Will Maurice Newman be Australia’s Lord McAlpine?

From The Australian:

ROBYN Williams: NOW what if I told you pedophilia is good for children or that asbestos is an excellent inhalant for those with asthma? Or that smoking crack is a normal part, and a healthy one, of teenage life and to be encouraged? You’d rightly find it outrageous. But there have been similar statements coming out of inexpert mouths again and again in recent times, distorting the science (of climate change).

Stephan Lewandowsky: There seems to be something about an extreme free-market ideology that prevents some people from accepting scientific evidence. I think there are some spokespeople out there for anti-scientific positions who claim to have a left-wing Marxist background, but when you look at the population at large in a large sample of people, then you don’t find them. And that probably means one of two things. Either the numbers of these people are so small that you just have to be extremely lucky to find one, maybe one in a hundred thousand, or that their claimed political affiliation is not as left-wing as they make out.

Robyn Williams: There have been some extraordinary statements. I’m thinking of a couple of bankers who I have met, who have sat through a learned lecture by one of the most famous scientists in the world, and come out at the other end and said, ‘Well, of course it’s not proven.’ And I don’t know how much more evidence you want. And the former chairman of the ABC, Maurice Newman, who had been head of the stock exchange, came out with some drivel in The Australian newspaper a couple of weeks ago about how climate science is a religion.

Compare that with what Maurice Newman actually said:

Australia’s comparative advantage in the world has been its access to cheap energy. It has long been an offset to other relatively more expensive inputs such as labour, transport and capital. This strength has been sacrificed on the altar of global warming.

By most accounts Australia’s greenhouse abatement policies are among the world’s most expensive. For example, the Productivity Commission calculates the value of subsidies to the wind industry is between $40 and $60 a megawatt hour compared with $24 in the US. And that doesn’t even include the carbon tax. Yet we show continued willingness to sign more international treaties that risk further entrenching even higher costs of production.

If only the laws of climate change were as certain as the laws of economics. But they are not. Contradictions and ambiguities envelop the science of man-made global warming. The climate models we were asked to accept as the gold standard have been found wanting. We now know that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is more about political science than real science.

So, with so much doubt, why has the government chosen policies destined to make Australia less competitive? Why damage our economy when any emissions abatement achieved will be globally inconsequential? Why provide huge incentives to divert scarce resources to inefficient, costly projects which, in the ordinary course, the market would not fund?

We are told that by acting now we can avoid the pain of catch-up. But where is the evidence for this? Is it seriously suggested that the international penalty for inaction would be more severe than the economic costs we have imposed on ourselves? After all, no action has been taken against the Kyoto Protocol signatories who failed to comply with their commitments.

So why should we believe that a genuinely enforceable international agreement would be more onerous? The answers seem to be found in hearts rather than minds.

Update: SteveC points out that Williams may be referring to another column (more than a couple of weeks ago):

When Mother Nature decided in 1980 to change gears from cooler to warmer, a new global warming religion was born, replete with its own church (the UN), a papacy, (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and a global warming priesthood masquerading as climate scientists.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

177 Responses to Will Maurice Newman be Australia’s Lord McAlpine?

  1. Rabz

    There seems to be something about an extreme free-market ideology that prevents some people from accepting scientific evidence.

    So loondowsky is “an extreme free-market ideologue”.

    Who knew?

  2. GrantB

    A Lewandowsky internet sample of climate deniers found that most preferred to eat babies rather than anything else.

  3. m0nty

    We now know that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is more about political science than real science.

    The answers seem to be found in hearts rather than minds.

    This is part of a concerted effort by the right to attack science by alleging false equivalence with their faith-based pseudoscience. It’s the old ruse of figuring out your own greatest weakness, and accusing the other mob of the same thing first.

    Yet another tactic imported wholesale from the American right.

  4. GrantB

    And your scientific qualifications are exactly what m0nty?

  5. Robyn Williams should be sacked immediately and never allowed to say another paid word on-air. His comparison of climate-change skeptics to those advocating the legalisation of paedophilia is beyond nauseating.

  6. m0nty

    LOL, nice try GrantB. Unless you’re a published climate scientist, we’re just just a couple of guys yakking.

  7. jupes

    But there have been similar statements coming out of inexpert mouths again and again in recent times, distorting the science (of climate change).

    I agree.

  8. Gibbo

    He may not have said it but it’s true. Climate Change Science IS a religion.

  9. m0nty

    BTW, Maurice Newman’s scientific qualifications are exactly what?

  10. jupes

    Yet another tactic imported wholesale from the American right.

    Not sure about that, however it is the current tactic of the Labor party.

  11. SteveC

    m0nty has already pointed it out, but to amplify, when Williams says “Newman…came out with some drivel in The Australian newspaper a couple of weeks ago about how climate science is a religion”
    He was obviously referring to these openeing and closing sentences:
    “So, with so much doubt,..” “The answers seem to be found in hearts rather than minds.”
    Implying that climate change is about belief rather than evidence. Which is a good definition of religion. Why do you think Newman has been misrepresented?

  12. Rococo Liberal

    Of course right-wingers are going to challenge climate ‘science.’ This is the science that just so happens to give governments the obligation to interfere into every aspect of our lives. Whay wouldn’t we right-wingers be against that?

    Personally, I’d rather have rising temperatures and se levels, with lots more extreme weather events, than have socialist governments ruining the economy.

    And BTW, fuck-face Lewandowsky, being in favour of free markets is never extremist. it is you, you fuckwit who are the zealous fanatic, the one who wants to have an effect on us all. I bet it must be difficult having such a tiny brain.

  13. m0nty

    An example of Newman’s NIMBYist allegations of science as religion:

    With religious zeal and the voice of authority, we plough ahead as if consumed by a deathwish.

    At the local level this religion is evangelically spread by state bureaucrats who regularly pander to the oligopoly’s wishes.

    But don’t expect help from academia, mainstream media or the public service. They are members of the same establishment and worship together at the altar of global warming.

  14. GrantB

    m0nty, I’ve a first and a Post hole Digger in theoretical physics. I’ve published statistical mechanics papers, a subject crucial to atmospheric physics. I’ve also published performance models using the atmospheric transmission codes LOWTRAN and MODTRAN.

    So what are your scientific qualifications again? If none or minimal I’ll treat you as a scientific numpty and not bother responding to you again.

  15. m0nty

    Newman is also a subscriber to the infrasound pseudoscience hooey about wind turbines.

