage rate rather than the actual rate it is discounted from?

    A competent analysis would see a discounting rate maybe four times higher or more.

    The climate models do not backtest properly and positive feedback effects which are assumed cannot be grounded in theory.

    The models are not built upon the statistical evidence. Properly analysis of the climate data reveals there is some cointegration and the one degree we were apparently responsible for drops to half when a spurious regression is not made.

    Well hey there is warming but we aren’t responsible for all of it and the absorption of thermal energy by CO2 accumulation begins to decrease after a certain point. We’re past that already.

    So we may have a small problem on our hands that isn’t worth dealing with. If we insist on an insurance policy, the best is to in any instance allow more nuclear and hydroelectricity and get rid of all other subsidies etc – and give multiple decadal tax exemptions for the entire tax bills persons and firms pay to the proportion they are carbon neutral, and failing that arrange a flat carbon tax with hypothecated income tax cuts and transfer payment boosting – make it revenue neutral.

    Recognising carbon neutrality and rewarding productivity is a good idea. Sustainable farming can sequester a massive amount of carbon and ensure water security.

    Forget this stuff for a while. There are some in the Greens who are deep green and there are some socialists who don’t give a damn about emissions or increasing incomes – only relative welfare and envy. Some deep greens will always complain. People have complained about solar updraft towers for “creating microclimates”. Think about the implications of such a principle. Does the foundation of your house create a microcliamte?

    Why should we listen to these nasty and brutish misanthropes? Why does Clive Hamilton get a pass for his “suspend democracy!” line of thinking?

    We should go nuclear. Costs of electricity all go down to scalability basically. Nuclear wins basically because of ‘energy density’. All the other options seem redundant. We have thousands of years of nuclear energy supply. The entire stock of nuclear waste could power all current energy demand. New designs use “nuclear waste” as fuel. Nuclear energy cannot really be used for proliferation and is no more useful for a dirty bomb than any biological or chemical toxin. There is no such thing as nuclear waste with the new breeder reactors which use “waste” as fuel.

    Coal should be eschewed because of radiological pollution and solar creates awful chemical waste. Wind simply isn’t good enough and ends up creating more emissions as it is backed up by irregular coal fired power. The story out of Denmark is a bad joke. 20% of their power? At what cost? What is their carbon emissions vs France?

    Renewables except for hydro power and geothermal are too costly. Dams can be built with consideration of fish ladders etc, but that will be ignored in the noise. Geothermal will take a long time to get up and doesn’t have energy density or the dual utility of water storage and supply.

    Simply not banning certain types of power generation, cutting subsidies and cutting and reforming the tax code under the aegis of a balanced budget would see growth in geothermal, nuclear and hydro. It’s what needs to be done if you want a better life for everyone now and into the future. It would deliver cheap clean power without the impost of further taxation.

    I believe that’s a polite, reasonable, informed and libertarian set of reasons to reject the bad policies Abbot and Gillard are shafting us with.

  83. Rafe Champion

    So you are too busy to answer the question?

  84. Ooh Honey Honey

    FDB
    “People who make claims about what other people have said most definitely need to provide a citation.”
    Yes you are quite right, but then resources like time are finite, so until he takes time off from earning enough to pay all those bright new taxes and track down the citation, let’s all agree that there have never been any serious predictions about future droughts, floods, storms etc caused by AGW? No?
    Oh yeah. Babies…..YUMMMMMMM!!

  85. The evidence for global warming is tenuous at best

    Oh yes indeedy. Meantime those charged with the geopolitical security of nations factor a century of wild weather into their considerations of long term security issues. They also quietly do their bit. (Or say they do.)

    Notice how the focus is on what they themselves can do. I wonder how a comparison of the climate impacts of various public agencies would break down. Is Bob Brown’s carbon footprint significantly lower than that of Mr. Abbott’s?

    Vaclev Klaus is a cold blooded technocrat who sat on his arse comfortably in GooseBank while his predecessor St Vaclev did the hard yards and the hard time. He then converted to Capitalism as a source of religious instruction (which kinda misses the point) and now he’s attempting his own entry to the world stage by being part of the It’s Not Happening Crew.

    I recommend Summer Meditations by Havel. Havel was working with Klaus when it was written. It’s a little like Aurelius’ book; a man with a lot of power he doesn’t want trying to do the right thing. He’s too polite to say but Klaus is a authoritarian dogmatist.

    Comes in handy fighting Chairperson Julia o’ course. Just sayin’.

  86. C.L.

    Meantime those charged with the geopolitical security of nations factor a century of wild weather into their considerations of long term security issues.

    You mean, various governments have forced security analysts to prepare hilarious ‘studies’ on the implications of global warming climate change on security in order to bolster their proposterous scare campaign. Hilariously, the UN even proposed the advent of a new climate Stasi – to be known as the ‘Green Helmets’ – to be sent to places in danger of imminent oceanic inundation. Places like Tim Flannery’s bungalow, for example.

