It’s not easy being non-green

I went along to hear ex-Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore last night and a very rewarding evening it was. A fellow Canadian and from our west coast so I may even have travelled in the same circles during the dropout stage of my life in the early 70s. I certainly knew whereof he spoke. I encourage you to go along, and also catch up with him on Andrew Bolt tomorrow. He has a roadshow presentation which you can hear for yourself, so I will stick to the Q&A which was as interesting as the rest. And if you are of the opinion you have heard it all before, you may have but I hadn’t so it may be worth your while. He has also not yet been scheduled for an interview by the Trotskyists at the ABC.

First my own question, which is something that worries me a very great deal. Moore presented a long line of statistics and other evidence, some I was familiar with and some I wasn’t, in large part pointing to the fraudulence of the global warming scam but also dealing with other areas of the environmental movement and the massive damage it is causing. So my question was to point out that anyone who has the inclination to follow the evidence and look at the data has already caught on and understands there is nothing to concern us. What, therefore, do you think, I asked, about green policies really being a form of religious observance, not science based, and therefore unreachable by the use of rational argument. To which he replied:

“I have no answer.”

I think that is the same answer I have and it is the essence of the problem. There is always some stray fact or random event that will keep people who desperately want to believe the worst about our way of life from straying from the fold. There are no crucial tests they set themselves. There is no actual standard, such as actually seeing whether or not temperatures have actually risen, which you would think ought to be fundamental. To a true fundamentalist there is no evidence actually required. The old cartoonist standard of the old man with the “we are doomed” sign is the mainstream. We live in an age of faith and nothing is allowed to disturb that faith.

The other answer to a question I found interesting was about why the environmental movement has been able to maintain such a strong position in spite of the massive harm it does and the absence of any serious factual basis for their claims. This was his answer:

There is a great convergence of our elites, each of which sees advantage to themselves in promoting and going along with the environmentalists:

1) the greens
2) politicians
3) the media
4) the grant-seeking academic community
5) businesses who want to look green as a promotional activity
6) most religions

That is a formidable combination that, quite frankly, I don’t see any prospect of defeating. In more authoritarian regimes green politics is a nullity but here in the West, I can see it is one more reason to believe we are at the end of time. It is only the fantastic cost to individuals that may eventually slow but never stop the damage being done. When your electricity bill is $1000 a quarter, there may be some reconsideration. In the meantime, I might go and get myself one of those “we are doomed” signs for myself.

If you would like to see Patrick, this is where you still can while he is in Australia. Also on Andrew Bolt tomorrow, at 10:00 am. A very good speaker and comes with the authority of someone who has been there and knows where all the bodies are buried.

Where you can still see Patrick Moore in Australia

MELBOURNE
27 Oct. 12 for 12:30 The Australian Club 110 William St 2-course lunch $110 p.p. (dress code)

CANBERRA
30 Oct.

1st Session 2-3pm afternoon tea 3-30 pm,
2nd session 3:30- 4:30 pm

Hughes Community Centre Wisdom Street, Hughes
$20 donation ($10 for students) requested plus $2 for afternoon tea payable at the door

PERTH
1 Nov.
1st meeting 4 – 5pm (GM crops) C3 Church, 94 Waratah Ave. Dalkeith.
2nd meeting 5:30 – 7pm (Climate), C3 Church, 94 Waratah Ave. Dalkeith
a $20 donation ($10 for students) is requested to cover costs – covers both sessions.

HOBART
3 Nov. TO BE ADVISED.
Please register your interest in the Hobart event with Garth Paltridge ([email protected])

BRISBANE
Nov. 5th 7 for 7:30, Irish Club 175 Elizabeth St. A $20 donation at the door is requested to cover costs.

NOOSA
Nov. 6th 5 for 5:30, TheJ, 60 Noosa Dr, Noosa Heads
To book for this event, just click on:
http://sa2.seatadvisor.com/sabo/servlets/EventSearch?presenter=AUNOOSHI&event=mse0611

a $20 donation will buy a ticket.

This entry was posted in Cultural Issues, Global warming and climate change policy. Bookmark the permalink.

81 Responses to It’s not easy being non-green

  1. Tapdog

    There is a great convergence of our elites, each of which sees advantage to themselves in promoting and going along with the environmentalists:

    1) the greens
    2) politicians
    3) the media
    4) the grant-seeking academic community
    5) businesses who want to look green as a promotional activity
    6) most religions

    To that list you might add ‘the zero population growthers’ . The warmist agenda exerts direct downward pressure on the rate of world population growth.

  2. egg_

    There is a great convergence of our elites,

    A “convergence” of vested interests is not a conspiracy?

  3. ChrisPer

    Its not a conspiracy if they dont have to agree to act in line with shared self-interest.

  4. egg_

    Its not a conspiracy if they dont have to agree to act in line with shared self-interest.

    WTF?
    A much maligned word, from which the guilty hide behind IMHO.

  5. duncanm

    This is why the ex-Eastern bloc countries have been best at rejecting the green mantra.

    They know totalitarianism when they see it.

  6. duncanm

    Its not a conspiracy if they dont have to agree to act in line with shared self-interest.

    You’re correct. They’re more like a bunch of different parasites feeding on a common host.

  7. steve

    the main disappointment that I have is the gullibility of the populace. Why do we not question? Why is support for these causes higher among the young, the future of the country. It saddens me and makes me wonder about the future, not sustainability of the environment, but the future of the intelligent homo sapiens.