    Notwithstanding the predisposition of governments to renewable energy, it surely cannot have
    been intended that wind farms should operate in an environment which allows them to emit
    offensive noise with impunity. Yet, that is the practical outcome of state legislation as it
    stands. There is little or no protection for those who have IWTs situated too close to their
    dwellings. Audible noise is but one of the health issues posed. There are still no laws to limit
    the more serious threats to human health of low frequency noise and infrasound.

  16. Rabz

    There have been some extraordinary statements.

    And this from the crank now known as Robyn ’100 metres’ Williams.

    Their hypocrisy is breathtaking.

  17. m0nty

    m0nty, I’ve a first and a Post hole Digger in theoretical physics.

    Saints preserve us from scientists playing tourist in specialised fields they are not specialised in.

  18. Sinclair Davidson

    m0nty – perhaps you could spend your time finding where Newman argued:

    pedophilia is good for children or that asbestos is an excellent inhalant for those with asthma? Or that smoking crack is a normal part, and a healthy one, of teenage life and to be encouraged?

    I suspect the ABC and Williams would be most grateful. Not to mention the taxpayers who’ll have to pick up the tab.

  19. SteveC

    Or perhaps Williams was referring to this article from 5 November:
    What Newman actually said:

    ONCE upon a time when Christendom was at its peak, missionaries would be dispatched to the four corners of the globe in search of converts. They believed their mission would expand the influence of Rome and save heathens from eternal damnation.

    It was a compelling message. Convert and enjoy everlasting life in the hereafter. The advantage the missionaries had was that the religion they taught had no hypotheses that could be tested. Death – “the undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveller returns” – meant that the afterlife could be neither proved nor disproved. Faith was the only thing needed.

    Climate science is a bit like that

    [I have fixed up the link. Sinc]

  20. Gab

    So what are your scientific qualifications again?

    He once threw some Mentos into a bottle of Coke to create a volcano.

  21. Token

    I see M0nty is put peddling his extreme left wing views again. M0nty never actually adds content to a discussion, rather he through a out vacuous statements as his extreme left wing has no substance.

  22. SteveC

    m0nty – perhaps you could spend your time finding where Newman argued…etc

    Sinclair, perhaps you could find where Williams said that is what Newman argued.

  23. Googling “Maurice Newman climate science religion” led me to this article in The Australian, on 5 Nov 2012, in which Newman does, in detail, run the “climate science as the new religion” line.

    The post references the wrong column from Newman.

    And the answer to the question in the headline: no.

    McAlpine was alleged to be a tory pa*do. I think it is impossible to interpret William’s opening sentences the same way.

  24. m0nty

    It’s an analogy, Sinclair. Williams is saying NAMBLA’s intellectual position has about as much scientific credibility as Newman’s. He is not saying Newman is a member of NAMBLA.

    I don’t know why you need this simple application of logical thought to be explained to you.

  25. Token

    I see the left wing extremist M0nty is a believer in the unscientific joint the crony capitalists at the IPCC peddle.

    Next he’ll be dragging out his extreme left wing Papist conspiracy theories like he was ruining discussions with last week.

  26. GrantB

    Too shy to astonish us with your qualifications then m0nty?

    As I thought, a scientific numpty.
    QED and goodbye.

  27. Gab

    GrantB the trolls get very tetchy when you challenge their religion.

  28. kevin

    Unless he does so himself, I am quite happy to reveal what GrantB’s “scientific” qualifications REALLY are, and they are NOT what he claims.
    Do you think you are protected by anonymity, Grant?
    Don’t bulls**t!

  29. Rabz

    NAMBLA’s intellectual position has about as much scientific credibility as Newman’s

    Listen pal, what have you got against North American Marlin Brando Lookalikes?

  30. Token

    You can bet the peddler of the Papist conspracy backs Williams and Flannery in their highly scientific views about the earth mother developing a conscious.

    Anti science extreme left wing fruitbats are great fans of any crap which will allow them to loot more public money.

  31. Williams gave some examples of “outrageous statements”.

    He thinks “climate science is just a new religion” is similarly outrageous.

    It’ll annoy people, but he’s not doing the truly offensive, as prominent “skeptics” have, and organise email harassment campaigns against scientists just trying to do a job.

  32. m0nty

    I see Token is pulling his usual trick of concentrating far more on abusing the leftwingers on this site, rather than putting in any effort to make meaningful contributions of his own related to the topic. Tom and Tiny Dancer are also chronic cases. They are little better than random snipers like DavidJ who do nothing else but post abuse of leftwingers.

    At least Pat Hannagan put in the hard yards to set out his beliefs.

  33. Sinclair Davidson

    It’s an analogy, Sinclair.

    So you admit that the only named person in that segment, Maurice Newman, never said:

    pedophilia is good for children or that asbestos is an excellent inhalant for those with asthma? Or that smoking crack is a normal part, and a healthy one, of teenage life and to be encouraged?

    or anything like it?

  34. Gab

    infrasound pseudoscience hooey about wind turbines.

    Germany’s plan to wean itself off nuclear power has suffered a submarine setback. Utility companies have had to delay construction of a 25,000 megawatt windfarm off the coast because of fears the noise may kill thousands of porpoises.

  35. GrantB

    kevin , I’m on an iphone so won’t be posting links. Google Grant Burfield and QMC University of London. Then get back to me.

    Until then I’ll treat you as another scientific idiot.

  36. James of the Glens

    To bother to read Monty is to read unadulterated ignorance. Lazy ignorance. Bog lazy. A scientific illiterate, unable and unwilling to look at evidence, unable to read scientific papers or even know how to access them, but quite willing to make inane statements about industrial wind turbines or querying others’ scientific qualifications.

    His class worship at Al’s Altar (yes the one without even one tertiary subject in science) to receive its scientific expertise.
    Amusing, but in sad way, like watching a drunk trying to negotiate a garden path.

    Monty, why not sign up as another travelling presenter of Al’s Inconvenient Truth Slide Show, you know, the one with the hockey stick and icebergs? Get out your Kodak Carousel and go for it. You are superbly qualified.

  37. m0nty

    So you admit that the only named person in that segment, Maurice Newman, never said:

    pedophilia is good for children or that asbestos is an excellent inhalant for those with asthma? Or that smoking crack is a normal part, and a healthy one, of teenage life and to be encouraged?

    or anything like it?

