Senator Steve Fielding - Leader of Family First
Copenhagen done and dusted
Posted by Senator Steve Fielding on December 22 2009 | 101 Comments
The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference has come and gone and we can all breath a sigh of relief now that the circus is finally over.
As I predicted would happen all along, the conference ended in shambles without any real agreement reached between the parties and without any real commitment by any country to significantly reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. The only thing to come out of it was a non-binding agreement between the various nations which was more tokenistic than anything of any real substance and this just adds further justification for the Senate’s decision to reject the Rudd Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS).
Just imagine if the CPRS had passed and the Copenhagen conference had ended up like it did with no agreement. The Australian economy would be on the road to self-destruction. Thousands of our jobs would be booted offshore, not to mention the increase in the cost of living because of the tax imposed by the CPRS. Estimates have it that the CPRS would be like having a GST at 12.5%. That’s a pretty cruel joke to play on the Australian people especially when the rest of the world isn’t ready to act in the same way.
But what this whole issue really highlights is the arrogant nature of the Rudd Government. Clearly the Rudd Government only acts in its own interests instead of putting the interests of the Australian people first. Why else would the PM be so intent on ramming something through Parliament like a CPRS?
Put simply, Kevin Rudd likes to stand on the international stage with a ‘look at me’ attitude. That’s not right and the people of Australia shouldn’t have to tolerate it.
Links to pornographic websites have been posted on the website of Family First Senator Steve Fielding.
The links, in Russian, were posted on a public forum section of the senator’s website in February, but were not detected until a northern Tasmanian man alerted the ABC.
Senator Fielding wants the Australian Federal Police to investigate the links.
He says he is disturbed by the breach as some of the links are connected to Russian websites that involve children.
Comment by Spatch. on 23 March 2010 at 10:54:17 PM
Busker, ref. your comment on 22nd at 08:38:33 PM, thanks for the information on the IMF’s involvement with the UN’s con trick over catastrophic/dangerous human-made global climate change arising from our use of fossil fuels. We did debate the IMF’s activities earlier this month on Senator Fielding’s “Climate Change” thread (Note 1 - I’m having difficulty viewing those “have your say” threads today, getting a screen saying “You are not authorized to view this forum” so if you get in OK plase would you let me know). May I suggest that you post your comment on that thread also. Of course you’ll get supporters of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis ridiculing you with “conspiracy theorist”, “nutter”, etc. etc. etc. but that is the penalty we pay for being sceptical and thinking for ourselves.
Talking about QUOTE: the “powers that be” are getting frustrated at their lack of success in implementing a global tax UNQUOTE relates to a Euro-Med article “How Edmund de Rothschild Managed to Let 179 Governments Pay Him for Grasping Up to 30% of the Earth” (Note 3) that Peggyb yesterday provided a link to. This covers the subject of implementation strategies for developing a Global Government starting with QUOTE: 4th World Wilderness Congress in 1987, that CO2 is the cause of a non-existent global warming - and that combating it needs money (our money), he founded the World Conservation Bank for this reason. In 1991 its name was changed to The Global Environment Facility (GEF). The purpose of this facility is to lend money to the poorest countries, printed by the IMF out of thin air, and with the guarantee of our governments. UNQUOTE. “Powers that be” such as Rothschild, Maurice Strong, David Rockefeller, William Pizer, James A Baker III, Oleg Deripaska, George Soros, Obama, even The Devil, are all mentioned in the article.
Have a read as I’m sure that you’ll find it interesting.
Thanks for the other comments and link to The Lima Declaration, all of which are in lone with my own opinions.
NOTES:
1) see http://www.stevefielding.com.au/forums/viewthread/125/P7530/
2) see http://euro-med.dk/?p=13656
3) see http://euro-med.dk/?p=13656
Best regards, Pete Ridley, human-made Global climate change sceptic
Comment by Pete Ridley on 23 March 2010 at 08:57:12 PM
Great entry, Pete Ridley, refs your parts one and two. I’d like to add to your post if I may….
Firstly, it seems that the “powers that be” are getting frustrated at their lack of success in implementing a global tax via the “Carbon Dunnit” agenda. Their frustration seems to have surfaced in the guise of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the IMF, who has proposed a 100 billion dollar global fund (read tax) in lieu of the intended carbon tax.
Please read the article here:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/imf-head-calls-for-huge-global-warming-slush-fund.html/print/
Secondly, at the risk of sounding a little off-topic I’d like to raise a point regarding globalisation as I think that “carbon dunnit” and globalistation are related - to achieve the same end.
My understanding is that the origins of the carbon dunnit agenda originate some time before 1975. This I think is interesting as it was round about that time that the agenda for globalisation first surfaced in the form of the LIma Declaration.
Apparently an off-shoot of the UN, namely “UNIDO” was charged with the task of coming up with a plan to redistribute wealth across the planet (or some such thing). This was in ‘73 I think. Then in 1975 a convention was held in Lima, Peru to reach an agreement on such a plan. The outcome of that meeting was the so-called “Lima Declaration”.