  8. sfw

    In many people no matter how intelligent, there is a need to believe. Not so long ago this need was filled by god, now a sort of primitive belief in nature and natural things takes its place. Those who not so long ago would have become Methodist ministers now adopt the green faith. It has no official creed, no hierarchy just a feeling that things are wrong and that those who believe can save us all. This urge to save and convert the heathen is strong in some, so is the desire to dominate and control. The only way that the green belief movement can change is if they adopt another form of religion.

    In the 1920’s a lot of young and not so young intellectuals entered the catholic church, I believe that in the next ten years or so that a number of intellectuals and those who have the “need to believe” will convert to islam. This will not be a good thing, having two nihilistic religions competing for dominance.

  9. blogstrop

    There is a great convergence of our elites, each of which sees advantage to themselves in promoting and going along with the environmentalists:

    1) the greens
    2) politicians
    3) the media
    4) the grant-seeking academic community
    5) businesses who want to look green as a promotional activity
    6) most religions

    Of these, the one that can do most to reverse the damage is the media. Some of them will try, the vast majority will not. In a PC world they hold sway unless something drastic happens to change that climate.

  10. James of the Glen

    ” He has also not yet been scheduled for in interview by the Trotskyists at the ABC”.

    How could that happen? There is wall to wall mourning for Kim Il Gough, no program is spared, no network immune.
    This morning, Classic FM has its funereal female presenter bravely intoning more crap about their dear leader.
    Surely, there’s a contest for who can wring their hands most painfully, weep the loudest and longest, and seek out how KIG changed their lives for the better. And Scotty is watching.
    A Global Warming apostate? No chance.

  11. egg_

    the main disappointment that I have is the gullibility of the populace. Why do we not question?

    Because “four thousand humourless guys in white coats” say so.
    Appeal to authority.
    Master manipulator Krudd knows a sucker when he sees one.

  12. Andrew

    I once had a filthy swampy (who was 45yo with a responsible job so appeared to have a functioning frontal lobe) argue “what if we’re wrong about AGW? What’s the harm in building some renewables?”

    This was during Gillard’s CEF, where it was OFFICIAL GOVT POLICY to donate $57bn pa, or $1tr total, to OS interests for nothing back. A TRILLION FUCKING DOLLARS and his position was “what’s the harm if that money is for no reason?”

    Anyhow, while we will be catastrophically damaged, it won’t be over while there are other countries more stupid than us. So yay Obama!

  13. Alex Davidson

    When your electricity bill is $1,000 a quarter…

    It already is for many in NSW, but I don’t see it making any difference. Yes, it upsets people, but what can you do?

    This sort of thing, combined with other nonsensical steps OUR authoritarian government has taken, e.g. the ban on phosphates in washing powder which means you can’t get things clean unless you go to the trouble and expense of adding the missing trisodium phosphate yourself, has materially reduced our standard of living.

    But as you say, we are living in an age of faith – gaia-worship – and it is indoctrinated into our young very early on. Little hope of change in my lifetime unless things really start to fall apart.

  14. el gordo

    Good story, but not sure if Aunty’s cadre are Trots or just part of the broader pseudo left.

    It was Patrick Moore and World Climate Report which saw me cross the floor on climate change in the early 1990s and I’ve been a social pariah ever since.

  15. siltstone

    Re: 5) businesses who want to look green as a promotional activity

    There are a lot of foolish people at the head of large companies these days, they think they can dismount the tiger when it suits them. Most have never heard of IV Lenin, nor the words “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them”.

  16. JL

    1) the greens
    2) politicians
    3) the media
    4) the grant-seeking academic community
    5) businesses who want to look green as a promotional activity
    6) most religions

    To that list I think you have to add “the politcal left” generally. I know many lefty people who do not belong to 1-6 who are devout warmers.

  17. stackja

    Steve I took the link url and added to this comment.

    NOOSA
    Nov. 6th 5 for 5:30, TheJ, 60 Noosa Dr, Noosa Heads
    To book for this event, just click on: linky
    a $20 donation will buy a ticket.

  18. ProEng

    I would not be so pessimistic. Geoffrey Blainey in his book “The Great Seesaw” outlined periods of optimism and pessimism in the period 1750-2000 and also mentioned periods such as the “Golden Age” and the “Dark Ages” in earlier history. I suggest that cycles are happening quicker. Look at the 20th century. Starting with optimism and growth (Australia was the top country on a GNP/capita basis around the turn of 1900), then the first world war, the growth and fun of the 1920’s, the depression in the 1930’s, the second world war in the 1940’s, the growth from reconstruction in the 1950’s, the peace of the 1960’s which was the start of a longer cycle of decline. The 1970’s brought Whitlam, and the oil crisis, some recover and hope in the 1980’s but ending with a stock market collapse. The 1990’s had the Asian financial crisis and a turn around towards the end. The mid 2000’s saw the election of Obama, Rudd and a mess in Europe. USA and Europe are on the way down as powers. The Egyptians were a force over a thousand years, the Romans were a power over five hundred years, the British maybe 150 years, the USA will be a dominant power under 100 years. China is already the major power in the world and India is just starting its climb ( a notable feat to have a rocket circling Mars) India and China are happy to let the western world financially bankrupt themselves through the environmental movement.

  19. JohnA

    We live in an age of faith and nothing is allowed to disturb that faith.

    Steve, we live in an age of irrational faith.

    Following Francis A Schaeffer, (Escape From Reason) I suggest that we are at the bottom of a decline which began in the 18th century when philosophy tried to separate faith from reason.