    Of course Sinc, and Williams is not saying Newman is a p43do or anything like it. He is speaking to the similarity of the credibility level of the two sets of statements, not the content of them.

    It’s an emotive analogy, obviously, but it’s still an analogy and should not lead to anyone assuming it’s a direct allegation of Lord McAlpine level.

  38. m0nty

    Underwater sonar is different to infrasound through the air, Gab.

  39. Token

    SoB Liar QC, please confirm where Newman makes the statement that the Gaia fan falsely claims he made?

  40. Sinclair Davidson

    It’s an emotive analogy, obviously, but it’s still an analogy and should not lead to anyone assuming it’s a direct allegation of Lord McAlpine level.

    Time will tell.

  41. Keith

    I see the trolls are dissembling madly this morning. Nothing to do with impending questions in parliament of course, but just grateful for the distraction it seems.
    Let me know when the global temps exceed the MWP by the margin that the models would predict based on the accumulated effect of the GHGs since then. Meanwhile global temps are below the MWP. Oh, but wait, the models have already failed haven’t they.
    I’m sure troll hyperventilating will more than make up for the lack of warming.
    Here’s a tip for you trolls – get ‘scientist’ classified as a race. Then you can prosecute Newman, and many others under the RDA. You’re welcome.

  42. m0nty

    No results found for “Grant Burfield” QMC.

  43. Token

    James, how true, M0nty & SoB refuse to define what “right” means.

    They build it up to be a bad thing, then throw it out as an ad hom, neither has an ideology beyond defending their “team” by any means fair or foul.

  44. SteveC

    SoB Liar QC, please confirm where Newman makes the statement that the Gaia fan falsely claims he made?

    which statement? The one about climate religion is now linked in the update to the OP.

  45. m0nty

    Googling for “Grant Burfield” “university of london” leads to two links to The Conversation where Grant comments, but the UoL reference is by someone else about something unrelated.

    So yeah, GrantB, who are you?

  46. cohenite

    AGW is a religion; it has been judicially determined.

    AGW is a repackaging of the Eden fable; Earth was a paradise until humanity gained knowledge in the form of the forbidden fruit of fossil fuel and were cast from paradise by God, or in the case of AGW, gaia, and visted catastrophe upon them.

    The problem for AGW is that no catastrophe has been visited upon humanity despite the vile lies by leadings disciples that such events as the 2009 Victorian bushfires, the 2010 QLD floods and cyclone Sandy were due to AGW.

    They were not.

    For some facts about the science against AGW please see these papers.

    These papers from the best climate scientists in the world show that AGW is a disproven theory; it has been disproved.

    There are no equivalent papers supporting AGW which do not rely on modelling and which are not contradicted by real evidence.

    AGW is a lie and those who support it do so from a position of belief, ideology and money.

    Or, like the trolls here, because they are dickheads.

  47. cohenite

    AGW is a religion; it has been judicially determined.

    AGW is a repackaging of the Eden fable; Earth was a paradise until humanity gained knowledge in the form of the forbidden fruit of fossil fuel and were cast from paradise by God, or in the case of AGW, gaia, and visted catastrophe upon them.

    The problem for AGW is that no catastrophe has been visited upon humanity despite the vile lies by leadings disciples that such events as the 2009 Victorian bushfires, the 2010 QLD floods and cyclone Sandy were due to AGW.

    They were not.

    For some facts about the science against AGW please see these papers.

    These papers from the best climate scientists in the world show that AGW is a disproven theory; it has been disproved.

    There are no equivalent papers supporting AGW which do not rely on modelling and which are not contradicted by real evidence.

    AGW is a lie and those who support it do so from a position of belief, ideology and money.

    Or, like the trolls here, because they are dickheads.

  48. candy

    It’s pretty accepted now that climate science/worship of gaia is a new form of paganism rejecting Christianity.

    The good things about caring for the environment are lumped with atheism to make it a “religion” and it’s growing very very popular in the world, sad to say tho’.

  49. Oh dear, Token.

    It was obvious from my first reading of William’s extracted paragraphs that when he said:

    You’d rightly find it outrageous. But there have been similar statements coming out of inexpert mouths again and again in recent times, distorting the science (of climate change).

    that the “similarity” he refers to is “outrageousness;” not that he was alleging that Newman had made any comment at all about pa*dophilia.

  50. It’s pretty accepted now that climate science/worship of gaia is a new form of paganism rejecting Christianity.

    candy, you’re a Catholic.

    Pope Benedict has prayed for the success of the UN Copenhagen process, and has raised no doubts about the science of climate change at all.

    This kinda ruins your argument, doesn’t it?

  51. C.L.

    Pope Benedict has insisted that any environmentalism whose starting point isn’t the protection of the unborn is doomed to meaningless failure. That means that Steve’s left-wing version of environmentalism is inauthentic from a Catholic standpoint – as is the Labor Party’s.

    This kinda ruins your argument, doesn’t it?

  52. CL, I’ve pointed out to you before that no, it doesn’t.

    It’s just a desperate handwave on your part.

  53. m0nty

    We present an analytical model of the tracer diffusivity of a colloid particle applicable to a suspension at a density low enough that only pair interactions of the particles need be considered. We assume a pair potential consisting of an infinitely repulsive hard core together with an attractive short range tail as well as hydrodynamic pair interactions which are described by the general mobility series of Schmitz and Felderhof which allow differing hydrodynamic boundary conditions. Using our earlier low density expansion of the generalized Smoluchowski equation we obtain an expression for the tracer diffusivity identical to that obtained by Batchelor from a different derivation. For a class of simple analytic potential functions we show how the tracer diffusivity may be evaluated by quadratures. We present explicit high order mobility series for both stick and slip hydrodynamic boundary conditions and we use these to evaluate the tracer diffusivity numerically for a range of hard core radii. We distinguish short time and long time components of the tracer diffusivity and show that the relative magnitude of these components is quite sensitive to the hydrodynamic boundary conditions.

    Well shoot, that was exactly the same thing that the IPCC was working on to produce its AGW policy.

  54. candy

    “This kinda ruins your argument, doesn’t it?”

    nope.
    One can be a Christian and care for the environment and should care as it’s God’s creation, which is what the Pope is saying, ie, to care for the physical world as well as the spiritual. obviously.

  55. SteveC

    Can we have a foetus free discussion on this thread?

  56. cohenite

    Does your link have a point steve?