I have tried to obtain a copy by searching the UN website. I can find references to it (i.e LIMA DECLARATION AND PLAN OF ACTION
ON INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION) in UN documents but I have not been able to locate the document itself on the UN website.
But check this out: http://www.netbay.com.au/~noelozzy/hansard/limafull.htm
This is very important as the Lima Declaration provided the blue-print for globalisation.
Interesting when you consider that all those things that have punished the west, including Australia, like sending jobs off-shore, which we were told were all “just the way of the world”, were actually carefully thought out and acted upon by successive governments of both “sides” (I put “sides” in inverted commas intentionally).
IMO the carbon dunnit agenda is just a way of allowing the mega rich / powerful to play nation against nation - allowing them to move wealth around the planet at will. All under the guise of some quasi-socialistic idea of re-distributing wealth to help the poor.
Now I’m going to REALLY stick my neck out here.
During the time of the Lima Declaration Gough Whitlam was PM - I think he sent a delegate, but Australia did not sign the dec. So he and his government would have been familiar with the tenets and the background of the Lima Declaration.
I can’t help but wonder whether actions that he took while in governement was to protect Australia as he could see what was coming (probably well before the meeting in Lima) - and I also cannot help but wonder whether the reason that things went so terribly wrong for him was because he was seen as anti-globalistation - or at least a threat to the progress of globalisation.
Comment by Busker on 22 March 2010 at 08:38:33 PM
Phil (AKA Stormboy), considering the nature of recent statements I choose not to respond on this public forum, it being prudent to keep comments of such a nature private between us. I have sent my response to the E-mail address for you that has been made available to the public at the UNSW@ADFA site and have marked it “STRICTLY PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL To Philip ….”. I invite you to respond privately to that using my E-mail address.
Comment by Pete Ridley on 15 February 2010 at 08:04:26 PM
PART 1
Copenhagen may be “done and dusted” but this certainly doesn’t apply to the UN’s agenda for the:
- redistribution of wealth from developed to underdeveloped economies,
- establishment of a framework for global government,
- enhancement of the finances of a privileged few.
That disciple of the UN climate change religion, the BBC said (Note 1) QUOTE: The future of the UN’s role in international climate deals is now in doubt. UNQUOTE. Hopefully yes, but although the UN may have lost the “Battle of Copenhagen” another is lined up. From the Euractive article (Note 2) it seems that the EU, which has been the most aggressive supporter of the UN climate change propaganda, is eager to charge into the “Battle of Mexico City”, the intended venue for COP16 (Note 3).
Should the human-made global climate change war be lost (thanks to all of those IPCC-gates) the UN and its supporters are ready. They have already started the propaganda for the next war. You’ve probably heard of The Robin Hood Tax. As I said on Phil’s Bloodwood Tree blog (Note 4) QUOTE: This is a development of the Tobin Tax proposed by Fidel Casto at the UN’s 2001 World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. This would provide the UN with a trillion dollars annually.
The new name is The Robin Hood Tax on banks, being touted all around the globe now, using celebrities to help push the propaganda.
If the can’t tax CO2 then use the banks as a tax collector from their customers. These politicians really are conmen. UNQUOTE.
This is just another scheme (more appropriately scam) for transferring wealth from developed to underdeveloped economies. It proposes a tax on inter-bank transactions that would raise billions a year. It is claimed that it would not cost the general public anything, as it would only apply to banks. What sponsors choose to keep hidden is that any such tax will ultimately be paid for by bank customers – the general public.
Banks, like any other commercial organisation, must make a profit and it is their customers who provide those profits. Everything is done for that one end. Failure means the end of the business.
Banks make voluntary charitable contributions out of those profits. Reduced profit (e.g. through increased taxation) = less money for charitable donations and other luxuries. Donations reduce and are not fully compensated by the redistributed tax. There is the added expense of administering the tax collection plus diversion of funds to other “more pressing” matters (like expenses). The result is that the charities end up with less donations than they would otherwise receive, not only from the banks but also from the general public, who have less money from which to make their voluntary charitable contributions.
This is nothing more than a scam because effectively what is doing is forcing people to make contributions to charities without having any say in which charity gets the aid - another stealth tax. It may not be obvious but this scam is closely related to the UN’s human-made global climate change scam. It involves the same sponsors and the same agenda.
Comment by Pete Ridley on 15 February 2010 at 06:31:06 PM
PART 2
Following the signing of the UN’s Copenhagen Accord at the end of its miserable COP15 fiasco, instead of seeking agreement on a global tax on carbon dioxide, the Robin Hood Tax offers the next opportunity for forcing the agenda (Note 5). The UN propaganda is intensifying, based upon the need to control the global banks for fear of economic catastrophe (instead of controlling the emission of CO2 for fear of a global climate disaster). Watch out for identical scare-mongering tactics. Media hype is being ramped up (today’s BBC, Independent, Sky, Sun, etc. etc. etc) headed by, you guessed it, The Guardian (Note 6) but not one is honest about its objectives and effects.