    Until then the Christian church had portrayed (with varying degrees of faith-ful/less-ness) a rational faith, which began with a minimum set of assumptions:
    a) God exists
    b) He created ex nihilo a rationally organised universe
    c) within that universe humanity could exercise a circumscribed free will, and their actions had consequences

    Then applying logical thought, humanity could grasp absolute truth (in part) by means of rational enquiry in scientific, historical and religious terms and retain such knowledge

    The end result of the separation of faith from reason is the death of philosophy and of everything else, including real environmentalism. Instead of being accountable in concrete terms as trustees to a Creator for the world we live in, there is only the need to preserve the planet for posterity in a future made meaningless by the philosophical materialism essential to the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm currently holding sway.

    THAT is why he had no answer for you.

    THAT is why nothing is allowed to disturb “the faith” – disturbing it will bring the whole house of cards crashing down.

    THAT is why the West is so vulnerable to the attacks of an irrational ideology like Islam.

  20. 70s Playboy

    I went to the Thursday night presentation at Five Dock RSL – great presentation, feels rock solid positioning to me.

    Makes me feel a little less crazy and Dr Moore gives some great arguments to throw back at the catastrophists.

    My only problem is the use of the term “elites”. That is not a term that I would apply to “activists” who infest the offices of NGOs, political backrooms and public service bureaucracies.

    Perhaps “scum” would be a more appropriate term?

  21. bingbing

    Can we thank ISIS and Ebola for delaying Obama’s latest Green push?

  22. nerblnob

    India and China are happy to let the western world financially bankrupt themselves through the environmental movement.

    Surely the only reason they turn up at climate summits is to urge more self-harm on the West?

  23. PeterK

    I just finished reading an article at:

    http://www.martindurkin.com/blogs/nazi-greens-inconvenient-history

    and can only conclude that Hitler would be proud of the ‘Green Movement’ today.

  24. buckshot

    I posted this link on another thread, but probably more appropriate here.

    According to the IEA, all of the alternative energy efforts over the past 22 years has amounted to nothing. Globally, we still emit the same CO2 per unit energy produced as we did back in 1990.

  25. Boambee John

    “My only problem is the use of the term “elites”. That is not a term that I would apply to “activists” who infest the offices of NGOs, political backrooms and public service bureaucracies.”

    What we have is a self-selected “gentry” of tertiary trained (I won’t say educated), largely publicly funded (via the public service, universities and NGOs that receive government funding or tax exemptions), individuals and groups that wish to re-impose feudalism, with themselves in the position of the old aristocracy.

    Perhaps they should consider the date “1792” as a cautionary tale (not a threat, just a warning).

  26. incoherent rambler

    1792 – May 12th – Toilet that flushes itself at regular intervals is patented.
    Are you suggesting a flushing at regular intervals?

  27. old bloke

    There is a great convergence of our elites, each of which sees advantage to themselves in promoting and going along with the environmentalists:

    1) the greens
    2) politicians
    3) the media
    4) the grant-seeking academic community
    5) businesses who want to look green as a promotional activity
    6) most religions

    I think school teachers also figure largely in the anti-scientific brigade pushing the CAGW agenda,

    Some businessmen also promote the scare, not to “look green” but to fleece the ignorant. For example, John Hewson, Al Gore and the Member for Goldman Sachs, Malcolm Turnbull.

  28. Rabz

    Of these, the one that can do most to reverse the damage is the media. Some of them will try, the vast majority will not. In a PC world they hold sway unless something drastic happens to change that climate.

    Shutting down the frigging ALPBC and forcing Fauxfacts into bankruptcy (and yes, it can be easily done) would be two very concrete ways to start reversing the damage.

  29. Rabz

    Shutting down the three FTA commercial channels and SBS would also help. They all propagate wall to wall leftist horse manure.

  30. Patrick James

    @old bloke.

    I am one school teacher who directly contradicts the crap of AGW. The students have it shoved down their throats from all sides. I delight it being one of the few dissenting voices. Instead of watching “An Inconvenient Truth” I get my students to watch “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. I also promote the virtues of the free market over the redistribution of wealth nonsense. My students get a taste of Von Hayek, Friedman and Sowell. I don’t what they make of it, but at least they are getting another side apart from the Marxist crap.

  31. What is missed in all of this, and was missed by Moore in his answer to one of Steve Kates’ question last night, is that there is a way to defeat “green policies” that are not scientifically-based, including policies derived from the theory of anthropogenic global warming. The answer is in promoting and supporting alternatives, because, as I wrote in the IPA Review last year, history shows that failed scientific paradigms are only ever replaced, they are never disproven… more details here http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/10/patrick-moore-nothing-new-offer/
    … IPA article here http://ipa.org.au/publications/2216/competition-in-climate-science

  32. Ian Hore-Lacy

    I thought Patrick’s response last night on the religious/ ideological line was disappointing. There is much to tease out on this, as I have attempted to do in a 2006 book, and am developing further from a specifically Christian perspective. Can send later MS if anyone interested – 11,000 words.
    There is some good insight in some comments above – I left too early (to catch a train) to hear the convergence of elites bit, but the IPA highlights that routinely. I dont think fundamentalist Islam is on the same trend at all.
    I hope Jennifer M is right, and will read her links. Certainly she has made some great contributions to public debate in recent years.