  57. Rodney

    You have all missed the dramatic breakthrough here. not only is this the first time a public broadcaster has criticised pedophilia, the criticism has been made in the most extreme terms. Surely pedophilia is not quite as bad as as Carbon Hereticism?

  58. M0nty

    After you’ve answered the Professor’s question;

    Why should the poor be taxed to broadcast defamatory statements by activists when you could pay for it yourself?

  59. SteveC

    I was responding to GrantB’s suggestion above to google Burfield QMC etc. No the specific paper has no relevance.

  60. m0nty

    M0nty

    After you’ve answered the Professor’s question;

    The prof’s last missive was “time will tell”, which was not phrased in the form of a question.

    Why should the poor be taxed to broadcast defamatory statements by activists when you could pay for it yourself?

    Why should the rich be given tax cuts they don’t need? You’re just spouting ideology, Forester.

  61. C.L.

    LOL. You can always tell when Toscanini Steve is lying. He uses the self-boosting phrase “pointed out.” By which he means “made up.”

    Pope Benedict XVI to the Brazilian bishops:

    The human being will be capable of respecting other creatures only if he keeps the full meaning of life in his own heart. Otherwise he will come to despise himself and his surroundings, and to disrespect the environment, the creation, in which he lives. For this reason, the first ecology to be defended is ‘human ecology’. This is to say that, without a clear defence of human life from conception until natural death; without a defence of the family founded on marriage between a man and a woman; without an authentic defence of those excluded and marginalised by society, not overlooking, in this context, those who have lost everything in natural calamities, we will never be able to speak of authentic protection of the environment.

    The pope is saying Steve is a phony Catholic and a phony environmentalist.

  62. Oh dear.

    candy, my point is that Pope Benedict, and John Paul II, both made statements specifically showing their belief in AGW as a serious issue which the international community should address.

    You can pretend that this isn’t relevant and strong counter evidence to your claim that

    climate science/worship of gaia is a new form of paganism rejecting Christianity.

    if you want, but it leaves you with no credibility.

  63. Chris

    If only the laws of climate change were as certain as the laws of economics. But they are not. Contradictions and ambiguities envelop the science of man-made global warming. The climate models we were asked to accept as the gold standard have been found wanting. We now know that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is more about political science than real science.

    Heh, I don’t think economists are in any position to complain about the accuracy of modelling. They have enough difficulty modelling what’s going to happen next month let alone a few years or a hundred years time.

  64. Gab

    When did either of the Popes become qualified climate scientists?

  65. CL, your handwave technique will be cutting no ice with anyone here as it is clearly irrelevant to the debate.

    Did you lose a lot of high school debates? Is that why you insist on trying out those old techniques all your adult life.

  66. ella

    Monty and Steve,

    Would you give a scientist control of public policy since you seem willing to accept whatever is said?

    Here is a quote from distinguished scientist, Linus Pauling:

    ” I have suggested that there be tattooed on the forehead of every young person a symbol showing possession of the sickle-cell gene or whatever other similar gene, such as the gene for phenylketonuria, that has been found to possess in a single dose. If this were done, two young people carrying the same seriously defective gene would refrain from falling in love with one another. It is my opinion that legislation along this line, compulsory testing for defective genes before marriage, and some sort of semi-public display of this possession, should be adopted.”

    Here, disease provides the excuse for coercive ideas.
    Today, it is so-called climate change.

  67. m0nty

    FFS ella, AGW is not eugenics. That is a shameless smear.

  68. ella

    Monty,

    .. and nobody has suggested the coercive idea that we suspend democracy?

  69. C.L.

    So Candy, you were right and dishonest Steve was spectacularly wrong.

    Benedict XVI has explicitly, formally condemned Steve-ish phony Catholicism and phony environmentalism.

    That passage again:

    The human being will be capable of respecting other creatures only if he keeps the full meaning of life in his own heart. Otherwise he will come to despise himself and his surroundings, and to disrespect the environment, the creation, in which he lives. For this reason, the first ecology to be defended is ‘human ecology’. This is to say that, without a clear defence of human life from conception until natural death; without a defence of the family founded on marriage between a man and a woman; without an authentic defence of those excluded and marginalised by society, not overlooking, in this context, those who have lost everything in natural calamities, we will never be able to speak of authentic protection of the environment.

    Anyone who supports or promotes abortion and gay ‘marriage’ is an enemy of Christian environmentalism and ecology.

  70. Gab

    AGW is not eugenics. That is a shameless smear.

    But comparing people who are sceptical of the climate science to being like pedoplies is all AOK when it comes from someone who is not even a qualified climate scientist. Now that is shameless.

  71. johanna

    People, don’t follow the trolls down every rabbit-hole. They are very reluctant to discuss the substance of the topic, strangely enough.

    Back to the point. Robyn Williams and the tenured academic Lewandowsky agree that scientific disagreement is equivalent to supporting pedophilia, or prescribing asbestos to asthmatics. What’s more, both of these publicly funded pundits did it on our publicly funded national broadcaster.

    Do you think that there is any chance that they will be sent to re-education camp, as Alan Jones was for making a minor mathematical error for which he apologised?

  72. candy

    “if you want, but it leaves you with no credibility.”

    Steve

    I don’t mind if you say that.

    The passage C.L. has kindly highlighted above is what i feel and believe.

  73. C.L.

    Good win, Candy.

    Steve will be sulking all day but don’t let that worry you.

  74. m0nty

    Monty,

    .. and nobody has suggested the coercive idea that we suspend democracy?

    Do you have any examples, ella? If you start bringing up one world government rubbish, you will show yourself as a crank.

  75. GrantB

    monty and kevvie, try this for a starter

    http://ph.qmul.ac.uk/alumni/student-prizes-physics.

    Will try for the PhD link later.

    Idiots

  76. m0nty

    comparing people who are sceptical of the climate science to being like pedoplies

    It is not a straight comparison, it’s an analogy. You are only showing up your lack of comprehension in repeating that lie, Gab.

  77. Why should the rich be given tax cuts they don’t need?

    The rich can afford to dodge their own tax, I’m talking about those earning under $80k who can’t…

    You’re just spouting ideology, Forester.

    But you’re not forced to pay for it M0nty…

  78. candy is at least (mostly) sweet when she’s wrong, CL: you on the other hand just present as a (psychically, if not physically) 70 year old, embittered white bachelor.

  79. Sinclair Davidson

    m0nty – here.