    As for the Vaclavs, Klaus and Havel, it is the latter who is the authoritarian. Entirely simpatico with Clive Hamilton – advocate of suspending democracy – Havel has expressed his belief that civil liberties are expendable in the face of the ‘climate’ ‘crisis.’ In the extremist New York Times, of course:

    I don’t agree with those whose reaction is to warn against restricting civil freedoms. Were the forecasts of certain climatologists to come true, our freedoms would be tantamount to those of someone hanging from a 20th-story parapet.

  87. Havel has expressed his belief that civil liberties are expendable in the face of the ‘climate’ ‘crisis.

    I think you’ll find civil liberties are actually expendable in extreme circumstances.

    In the extremist New York Times, of course:

    No why am I reminded of on of the those Soviet newspapers from the 1930s. Geee, let me think.

    Always admire your loyalty CL. You authoritarian dogmatists should stick up for each other.

  88. Louis Hissink

    FDB,

    My definition of science is totally adequate – especially since I’m a professional scientist who continually uses the scientific method – observation, framing of hypothesis, testing it – professionally. Been at it for 40 years, and apparently one the best in my field. So I figure I might have worked out what I do and be able to summarise it with a concise definition.

    You are confusing pseudoscience with science, and that’s the problem. You seem to think that prophesy couched in scientese is science, it isn’t, it’s pseudoscience. And applying the scientific method to a belief system is simply a technically sophisticated belief system, and also pseudoscience.

  89. Viva

    Joanne Nova explains how bias has skewed the frequently cited and infallible “science”.

    “Governments across the world have paid billions to find links between carbon dioxide and the climate, but very little to find the opposite, and that’s a problem.

    “Teams of professionals have searched high and low for any possible hint that CO2 poses a threat, and that is all very well, but no one has been paid to find otherwise. CO2 has been convicted without a defence lawyer.

    “It is self-evident that any expert in a field will reap more rewards, fame and fortune if their field is critically important. Why would anyone expect such experts to go out of their way to hunt down evidence that might suggest their field ought not be the centre of a global economic transformation?

    “When results come in that conflict with catastrophic model predictions, hordes of researchers scour every nook and cranny to find early warm biases, or recent cold biases, and they may legitimately find some. But no one is paid to hunt down the errors or biases leading the other way. The vacuum sucks.”

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/climate-change-suspect-must-be-given-a-fair-trial/story-e6frg6xf-1226104017991

  90. C.L.

    I think you’ll find civil liberties are actually expendable in extreme circumstances.

    Adrien, totalitarians like you (or Clive, Bob and Havel) might believe a (non)-warming world is comparable to Japanese air-raids or poley bear (non)-deaths comparable to an impending invasion of Nazi Stormtroopers, but those of us who aren’t deranged do not. There is no climate ‘crisis’ – much less a climate ’emergency.’

  91. Currency Lad –

    Totalitarian? Moi? Hahahahahahahahahahaha = Double Smiley Face 🙂 🙂

    Look daddy-o I don’t say there’s disaster on the way I just said that’s what Havel said. Dig it?

    And he was talking about the future consequences of a world at perpetual resource war. I don’t know what policies or approaches he advocates. That’s Czecho’s business. But who cares about all that. You work for Conservative Ideology Minitrue Rewrite Unpersons Doublethink Inc, the press floor’s star reporter.

    Havel long and hard contemplated on the rot in the soul of Com’nism and concluded that it’s the result of a mind thinks it knows all and makes plans for everyone. It’s a product of the mechanical world view. The arrogant assumption of supremacy in the universe. The idea that nature submits to us.

    Can you dig it: the Kingdom of Heaven is within. Go out to the park and embrace an old tree. 🙂

  92. wreckage

    The arrogant assumption of supremacy in the universe. The idea that nature submits to us.

    How could that possibly apply to a Catholic??? Srs question.

  93. That doesn’t apply to CL. He doesn’t want to control the way everyone thinks. He wants to denounce as morally mortal whomsoever disagrees with him. It’s his idea of fun. 🙂

  94. C.L.

    He’s too polite to say but Klaus is a authoritarian dogmatist.

    No, he isn’t. He’s warning against authoritarian dogmatists. You mixed up your Vaclavs. The other one is the authoritarian.

    …he was talking about the future consequences of a world at perpetual resource war.

    The world has been at ‘resource war’ since Og the neanderthal got clubbed by Trog the homo sapien for exclusive access to the berry patch.

    You work for Conservative Ideology Minitrue Rewrite Unpersons Doublethink Inc.

    No, I’m questioning official authorities like Tim Flannery and Rajenda Pachauri and Al Gore. You’re the conservative bolstering, defending and falling in line behind them like a dutiful Hyacinth Bucket.

    Havel long and hard contemplated on the rot in the soul of Com’nism and concluded that it’s the result of a mind thinks it knows all and makes plans for everyone.

    Sounds like – no, sounds exactly like – warmenism.

  95. .

    Adrien mate you just got smashed. Sorry.