  33. David Brewer

    There is a great convergence of our elites, each of which sees advantage to themselves in promoting and going along with the environmentalists:

    1) the greens
    2) politicians
    3) the media
    4) the grant-seeking academic community
    5) businesses who want to look green as a promotional activity
    6) most religions

    He left out the most important – bureaucrats in every department, but especially Treasury, Education, Energy, Foreign Affairs. They are the ones who spread this nonsense into every corner of our lives.

  34. Alfonso

    Indeed, the ones that precondition wonderfully and makes possible the deep Alinskyists is the Teacher’s Union, they’re 1+).
    “Give me a child until he is X and I’ll give you the man.”

    And the Libs in power don’t give a rat’s arse.

  35. old bloke

    Patrick James
    #1491856, posted on October 25, 2014 at 5:20 pm

    Strength to your arm, I’ll drink to your health.

  36. old bloke

    Alfonso
    #1491953, posted on October 25, 2014 at 6:53 pm

    My point exactly. It takes years (if at all) for former students to shake off their childhood indoctrination.

  37. jupes

    The answer is in promoting and supporting alternatives, because, as I wrote in the IPA Review last year, history shows that failed scientific paradigms are only ever replaced, they are never disproven

    Jennifer, I am not a scientist, however according to my small knowledge of science surely it is not up to skeptics to disprove AGW, it is up to them to prove it. As is obvious to anyone who looks at the actual evidence, they have manifestly failed to do so.

    Therefore rather than look around to replace a theory that has been used to implement billions of dollars worth of useless policies, all we should have to do is expose AGW for the failed theory it is. To that end, the tour by Moore is a good thing. The fact that he had something to do with Greenpeace defuses any claim that he is a shill for ‘Big Oil’, other than that it is irrelevant.

    I think the tour by Moore is valuable because it chips away at the ridiculous belief in AGW in our society. His debate on Richo and Jones the other night was the best debate on AGW that I have seen. He beclowned the Climate Council numptie opposing him.

    It will be a long war, but the tour by Moore will be a worthwhile battle.

  38. Bruce of Newcastle

    What is missed in all of this, and was missed by Moore in his answer to one of Steve Kates’ question last night, is that there is a way to defeat “green policies” that are not scientifically-based, including policies derived from the theory of anthropogenic global warming. The answer is in promoting and supporting alternatives,

    Jennifer – Dr Moore answered “I have no answer” to Steve’s question about “green policies really being a form of religious observance, not science based, and therefore unreachable by the use of rational argument”. Previously though he has said this about CAGW activism and the green movement:

    It is a kind of nasty combination of extreme political ideology and a religious cult all rolled into one, and it’s taken over way too much of our thought process and way too much of our priorities.

    I agree with him. The data is so clear that CAGW is precluded by real world climate processes that groups like the UK Met Office and NASA GSFC have started to acknowledge the ocean cycles and the solar modulation of cloud cover (ie the Svensmark mechanism). They have done so reluctantly, and in the case of the ocean cycles the UK Met Office and other IPCC insiders like Meehl et al 2014 are only invoking them for the pause, and ignore their contribution (nearly 70%) to rising temperatures during 1970-2000.

    Although some climate people are starting to grudgingly accept what we have been saying the green movement has not. They have adopted CAGW as a doctrine of their religion and nothing will bring them back to sanity.

    The only thing that will work is a serious decline in temperature which is clear and unquestionable. Which is going to happen due to the solar grand minimum and ocean cycle down phase. When it does the result will be that more sane and reasonable people in the green movement will lose interest and spall off the hard core, which will become a small closed cult ignored by the mainstream. You cannot convince the fanatics, but you can so discredit them that the less mad ones find excuses not to turn up to the meetings.

  39. Leo G

    ” …as I wrote in the IPA Review last year, history shows that failed scientific paradigms are only ever replaced, they are never disproven… ” – JM

    Specious theories of anthropogenic global warming have had a habit of being replaced by more of the same.
    More than two centuries ago astronomer and discoverer of infrared radiation William Herschel promoted the hypothesis, supposedly supported by solar observations, that the sun was inhabited by human-like creatures beneath its atmosphere who controlled solar output for the benefit of mankind.
    Fourier later promoted the idea of adverse anthropogenic warming effects for partisan political reasons.
    Arrhenius based a carbon dioxide theory of global warming on the then Kinetic Theory Of Gases, despite the latter theory already being falsified by Maxwell.
    Callendar resurrected it in the 1930s, conceding that increasing atmospheric CO2 with three decades without warming falsified his theory.
    Hansen and others at NASA ignored the fate of Callender’s theory to reintroduce the theory which now faces the same falsification. NASA’s self-interest, in promoting a great new scientific endeavour to maintain its budget at the end of the space race, is rarely mentioned.

  40. jupes

    When it does the result will be that more sane and reasonable people in the green movement will lose interest and spall off the hard core, which will become a small closed cult ignored by the mainstream.

    We can only hope.

    Before that politicians have to call bullshit on AGW and admit they were wrong. The only way for that to happen is to ridicule the dickheads espousing AGW. Every single day.

  41. Jupes, Leo, et al.

    Hope is not a solution… and you clearly have never read Thomas Kuhn…

    Scientific disciplines are always underpinned by theories that collectively define the dominant paradigm. In the case of modern climate science that paradigm is AGW. It defines the research questions asked, and dictates the methodology employed by the majority of climate scientists most of the time. AGW may be a paradigm with little practical utility and tremendous political value, but it’s a paradigm none-the-less.

    It is promoted by the IPCC and national and international organisations such as the Australian Academy of Science, World Meteorological Organisation, the Royal Society in the United Kingdom, and the National Academy of Sciences, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in the United States.