    This is because the implications of 3C, let alone 4C or 5C, are so horrible that we look to any possible scenario to head it off, including the canvassing of “emergency” responses such as the suspension of democratic processes.

  80. m0nty

    monty and kevvie, try this for a starter

    Congrats Grant, that qualifies you to speak from authority on theoretical physics. It gives you no domain authority in climate science.

    Not that I am claiming such either. We’re just two amateurs compared to experts who have trained in their specialist field.

  81. Jarrah

    without a defence of the family founded on marriage between a man and a woman; without an authentic defence of those excluded and marginalised by society

    Contradiction in terms. But then, it’s religion, so what’s new?

  82. cohenite

    The AGW believers, especially those from the abc, have form; in respect of tatooing Glover said this:

    Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.

    And consider these comments from the abc gene pool.

    In a sense what Williams and the weirdo, Lewandowsky, have said, is just an extension of this. AGW is a means of expressing a misanthropic view.

    When you attempt to engage these bastards in a discussion about their science they automaticaly default to this misanthropic position and the slurs, insults and filth follow.

    Or, as the trolls do here, prevaricate and distract; there is no scientifc evidence for AGW; simple as that which is why the tactics of dirt are used to cover the real agendas.

  83. Gab

    It is not a straight comparison, it’s an analogy. You are only showing up your lack of comprehension in repeating that lie, Gab.

    lol it’s an inference, monty. You don’t appear to understand what analogy means.

    Congrats Grant, that qualifies you to speak from authority on theoretical physics. It gives you no domain authority in climate science.

    In which case the same applies to Robyn Willams and Lewandowsky but you appear to be defending them like the Black Knight in the Holy Grail. heh, climate science, the holy grail of taxpayer funding.

  84. cohenite

    The AGW believers, especially those from the abc, have form; in respect of tatooing Glover said this:

    Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.

    And consider these comments from the abc gene pool:

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/our-abc-green-narrative.html

    In a sense what Williams and the weirdo, Lewandowsky, have said, is just an extension of this. AGW is a means of expressing a misanthropic view.

    When you attempt to engage these bastards in a discussion about their science they automaticaly default to this misanthropic position and the slurs, insults and filth follow.

    Or, as the trolls do here, prevaricate and distract; there is no scientifc evidence for AGW; simple as that which is why the tactics of dirt are used to cover the real agendas.

  85. m0nty

    Alright, Sinclair. I wouldn’t vote for Hamilton. That statement of his was wrong. It deserves to be rejected.

    He’s not a climate scientist either, though. There is altogether too much media attention paid to amateurs in this field. That includes Flannery, Hamilton, Newman, Monckton and all the other dilettantes, shills, scientists on tour, and faffing intellectuals on both sides.

  86. C.L.

    Do you have any examples, ella?

    How about Obama’s science czar, warmenist wacko John Holdren?

    http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

  87. m0nty

    lol it’s an inference, monty. You don’t appear to understand what analogy means.

    Gab, you have shown repeatedly that you have a paucity of intellectual vocabulary and reading comprehension. This is yet another example where you don’t know what you’re talking about, leading you to make patently false statements. Give up.

  88. C.L.

    Contradiction in terms. But then, it’s religion, so what’s new?

    In what sense is Molly Meldrum “excluded and marginalised from society,” Jarrah?

  89. Gab

    ohhh, monty reverts to his fallback position when losing: insults. You haven’t anything else.

  90. C.L.

    Don’t be a misogynist, Steve.

    Candy beat you up – with an assist from me.

  91. cohenite

    You do not have to be a climate scientist to understand the ‘science’ to suport AGW has failed, is false, been disproven

    When you attempt to discuss this ‘science’ all you get in return is faux arguments, like appeals to authority, consensus and modelling; or gross insults from the likes of Williams.

    AGW is a scam, as simple as that.

  92. Rabz

    There is altogether too much media attention paid to amateurs in this field. That includes Flannery, Hamilton, Newman, Monckton and all the other dilettantes, shills, scientists on tour, and faffing intellectuals on both sides.

    Over two decades of this hysterical, fact and evidence free, anti-scientific bullshit.

    Human activity, whether of an economic nature or otherwise, does not cause catastrophic global climate change and anyone who believes this or propagates the myth that it does, is an utter fucking moron.

    Enough.

  93. twostix

    If you start bringing up one world government rubbish, you will show yourself as a crank.

    Is Bob Brown a crank m0nty?

    Do tell.

  94. Gab

    Not only Bob Brown but all the gaia disciples who applauded Brown when he made that One World government speech.

  95. Rabz

    that One World government speech

    Which also included the now legendary reference to self extincted extra terrestrials and their inability to get on the galactic telephone

  96. ugh

    Would that be Robyn “100 metres” Williams that claimed the sea level would rise by 100m by the turn of the century on ABC radio?

    Why would any rational person be skeptical of “science” like that? *slaps forehead*

  97. twostix

    Why should the rich be given tax cuts they don’t need?

    Err you are The Rich m0nty – a childless 40 something white collar male in IT.

    Of course in your mind you’re a Springsteenesque “working man”.

  98. m0nty

    ohhh, monty reverts to his fallback position when losing: insults. You haven’t anything else.

    You can’t even tell the difference between insults and regular argument, Gab.

  99. Gab

    You insulted me, monty. You never provided an argument.

  100. steve from brisbane

    Some Greens think one world government could work; some libertarians think going “seasteading” would be cool and lead the way to better systems of government. (Personally, I think the latter will just lead to libertarian factions having prolonged gunfights at sea when they get sick of eating whalemeat and seaweed.)

    M’eh. It’s not as if it’s only one side of politics that dreams impractical dreams.

  101. Jarrah

    “In what sense is Molly Meldrum “excluded and marginalised from society,” Jarrah?”

    In what way would his marrying a man threaten society or the environment?

  102. m0nty

    I can’t do much more than point out your continued episodes of reading incomprehension when you serve up another example of reading incomprehension, Gab. There’s not many other places I can go, since you’re stating a bald falsehood based on your lack of understanding.

  103. Gab

    You were wrong and can only offer insults, monty. No argument, just insults. And you keep repeating the same.

  104. m0nty

    This is part of the problem with the right’s disconnection with reality. It’s difficult to hold a conversation with someone who openly states falsehoods based on ignorance, and then attacks you for going ad hominem if you point it out. Sums up this thread, really.

  105. DaveF

    Robyn Williams has a long pedigree of intemperance to any opinion that doesn’t accord to his world view.