  96. No, I’m questioning official authorities like Tim Flannery and Rajenda Pachauri and Al Gore. You’re the conservative bolstering, defending and falling in line behind them like a dutiful Hyacinth Bucket.

    Oh my. That was beautiful.

  97. tiny dancer

    Hey Steve. That bog, sorry blog, you maintain at opinion dominion is the msg unread unvisited blog around. Go back there tool. If people wanted your shit they can go over there. God you are hopeless

  98. Question Authority!

    Speak Truth to Power!

    Rage Against The Machine!

    Sorry, Lefties… all ur placards R belong to us.

  99. JC

    He’s too polite to say but Klaus is a authoritarian dogmatist.

    lol

    Having you been drinking again, Adrien?

    The guy travels the world warning of totes in our midst. He lived through and doesn’t want anyone to go through it again.

    You nimbus.

  100. justmeint

    For Sure

    they are only interested in restricting our freedoms.

    I am so peed off with all this – I mean what some people see as ‘there is notjhing wrong with the climate taxation’ that I attacked my keyboard today to try and explain it to them in story format – what they cannot appreciate is coming down the pipeline. You like a story? read this one please –

    http://justmeint.wordpress.com/2011/07/30/sunday-morning-morons-and-scare-tactics-a-green-nightmare-futuristic-tale/
    As always it was a struggle for them both, but after 60 years of married bliss, they knew what each other needed in the way of assistance, and they did their best to provide it for each other. So when the loud knocking came on their front door, Mary was the one to struggle up from her sitting position to answer the caller. John was not as yet fully dressed.

    Mary grabbed her walking stick and shuffled down the hall to see who might be calling at the early hour. She pulled back the security chain, opened the door and was shocked to be confronted by two uniformed Federal Police Officers wearing guns.

  101. Louis Hissink

    Viva quoted

    “When results come in that conflict with catastrophic model predictions, hordes of researchers scour every nook and cranny to find early warm biases, or recent cold biases, and they may legitimately find some. But no one is paid to hunt down the errors or biases leading the other way. The vacuum sucks.”

    FDB – pay attention!

    When any scientific experiment is conducted and the data contradict the hypothesis being tested, then the prope scientific procedure is to assume the hypothesis is wrong, or maybe, incorrectly posed, and thus requiring further testing. (This is when scientific debate occurs, by the way).

    However the scramble to find bias in the data, or flaws in the data, highlights the absence of understanding the scientific method. It might well be that the experiment was badly done, or poorly posed, and in need of repetition, but the intellectual assumption that just because the data contradict the hypothesis implies a flaw in that data, IS the problem. If the data contradict the hypothesis, then the flaw is searched for firstly in the framing of the hypothesis, and if this is negated, then and only then does one relook at the data, and the usual procedure is to collect more data.

    The tactic of asserting that there is a fault in the data produced from an experiment is pseudoscientific.

  102. AndrewL

    “The tactic of asserting that there is a fault in the data produced from an experiment is pseudoscientific.”

    The irony of asserting this in a thread started by a Roy Spencer paper is very funny. Roy was famously wrong about satellite data contradicting the terrestial temperature record and took tyears to accept his analysis of the data was flawed. Now to trumpet a new paper of his a death nail in global warming theory based on a “model” just adds to the fun.

  103. Currency Lad – He’s warning against authoritarian dogmatists. You mixed up your Vaclavs. The other one is the authoritarian.

    And Oceania’s always been at war with EastAsia, whatever. Vaclev Klaus der Bureaumesiter sat on his ass in a Commie Bank. Havel stood up to them in the 60s and went right on doing it.

    No, I’m questioning official authorities like Tim Flannery and Rajenda Pachauri and Al Gore

    I’m on record here as saying Flannery’s a dickhead and Gore’s a big fat-arsed pompous hypocrite. Never made comment on Pachauri but when I found out who he was and what he wielded I thought maybe Dover’s assertions viz the ideological program of the IPCC might not be entirely incorrect.

    The world has been at ‘resource war’ since Og the neanderthal got clubbed by Trog the homo sapien

    And Graeme Bird has never forgiven you. he’ll get you back one day. He was behind the wombat thing y’know.

    for exclusive access to the berry patch.

    Except now Berry Patch is a brand identity fronting for a product range that spans meat processing capital works and cosmetics for girls under 5. Your comment reminds one of of a general who’d never fought an industrial war suddenly finding himself issuing borders for one. Resource war on a global scale, unprecedented. But the trend has always been clear.

    No, he isn’t.</em<

    Yesheisnoheisn'tyesheisnoheisn'tyesheisnoheisn'tyesheisnoheisn'tyesheisnoheisn'tyesheis

  104. wreckage

    Interestingly, you get bias from studying something too much. Too many studies on the Askanazi Jews produced bias, no doubt too many studies on how fast and how soon the earth is warming will do the same.

  105. Richard Hayes

    “Take this which has just been released today by NASA”

    The quote and the item linked to were not released by NASA.

Comments are closed.