    Can you tell me one scientific organisations with any standing that disputes it… questions this paradigm in any significant way?

    And do you think they are going to listen to Patrick Moore?

  42. Tom

    From Jen Marohasy’s link to what she wrote today at her own blog:

    Moore actually optimises everything that I find increasingly frustrating about being a sceptic who is trying to achieve something positive.

    In my opinion very little progress has been made towards a new theory of climate, an alternative to anthropogenic global warming, because most sceptics, and also the institutions that support scepticism of anthropogenic global warming, won’t invest in the same. They prefer to claim we are dealing with an essentially chaotic system, rather than consider what a new theory of climate might actually include.

    These are the frustrations of an actual, real scientist who loves science. How can we advance climate science? Why isn’t our knowledge moving forward?

    What Jen has no time for and, hence, doesn’t understand is that the CAGW believers are not fellow scientists at all, but political activists, who entered the field to “prove” a pre-held prejudice (which exists for a number of psychotic reasons): that the human race is bad for planet earth, that the human race is stupid and worthless, that human civilisation is evil and, just coincidentally, the solutions are identical to those preached by Marx and Engels. Therefore we need to change human society to a communist totalitarian experiment that punishes individual thought and champions collectivism.

    The problem isn’t scientific, but political. The CAGW cabal is a community of political activists, not scientists.

    Climate science cannot progress as a discipline until its ideals are scientific, not political. That means tipping out all activists who think that climate science is an extension of student politics. And, unfortunately, it has been overrun by them.

  43. egg_

    He left out the most important – bureaucrats in every department, but especially Treasury, Education, Energy, Foreign Affairs. They are the ones who spread this nonsense into every corner of our lives.

    +1

    That’s why the-hole-in-the-Ozone-layer, UN climatastrophe mark I, lost traction: no trough.

  44. Tom

    The reason why the CAGW believers can’t let go of their spurious invention isn’t just because they are fashion victims of a religious cult: it is because to do so would let the other side win in a tribal war. For progressives, the people who run the world — a group from whom they still exclude themselves, even though they have been gifted a dangerous amount of political power — are in their minds the “far right” — that is, the exact opposite of themselves, the far left. The lack of self-awareness of these psychotic hyper-idealistic delinquents would make me laugh, were it not for the fact that the institutions which they have infiltrated and poisoned now how so much power over the rest of us.

  45. jupes

    And do you think they are going to listen to Patrick Moore?

    Nope. While they are receiving tax-payer’s funds they are going to ignore everything he says. They may just be a little bit worried about him though, because they did send some numptie to debate him on Richo and Jones the other day. I suspect they are even more worried about you though.

    Let me congratulate you here for your investigation of the BOM homogenization at Rutherglen. BTW where are you at with that? Haven’t seen it in the news for a while.

    My opinon is we don’t need a new theory. We need people like you and Moore exposing the scam for what it is.

  46. Rabz

    Tom – stop being so pessimistic – we are winning, Squire.

  47. Rabz

    My opinion is we don’t need a new theory hypothesis.

    Fixed.

  48. This time, right fred!!

    People make the same mistake with the Greens as they do with Muslims – they start with rationality as a basis for all arguments. Muslims are beholden to concepts of honour and shame (which certainly has a cultural aspect to it), however, because leftists are from the same culture, we assume they are rational like us.

    But they are not. In the same way Muslims put honour and shame before logic, leftists put feelings, hence their own view of morality, above logic. This explains quite simply how they, having been presented with the facts and shown to be wrong, still persist with their own view of morality. Simply put, their feelings trump logic. And hence, like Islamists, the only time logic overrides feelings is when the cold fish of reality smacks them in the face. This explains why leftists are invariably well off, because simply, they can afford to indulge their idealism. Islamists also happen to be well-off, so the common denominator is not religion or ideology per se, but simply being afforded the time and expense to indulge their fantasies (which is what they are).

    Haven’t we all met the odd person who we thought would, if given the chance, become a murderer if given the chance? All they need is a “reason”. Leftists and those with leftist tendencies are simply those who would do harm to varying degrees if given the chance. You know it makes sense.

  49. Tom

    stop being so pessimistic – we are winning, Squire.

    Yes, but the war is civilizational.

    Who would have known it would come to this — The beneficiaries of the Enlightenment wanting to go back to the Dark Ages of institutional ignorance. There is a name for that: mental illness.

  50. Tom

    The Beer Whisperer
    #1492059, posted on October 25, 2014 at 8:32 pm

    Excellent post!

  51. Michael Spencer

    I was sitting there mentally going ‘tick, tick, tick!’ as Patrick made his various points. One of the questions raised the religious position, and it was Patrick who said that the Catholic Church actually did some REAL science – perhaps it learned something from the Galileo debacle! It reminded me that one of the best-researched and intelligent dissertations on the global warming/climate change/climate whatever-is-politically-correct-right-now was the 2011 Global Warming Policy Foundation Annual Lecture at Westminster Cathedral Hall, London given (one would think perhaps “of all people”!) by Cardinal George Pell. Needless to say this caused much angst and attempts to ridicule from the usual suspects.
    Perhaps if you haven’t done so you might check it out! It’s a big surprise in its’ accuracy, and you can then understand why the usual suspects were so concerned about it – it was telling the truth, and that would never do!
    Some readers of this blog might do me a favour – because I am looking for feed-back – by downloading and checking a little something I’ve been assembling over the past five years. and yes! Dr Patrick Moore features in it here and there, together with a few other luminaries, including Al Gore. I try to be fair!
    It’s a huge interactive slide show that I hope might go some way towards enabling our ‘computer-savvy’ propagandised youth to ‘check things out for themselves’. You may download it from http://www.galileomovement.com.au/media/ReconsideringClimateChange.ppsx.
    If you don’t get at least one laugh I’ll be disappointed!
    I try to be fair: there’s alarmist material, but there are also critiques and analyses revealing who or what backs the alarmists. Surely ‘big oil’ wouldn’t feature – would it?
    Take a look …..