    And that world view includes a ‘whatever it takes’ attitude to anti smoking, anti drinking, anti obesity programs with coercion of the public very much at the forefront.

    When public health groups lobbied and convinced the AMA to go along with not one drink for pregnant women in spite of the evidence showing a drink a day or so was fine he was happy to report it. It was jaw dropping. He spoke to these totalitarians who happily confirmed a drink a day was fine, however they wanted to denormalise drinking while pregnant.

    And he was happy to go along with it. Oh wait. Or was it Norman Swan? They basically have the same worldview anyhow.

  106. M’eh. It’s not as if it’s only one side of politics that dreams impractical dreams.

    But only one side forces you to pay for theirs…

  107. Gab

    It’s disgusting how Willams compared sceptics of climate alarmism to pedophiles, drug and asbestos pushers. Is this an example of “civil discourse” the left are always raging on about? Are these degrading comparisons meant to convince people to believe in climate religion?

  108. Jarrah

    “No argument, just insults.”

    His argument was “it’s an analogy”. You denied it was an analogy, and said it was “an inference”, which doesn’t make any sense. It’s hardly an insult to point out that you’re not comprehending the material.

  109. DaveF

    I went off the track a bit with that last comment. Sorry.

    Anyway Williams has a long history of smearing people who disagree with his worldview which includes the standard statist mantra: people are plebs and need a wise expert to steer them in the right direction. No deviations.

  110. “Will Maurice Newman be Australia’s Lord McAlpine?”

    Probably.

  111. Jarrah

    “It’s disgusting how Willams compared sceptics of climate alarmism to pedophiles, drug and asbestos pushers.”

    He didn’t make that comparison. Read the original post again.

  112. m0nty

    26 Nov 12 at 12:22 pm

    difficult to hold a conversation with someone who openly states falsehoods based on ignorance

    Where is it false that you force me, though taxation, to pay for activists to defame others? And none of that mob rule nonsense you usually respond with.

    We used to live in a free country where socialists were free set to set up their own economic system amongst themselves; hand over their worldly possesions to some random “Dear Leader” and wait by the phone to be issued the latest decree. We advised against it but you went ahead anyway, we’d even let you back in when it went pear shaped.

    But when you ran out of your own cash, you mobilised the mob to vote yourselves our cash!

    I won’t be voting for your ‘reality’.

  113. Eyrie

    Monty, while there are some young, would be third raters, soon to be unemployable, who would like to be called scientists, studying “climate science” as such, the bulk of the work in the field has been carried out by physicists, mathematicians, chemists, meteorologists, geographers(Phil Jones and Judith Curry), geologists, geophysicists and computer science types who just happen to be working in that field. As a theoretical physicist GrantB would be quite capable of gaining employment with any number of teams working on climate science and it doesn’t take anybody with a hard science degree long to do some reading and come up with a good grasp of the current state of the field.

  114. cohenite

    He didn’t make that comparison. Read the original post again

    .

    That’s a lie.

    But there have been similar statements coming out of inexpert mouths again and again in recent times, distorting the science (of climate change).

    Williams has EQUATED sceptical statements about AGW with those statements used to justify pedophilia, aspestos infection and drug trafficking.

    Williams is not saying sceptics are pedophiles, he is saying they are as bad and as destructive.

    That is defamatory.

    Back to AGW; Williams has no science to back him up; let me make a comparison; his arguments are as bad as the trolls on this site and indeed any pro-AGW site where believers attempt to justify the scam of AGW.

  115. Rabz

    Williams has no science to back him up

    The imbecile is on record as having claimed that sea levels are going to rise by 100 metres.

    He’s an utterly discredited taxpayer funded leech who needs to be sacked with extreme prejudice from his comfy sinecure at the frigging ALPBC.

  116. m0nty

    Monty, while there are some young, would be third raters, soon to be unemployable, who would like to be called scientists, studying “climate science” as such, the bulk of the work in the field has been carried out by physicists, mathematicians, chemists, meteorologists, geographers(Phil Jones and Judith Curry), geologists, geophysicists and computer science types who just happen to be working in that field. As a theoretical physicist GrantB would be quite capable of gaining employment with any number of teams working on climate science and it doesn’t take anybody with a hard science degree long to do some reading and come up with a good grasp of the current state of the field.

    This is laughable. The vast majority of IPCC authors are meteorologists, with only a scattering of other disciplines. You will note a distinct lack of actual meteorologists who doubt AGW, a small fraction of 1% of published papers in the field. Compared to a real meteorologist, Grant is no more qualified as a specialist with his theoretical physics PhD than I am with my BA degree.

  117. m0nty

    Compared to a real meteorologist, Grant is no more qualified as a specialist with his theoretical physics PhD than I am with my BA degree.

    As a specialist on AGW, to be clear. I’d be fascinated to hear his thoughts on how the universe started. :)

  118. harrys on the boat

    m0nty again loses credibility and the argument through his own hypocrisy, ignorance and the fact his base is complete bollocks.

    Its pitiful.

  119. Sinclair Davidson

    m0nty – nobody is interested in Grant. Talk more about Williams’ claims that deniers are pedos.

  120. cohenite

    The vast majority of IPCC authors are meteorologists, with only a scattering of other disciplines.

    Another lie from a complete fuckwit.

    You’re an irritant monty; you have no understanding of AGW yet you persist in demonstrating your ignorance at every opportunity.

  121. Infidel Tiger

    mOnty is now quoting mOnty?

    If we buy him a mirror perhaps he’ll leave us alone.

  122. johanna

    Trolls still evading the central issue, I see.

    What do you suppose would have happened if Alan Jones or Andrew Bolt had made such a comparison to their political opponents?

    The luvvies would have been writing and speaking about it for weeks, as a sign that civil political discourse has finally given up the ghost.

    As we have discovered time and time again, it’s different when they do it.

    These are the people who, not satisfied with $1bn a year for the ABC, want taxpayers to cough up even more for “quality journalism” as punters do not consider it worth paying for. Punters (via advertisers) do consider Alan Jones worth paying for. The definition of “quality journalism” seems to be what people value so little that they are not prepared to pay for it.

    I look forward to a statement from Maurice Newman, soon.

  123. Mk50 of Brisbane

    Monty:

    Underwater sonar is different to infrasound through the air, Gab

    Actually, no. ‘Infrasound’ is really a buzzword for low frequency sound. It translates quite nicely across the air-water interface.