  52. Boambee John

    incoherent rambler
    #1491763, posted on October 25, 2014 at 4:05 pm
    1792 – May 12th – Toilet that flushes itself at regular intervals is patented.
    Are you suggesting a flushing at regular intervals?
    IR:

    That would be a useful activity, but (as I’m sure you guessed) was referring more to the French Revolution.

  53. hzhousewife

    The Beer Whisperer
    #1492059, posted on October 25, 2014 at 8:32 pm

    Excellent post!

    Quite frankly, I think what you have written BW has finally explained
    to me why I am the Black Sheep of my family. I simply don’t think in the
    same way they do.

  54. If you are interested in booking the lunch at The Australia Club, please email [email protected] for booking details.

    The ABC have finally agreed to interview Patrick. Jon Faine has been allocated the task of trying to smear Patrick, Monday morning 9.00 – 9.45 (approx). Not to be missed!

    Paul Evans
    Tour Organiser

  55. Leo G

    “It is promoted by the IPCC and national and international organisations such as the Australian Academy of Science, World Meteorological Organisation, the Royal Society in the United Kingdom, and the National Academy of Sciences, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in the United States.” – JM

    Enough to reflect that Feyerabend may have been on-the-mark, that we need a separation of Science and State the same way we now have a similar separation of Church and State.

  56. duncanm

    Moore’s direct impact on the AGW cabal may be minimal – but it will be much greater in the lay population. I’m talking about all those people who haven’t (yet, ever?) engaged their brains to question the orthodoxy.

    That someone with his background is belling the cat must make more take notice; shining light on the issue is all it needs.

  57. Hey Paul Evans

    Have the ABC agreed to interview Patrick Moore because he was the co-founder of Greenpeace?

    I can’t image that they have agreed to interview him on the basis of any new publications he might have in the area of climate science? New research he is undertaking in the area of climate science? Is he doing any research in this area?

    Perhaps he has found a new example of homogenisation? Then again, the ABC is not interested in homogenisation. Perhaps the ABC have decided that if they interview Moore, they can say they have interviewed a sceptic this year.

    Perhaps the ABC is going to interview him on another subject? Perhaps they are going to ask his current position on whaling? I wonder if he has the same position on whaling that he had back when he started Greenpeace?

  58. egg_

    Haven’t we all met the odd person who we thought would, if given the chance, become a murderer if given the chance? All they need is a “reason”. Leftists and those with leftist tendencies are simply those who would do harm to varying degrees if given the chance. You know it makes sense.

    Shame is what is said to drive NPD; those with the worst cases become criminals, the others just skirt this side, but they have no moral compass/empathy.

  59. None

    I’m going to have to agree with Jennifer – but only to a degree. The confluence of
    1) the greens
    2) politicians
    3) the media
    4) the grant-seeking academic community
    5) businesses who want to look green as a promotional activity
    6) most religions
    doesn’t leave much scope for who and how one could present an alternative!

  60. Re Moore not having an answer for that.
    Rather than say AGW is like a religion, or indeed that religion is like AGW, perhaps they are both like a third thing. And maybe everything that people ever argue about is like this thing.
    It is the sorting of interests into loci (cults, religions, movements, political parties, demographic groupings, gangs, families), based on allegiances, animosity, vilification, the creation of symbols to which respect must be paid and to which any offense will be punished. Perhaps everything is like that.
    Sadly we have seen the institution of science – specifically the trappings, the appearance and the superficial authority without any of the substance and results – co-opted, and that is also now the name of a cult in full flight, fitting in with and/or battling all the others, and making alarming progress in repositioning itself as some sort of mechanism for determining public policy.
    Science is just a method of asking questions and interpreting actual data that seems to obtain the most useful answers. The RACV man working out why your car won’t start, the order in which he checks things is science. But the knowledge he seeks is not new so it isn’t news.
    There is no raging public debate about gravity, or whether it is best to look both ways before crossing the road. There is agreement and knowledge based on empirical observation and repeated verification.
    These days whenever anyone says “Don’t you believe in climate change??” I respond “Not only do I not believe it, I also don’t believe you do either” Because if you ask them to tell you why they do believe, they will ramble along and soon hit a brick wall consisting ENTIRELY of appeals to authority, confirmation bias, untestable propositions etc. Just like every religion.
    Perhaps everything we argue about falls into that category.

  61. Excellent post!

    Fortunately, the only indication of my non-sobriety at the time was my tendency to repeat myself. I clocked up half a dozen simplys and chances in just a couple of paragraphs. Damned annoying in the sober light of morning.

  62. I simply don’t think in the
    same way they do.

    We accept that men and women think differently in certain ways, but we have difficulty accepting that people of different cultures can also think very differently. The challenge with lefties is understanding that different natures can also make people think differently. Artistic types see the world differently as well, so it’s no wonder that they have a higher propensity to being leftist.

  63. OldOzzie

    What do you mean

    When your electricity bill is $1000 a quarter, there may be some reconsideration. In the meantime”

    My last quarterly Electricity Bill was $1058

    and thanks to Green Loonies and their No Shale Oil/Gas Mining in NSW, my last Quarterly Gas Bill rose 20.45% on all Gas Base Rates

    Cannot understand why anyone with any brains votes Green

  64. plain sense

    There is a great convergence of our elites, each of which sees advantage to themselves in promoting and going along with the environmentalists:

    1) the greens
    2) politicians
    3) the media
    4) the grant-seeking academic community
    5) businesses who want to look green as a promotional activity
    6) most religions

    Oh really? You seriously believe that all these groups of people are motivated entirely by self-interest? Isn’t it a lot more probable that they have been convinced by the overwhelming evidence from scientists who genuinely know what they’re talking about? How ironic that the skeptics opt for the more improbable explanation!

  65. plain sense

    you are correct, it is more probable that these groups have been convinced by science…

    but this science is flawed.

    the only way to progress the issue now is to show the flaws in the science…

    … but history would suggest this is only successful, the flaws only become evidence, when an alternative scientific paradigm can emerge.

    so sceptics should be looking to back those doing genuine and relevant research that provides an alternative… and to promote the same…

    but perhaps sceptics need to first admit that AGW actually represents a scientific paradigm, and that the politics, economics and religion that has followed is built on this foundation?

    you can attack the politics, economics, religion and activism… but it draws its strength ultimately from the (flawed) science.

  66. jupes

    …the only way to progress the issue now is to show the flaws in the science…

    True. That’s what Moore is doing. Sure, he’s mainly preaching to the converted but he is chipping away at the authority of the concensus ‘scientists’. You are doing a great job of this as well. Thank you for that and keep up the good work.

    … but history would suggest this is only successful, the flaws only become evidence, when an alternative scientific paradigm can emerge.

    Well history may say that, but I disagree. I don’t understand why an alternate scientific paradigm is required if the theory of AGW has been debunked. Surely that is enough and it will be, once enough people understand that it is comprehensively flawed.

    Most warmists only subject themselves to sycophantic interviews so they don’t have to debate skeptics and their supporters in the media avoid interviewing skeptics for obvious reasons. You would know this more than anyone.

    Moore has already had a televised debate with a Climate Council numptie on Richo and Jones and utterly beclowned him. Now he will be on Faine’s program. Obviously Faine thinks he will be able to beat Moore in a debate but I doubt it. Moore’s message – while not new – is compelling.

    you can attack the politics, economics, religion and activism… but it draws its strength ultimately from the (flawed) science.

    So once the majority of people understand that the science is flawed, then it loses its strength. Moore is contributing to this. Good on him.

  67. egg_

    How ironic that the skeptics opt for the more improbable explanation!

    Yet more ironic, the “confluence” conspiracy theory.
    Maligned again – geddit?

  68. Jennifer,
    Patrick is an infectious public speaker with an incredible ability to call scientific details and data, he also has a PhD in Ecology, with a deep understanding of CO2’s role in the carbon cycle.

    Maybe you could have asked Patrick to discuss the BOM homogenisation issues on your behalf as he travelled through Australia, discussing climate science with the who’s who of Australian business, politics and journalism?

    We would have certainly agreed for you to attend some of these meeting if you had asked to ensure that your view was heard.

    His sensible environmental approach to issues, his eventual rejection of Greenpeace’s unscientific approach and successful environmental consultancy work has opened doors in Australia that has been firmly to sceptics.

    Maybe you could be a little more constructive about the organisers use of Patrick as a way of communicating the scientific debate of climate change to Australians. Why not work with us to make it even more successful?

    Paul

  69. Paul Evans

    I understand that Patrick Moore is a popular speaker. So is Al Gore.

    PS. Do you think Fred Pearce accurately describes the impact of Greenpeace in the 1970s when he writes: “Greenpeace was far from being the first green group to oppose whaling. But it was the first green group to ignore the scientific arguments about whale reproduction rates, population dynamics, and how large a sustainable cull might be, in favour of an undiluted ethical argument: save the whale. The media war was effectively reduced to the simple issue of whether or not whales are good”.

  70. cohenite

    The answer is in promoting and supporting alternatives, because, as I wrote in the IPA Review last year, history shows that failed scientific paradigms are only ever replaced, they are never disproven

    Jennifer, I am not a scientist, however according to my small knowledge of science surely it is not up to skeptics to disprove AGW, it is up to them to prove it. As is obvious to anyone who looks at the actual evidence, they have manifestly failed to do so.

    I would interpret what Jennifer says in this way. Why AGW has been so successful is not because it is scientifically valid, it most certainly is not. But what it is: is a cause.

    Saving the planet, validating a sense of morality, establishing a sense of superiority, making money, all have galvanised into a locus where a mass of people can feel vindicated.

    That is a resource; that energy needs to be redirected without those participating losing face. This is not a situation where people can be reasoned with.

    I don’t know what the replacement is except that it is not an alternative climate theory; perhaps colonising saving Mars from some equally dreadful prospect as offered by AGW?

  71. Bruce of Newcastle

    Isn’t it a lot more probable that they have been convinced by the overwhelming evidence from scientists who genuinely know what they’re talking about?

    Plain Sense – I am a scientist of thirty years good standing, and I know the data. CAGW is not consistent with the real world evidence. Of course I do not get paid to say this…unlike the climate scientists of the ‘consensus’ whose mortgages ride upon their being paid for their work.