    Anyone who has spent time in the submarines knows this. We routinely tracked Tu-142 Bear F/J anti-submarine aircraft using the passive arrays and that was thirty years ago. With the processer power these days they are probably tracing MPA half an ocean away.

    What does not translate well across the interface is high freq.

    Monty demonstrates his scientific illiteracy once again!

  124. Zatara

    Interesting how this topic has brought the narciscism and Global Warming religious fundamentalism of some to the forefront.

    It is apparent that at least one of them cannot do a proper internet search even when prompted with the search terms. One has to wonder what source spoon feeds him the memes to inspire his religious fervor.

    Not since Bill Clinton have we had someone so dedicated to change the meaning of the written and spoken word. To apply different standards depending on whom is speaking.

    Amazing times we live in.

  125. Big Jim

    The left is fine with anti-scientific positions, as long as they are aesthetically pleasing or politically expedient. The ‘universal equality of man’ is one such proposition thriving despite boundless empirical evidence for the contrary.

  126. Eyrie

    Yes Monty, I used to be a meteorologist and worked in atmospheric science. I think AGW is a steaming pile of horseshit designed to fool the very gullible like you.

  127. Eyrie, it’s done very well hasn’t it?
    I wonder what the next Cult will be?

  128. manalive

    Williams’s attack on Newman is disgraceful.
    Williams and Lewandowsky seem to think that the assertion: “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” is a scientific axiom or general physical law comparable to say Newton’s Laws of Motion, derived from empirical observation (which it isn’t).

  129. Tel

    Guys you are missing the obvious. China and India are not about to cut their carbon footprints, and the USA is not about to be outdone by China and India (regardless of who might be President). So therefore the CO2 levels will continue rising.

    So we wait and we find out who is right, and by how much. End of story. Nothing more to do here.

    If we want to live with less carbon as an experiment in alternative lifestyle, I’m up for it. National poverty would stop the boats from coming, and I’ll bet we could all do to lose a bit of weight.

  130. Jarrah

    “Williams is not saying sceptics are pedophiles, he is saying they are as bad and as destructive.”

    He didn’t say that either. You just quoted what he said, which backs me up and proves Gab wrong.

    Contrary to her assertion, there was no comparison to p*dos and drug and asbestos pushers. Contrary to your assertion, he is not saying how “bad and destructive” sceptics are compared to p*dos and drug and asbestos pushers. He’s saying some sceptical claims are as ridiculous as saying asbestos is good for asthma.

    It’s right there in plain English, people.

  131. Jarrah

    “comparable to say Newton’s Laws of Motion…(which it isn’t)”

    The “very likely” part kind of gave that away.

  132. Gab

    Talk more about Williams’ claims that deniers are pedos.

    Sinclair Davidson

    26 Nov 12 at 1:05 pm

  133. Bill

    Sure, live your own life as you see fit Tel. But dont tread on me.

  134. Harold

    Even as an analogy the statements don’t match up with anything a skeptic would say.

    Robyn’s analogy takes the form “something really bad is actually good”.

    Skeptics say “something [claimed to be] bad is most likely highly exaggerated”.

  135. johanna

    Jarrah, I have no idea what planet you live on, but it is clearly not one that teaches or understands English.

    Williams drew a direct parallel between people who support pedophilia, those who would advocate giving asbestos to asthmatics and people who disagree with his views on climate.

    If you don’t have a problem with this, would you be OK with the senior science reporter on our national broadcaster making similar comparisons with people that you agree with?

  136. manalive

    Williams knows that any mention of pedophilia, in any context, is highly emotive and to mention anyone by name, even tangentially, is very cowardly and probably risky.

  137. manalive

    …risky for the taxpayer that is.

  138. scotty

    “It’s difficult to hold a conversation with someone who openly states falsehoods based on ignorance, and then attacks you for going ad hominem if you point it out”

    Trust us monty, after trying to have a rational debate with you we definitely know how it feels to try and deal with someone openly stating falsehoods, for example:

    “The vast majority of IPCC authors are meteorologists, with only a scattering of other disciplines. ”

    Another howler from you monty, that’s total BS.

  139. Jarrah

    “Williams drew a direct parallel between people who support pedophilia, those who would advocate giving asbestos to asthmatics and people who disagree with his views on climate.”

    I would like to visit your planet, johanna, since it is clearly exotic and unusual.

    Read the original post. It’s right there at the top of the page. Williams draws a direct line between “outrageous” claims like asbestos is good for asthma and the inexpert statements from some sceptics. At NO POINT does he say sceptics are p*dos or advocate asbestos inhalation.

    What he’s pointing out is that statements normal people would find outrageous and totally contrary to fact and evidence, like smoking crack is just fine for teenagers, are of an equivalent outrageousness as some statements about climate change, when compared on evidential grounds.

  140. m0nty

    m0nty – nobody is interested in Grant. Talk more about Williams’ claims that deniers are pedos.

    Sinclair, if you are going to state deliberate falsehoods like that, it’s no wonder that the rest of them pick up on it and repeat them. You set the tone, and the tone you set is one of denial.

  141. Jarrah

    Talk more about Williams’ claims that deniers are pedos.

    Sinclair Davidson

    26 Nov 12 at 1:05 pm

    Don’t make fun of our host, Gab.

  142. Pingback: Scientists at Catallaxy Files

  143. JC

    Sinclair, if you are going to state deliberate falsehoods like that, it’s no wonder that the rest of them pick up on it and repeat them. You set the tone, and the tone you set is one of denial.

    You need to lose at least 50K before you go sermonizing/snarking and hope to be taken seriously, Fat Boy.

  144. Samuel J

    Well ‘climate science’ is more like a religion. It does not produce testable hypotheses. It acts on faith. It has all the hallmarks of a religion.

  145. Jarrah

    “It does not produce testable hypotheses.”

    Utterly, completely, 100% false. Probably ignorance, rather than a lie.

  146. Sinclair Davidson

    Climate ‘science’ doesn’t have controlled experiments either.

  147. Jarrah

    “Climate ‘science’ doesn’t have controlled experiments either.”

    False. If you mean scientists can’t have controlled experiments that encompass the entire globe’s weather, well duh.

  148. Samuel J

    Utterly, completely, 100% false

    A bit ott hey?

    Give me a testable hypothesis from that field.

  149. Sinclair Davidson

    If you mean scientists can’t have controlled experiments that encompass the entire globe’s weather, well duh.