    Equilibrium climate sensitivity after you remove the influence of the Sun and the ocean cycles is under 1 C/doubling. Which, if you can do logarithms, is harmless.

    Its notable that Judy Curry has a new paper out showing that the ocean cycles, if accounted for, drop ECS by half from the IPCC value. If the solar contribution via the Svensmark mechanism is also included, her value would drop by half again. That would bring it very close to my own value (0.7 C/doubling) derived from 250 years of the HadCET dataset.

    CAGW is precluded by the real world data, so any action to reduce CO2 emissions therefore is immoral.

    Of course I am keen to discuss with you the science, the papers and the primary data.

  72. ProEng

    Bruce, I know you mean well but it is clear you are not an engineer who has qualifications and experience in thermodynamics and heat & mass transfer. There is no CO2 sensitivity for two good reasons a) using the Hottel equation the absorptivity of CO2 at the present concentration level and at double to present level is so small to be unmeasurable b) the few CO2 molecules in the atmosphere will eventually radiate to lower temperatures surfaces and absorbing gases in space (as is shown by satellite measurements ie emission at around 220K to 4K of space). As Patrick Moore said on the Bolt show that there has been no (measured ) atmospheric temperature increase while (measured) CO2 levels have gone from 300ppm to 400ppm. That proves the engineering science knowledge that the sensitivity (as defined by climate alarmists) is zero.
    Please forget what Judith Curry or Dr Lindzen may say about sensitivity -neither has engineering qualifications. Dr Lindzen has been asked if he has consulted with the Hoyt Hottel Professor of Chemical Engineering at MIT -just an embarrassing silence.

  73. A Lurker

    (Repost from the Open Thread)

    Just read a note on my Facebook newsfeed (from The Galileo Movement) that Jon Faine from the ABC has pulled a sickie and has supposedly postponed his interview of Patrick Moore.

  74. Bruce of Newcastle

    I know you mean well but it is clear you are not an engineer who has qualifications and experience in thermodynamics and heat & mass transfer.

    Good joke ProEng…I’ve been doing thermodynamics and process modelling for twenty years. Full plant models, correct operating temperatures and pressures, the whole thing.

    Your comments are quite possibly valid, but I leave open the question that ECS is above zero. What I maintain is any value below 1 C/doubling is harmless. Zero C/doubling is also harmless. It is needless to argue about whether it is zero, one or in between.

    If you look at my model the ECS is from the residual (in the stats sense). It is consistent with an ECS of 0.7 C/doubling, but the residual contains numerous climate forcings: land use changes, UHIE, TOBS issues, volcanoes etc. Also CO2, methane, SF6 and etc. So ECS could be zero, but its a moot point.

    Keep in mind that ECS aggregates all feedbacks, known and unknown, not just radiatively based ones. For example if CO2 has an aqueous chemistry related effect on cloud seeding then you will have a sensitivity from that which is not a heat transfer process – its a diffractionary one.

  75. Hey Cohenite

    You have misinterpreted my pleading… it is actually for an alternative theory of climate… a new paradigm.

    More here… http://ipa.org.au/publications/2216/competition-in-climate-science

  76. A Lurker

    I’m not surprised the gatekeepers are working to ensure that Patrick Moore has limited opportunity to speak directly to the public.

    Until the gatekeepers have their confidence in AGW effectively challenged this situation will continue.

    So,to quote from my IPA article… Those who want to see AGW theory discarded need to increase their expectations of climate science and in particular demand some practical benefit from the billions of dollars spent on the development of the General Circulation Models (GCMs) that underpin AGW theory.

    More here… http://ipa.org.au/publications/2216/competition-in-climate-science

  77. Bruce of Newcastle

    Jennifer – I personally think the GCM’s will do a lot better if they include the solar effect on cloud coverage and the ocean cycles.

    We’ve already seen in the last year or so both the UK Met Office and Meehl et al showing that inclusion of the ocean cycles allows the pause to be more or less replicated. However neither went as far as saying that the cooling influence which explains the pause also was a warming influence during the period 1970-2000.

    But inclusion of the PDO and AMO into models by climate insiders is encouraging. If they now add the Svensmark/Kirkby mechanism that would allow the in-model ECS to be dropped to a low number, aerosol forcing to be likewise dropped also to a realistic number (since its used to force-fit the model output now) and cloud forcing should rise to its real number rather than the low value now included.

    When all the significant variables are allowed to operate without being squeezed by a too-large CO2 sensitivity I suspect the GCM climate modelling performance will improve enormously. Unfortunately the GCM people are extremely reluctant to do this work because the logical result of proving CO2 is harmless is they will have their budgets cut.

  78. jupes

    Those who want to see AGW theory discarded need to increase their expectations of climate science and in particular demand some practical benefit from the billions of dollars spent on the development of the General Circulation Models (GCMs) that underpin AGW theory.

    Please no. I don’t want one more cent spent on climate models of any stripe. I want the models to be put back in the toybox.

    And the last thing we need is a model-off between the believers and the skeptics.

  79. johanna

    While I understand (and respect) Jennifer’s point, the approach of debunking bad science has finally been reaping dividends. But it is indeed primarily a political phenomenon. Otherwise, it wouldn’t ma, and tter much. Scientists are always having brawls about this and that, and it usually has no effect on public policy.

    There is no need for a comprehensive theory of climate to be developed in order to put a stop to what are manifestly dodgy theories that are taking money out of the pockets of people in rich countries and keeping the poor, poor.

Comments are closed.