    :) Not having a good day are you?

  150. Samuel J

    Jarrah – you’re writing nonsense.

    False. If you mean scientists can’t have controlled experiments that encompass the entire globe’s weather, well duh.

    How is it ‘false’ then? Sinclair is right – there are no controlled experiments. Perhaps it is impossible to have controlled experiments in climate ‘science’. Just like it is impossible to have a controlled experiment on whether God exists. Some questions remain out of reach (with today’s technology and knowledge). It is hubris to suggest that critics of the methodologies used by climate analysts (which I consider flawed and unscientific) to be wrong. Perhaps it is impossible to determine the future of climate – in which case so be it. I think the system is too chaotic to be modelled. Modelling is not and never will be a controlled experiment.

  151. JC

    SamJ

    I know the early experiment was pretty basic, however lab studies do indicate that increases in C02 has a warming effect.

    I know it’s not the atmosphere, but it does show this.

  152. Cold-Hands

    The computer climate models relied upon by the soi disant climate “scientists” are wonders of fudge factoring and special pleading. None of them can accurately hindcast, so it is beyond belief that their forecasts are worth attention- let alone basing the energy policy of a nation or world on these fantasies. All the climate computer models predict a troposheric “hot spot” as the hallmark of CAGW yet such an animal is yet to be discovered despite millions of weather balloons designed to find it. With observational data that casts doubt on the CAGW hypothesis, continued adherence to the dogma does smack of religious belief.

  153. John Mc

    False. If you mean scientists can’t have controlled experiments that encompass the entire globe’s weather, well duh.

    And yet scientists like physicists and chemists produce replicable controlled experiments that conclusively explain phenomena throughout the universe!!

  154. Samuel J

    JC – yes the effect of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) on temperatures in particular environments is well accepted. In a closed system, an increase of CO2 in an atmosphere will lead to an increase in temperature (other things equal).

    But that is as far as it can be taken. The earth is not a closed system. We cannot conduct a controlled experiment on the earth as a whole, nor can testable hypotheses be made. All the rest is speculation.

  155. Cold-Hands

    nor can testable hypotheses be made.

    Actually, testable hypotheses can be made. The tropospheric hot spot is one such hypothesis. Unfortunately for believers in CAGW, most of the observed data disproves their hypothesis, which is why we see the BoM etc massaging data to suit their beliefs.

  156. JC

    SamJ

    Couldn’t the entire atmosphere be considered a closed system?

    Honest question.. nothing leading in it.

  157. Samuel J

    JC – no I don’t think so. The earth is affected by the sun for example.

    I think that ‘climate science’ is the biggest threat to science since the inquisition.

  158. JC

    Yea I guess you’re right SamJ. Part of the atmosphere is also leaked into space and there are other interactions too.

  159. Eyrie

    JC, Earth both receives energy from outside (the Sun) and radiates energy to the rest of the universe. No closed system.

  160. manalive

    lab studies do indicate that increases in C02 has a warming effect …

    That effect is universally accepted and diminishes logarithmically in that each doubling of the CO2 concentration would cause about 1C in the atmosphere sans-feedbacks.
    The IPCC assumes in their models of future T trends that the feedbacks (water vapour as humidity and clouds which are impossible to model) magnify that direct effect.

    Empirical evidence from the past 100 years of increasing CO2 levels (whatever the cause/s) suggests that the assumptions are exaggerated.

  161. Sinclair Davidson

    I think that ‘climate science’ is the biggest threat to science since the inquisition.

    Well, no. At least the Inquisition got to torture a few scientists.

  162. Samuel J

    Careful Sinc! I said ‘biggest threat since the Inquisition’ not ‘bigger threat than the Inquisition’! :)

  163. Jarrah

    “Give me a testable hypothesis from that field.”

    If I do, will you admit you were 100% wrong?

    “How is it ‘false’ then?”

    Because they conduct controllable experiments all the time. The only way Sinclair’s assertion could even start to make sense is if he thought climate science examined whole systems only, so I addressed that possibility with the respect it deserved.

    “the methodologies used by climate analysts (which I consider flawed and unscientific)”

    Pardon my French, but what the fuck would you know? You aren’t even aware of the basics. Yet you arrogantly declare such absurdities like there are no testable hypotheses in climate science.

  164. manalive

    This graph shows the cumulative observed logarithmic effect of CO2 (including feedbacks) compared to the IPCC models.
    As an aside it also illustrates CO2 = pollution nonsense; apart from being essential plant fertilization, without the CO2 greenhouse effect the surface of the Earth would be at -32 C.

  165. Jarrah

    “it also illustrates CO2 = pollution nonsense”

    Anything can be a pollutant. It’s context- and dose-dependant.

  166. Samuel J

    Jarrah – I know models. I know how they work, their weaknesses and their strengths. They are not testable hypotheses.

  167. Gab

    “it also illustrates CO2 = pollution nonsense”

    Yes, even the National Pollutant Inventory doesn’t list CO2. And it’s particularly annoying that gillard and her cohorts refer to CO2 as C.

  168. Eyrie

    manalive, no it would not. This is a water planet. At -32 deg C the water would be frozen. No clouds. One heck of an increase in solar forcing (about 40% compared to today due to lack of reflection of incoming solar radiation). Ice eventually melts, water vapour enters atmosphere, “greenhouse effect”. Temperature rises some more. CO2 is a bit player. Once more, this is a water planet.

  169. Eyrie

    One more thing. If Co2 is so good as a greenhouse gas please explain why the greenhouse effect on Mars is so low. To save Jarrah and Monty’s time, yes I know the atmosphere is thin but when you do the calculation, there is about 25 times as much CO2 over each square meter of Mars as there is over each square meter of Earth’s surface.

  170. Jarrah

    “Jarrah – I know models. I know how they work, their weaknesses and their strengths. They are not testable hypotheses.”

    Unfortunately, you seem complete ignorant of the fact that climate science isn’t just models. No wonder you make such primary-school mistakes. It’s an embarrassment to the blog.

    “If Co2 is so good as a greenhouse gas please explain why the greenhouse effect on Mars is so low.”

    CO2 isn’t the only greenhouse gas, and certainly isn’t the most potent.

  171. Pingback: Will Maurice Newman be Australia’s Lord McAlpine? II at Catallaxy Files

  172. Pingback: Quick tell the ABC II at Catallaxy Files

Comments are closed.