Driving this media hype is writer-director Richard Curtis (6) QUOTE: Barnardos, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Salvation Army and the Trades Union Congress. He has also lobbied senior Labour and Conservative figures and roped in his long-time collaborator Bill Nighy to star in a short film to promote the tax plan. UNQUOTE. There is an A/V available but this skit is nearer the mark (Note 7).
But behind it all is the UN, which has been cultivating the seeds sewn in 2001 by Cuba (Note 8). QUOTE: Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, addressing the UN’s World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, in Durban, South Africa, in September, 2001, proposed a Tobin tax that would provide the UN with a trillion dollars annually. UNQUOTE. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Al Gore, Maurice Strong, etc. are to be found deeply involved (financially) in this.
BTW, when “Googling” for information on “after Copenhagen” I came across this ludicrous statement (Note 9) QUOTE: CNN spoke to climate change expert Mark Lynas UNQUOTE. Having carefully reviewed Mark’s propaganda booklet “Six Degrees .. “ (and challenged him over it’s numerous distortions and omissions) and many of his pronouncements on his blogs and in the media, in my opinion, Mark is even less of an expert than I am (and I’m no expert).
NOTES:
see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8423822.stm
2) see http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-change/commission-wants-quick-follow-copenhagen/article-188908
3) see http://unfccc.int/meetings/unfccc_calendar/items/2655.php?year=2010
4) see http://bloodwoodtree.org/2009/12/16/not-so-wonderful-copenhagen/#comment-23370
5) see http://www.touchstoneblog.org.uk/2010/02/carbon-diary-robin-hood-to-rescue-climate/
6) see http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/feb/09/tobin-tax-nighy-curtis-film
7) see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzZIRMXcxRc
8) see http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/2901-qtobin-taxq-and-un-global-taxman-making-a-comeback.
9) see http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/science/01/04/climate.mark.lynas/index.html
Best regards, Pete Ridley, human-made Global climate change sceptic
Comment by Pete Ridley on 15 February 2010 at 06:30:45 PM
IMPORTANT
Mr Ridley willingly admitted (http://bloodwoodtree.org/2009/12/16/not-so-wonderful-copenhagen/) that he spent four hours on the net hunting down my last name along with the names of my wife and children, photos of them and their activities, He also made it clear that he had contacts close to where I live. All of this was presented in a friendly “be more careful” kind of tone and was about as comforting as finding that someone had broken into your house and left a note in your child’s bedroom saying “you should check the kids more often”.
People will find photos of your kids if there are any out there in newspapers, on Facebook etc. But when someone deliberately searches for them because they are angry and use it to win an argument, that person is demonstrating sociopathic behaviour. I encourage you to report immediately to the administrator if Pete Ridley or anyone else on this blog starts pushing you for more information about yourself or using this to argue with. Don’t fall for the con “I want to understand you to debate you”. Debate with facts and use reason, that’s all that’s needed.
Comment by Stormboy on 14 February 2010 at 08:23:48 AM
Further to the comment on 11th February @ 11:36:24 by Phil (AKA Stormboy) and my comment yesterday, Phil and I have been continuing debating on his evangelical site The Bloodwood Tree (Note 1). Anyone interested can go there to see the exchanges. To whet your appetites I copy what may well be his final response to me, but others may wish to join in debate with him. Please note that I am only using extracts of what I consider important here. The full context is available on Phil’s blog and this will help you to understand how Phil distorts the facts.
QUOTE: Pete, I have spent months trying to reason with you on Steve Fielding’s blog. It was only after you consistently responded to rational questions and responses with increasingly personal and bizarre attacks on my life, my family and my Christianity that I confronted your tactics as dishonest and wrong. ….. I gave you your last chance (post 4) to demonstrate that you were sincere about genuine debate by posting “answers relevant to the topic”, but yet again you responded with nothing but a show of power. It appears that you may have done the same to others on Steve Fielding’s blog who have changed their tags because of harassment by someone there. I think I have been naive in thinking that you were merely dishonest; it appears that you have a criminal edge to you and I will be investigating what further action I need to take. You certainly will not be posting again on this blog. UNQUOTE.
I have found my exchanges with Phil very enlightening, not about climate processes and drivers but about the tactics used by some in order to drive home their message. I find debate with Phil very similar to the debates that I have with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Many who are sceptical of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis liken supporters of The Hypothesis to religious zealots. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about Phil.
NOTES:
1) see http://bloodwoodtree.org/2009/12/16/not-so-wonderful-copenhagen/#comment-23358
Best regards, Pete Ridley, human-made Global climate change sceptic
Comment by Pete Ridley on 14 February 2010 at 12:26:40 AM
PART 2
QUOTE: “The people came to Moses and said, “We sinned when we spoke against the LORD and against you. Pray that the LORD will take the snakes away from us.’ So Moses prayed for the people. “The LORD said to Moses, ‘Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.’ So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, he lived.” Numbers 21: 7-9 UNQUOTE (Note 2).
NOTES:
1) see http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/agbio-articles/GM-food-nothing-new.html
2) see http://bible.org.nz/content/view/36/44/
Best regards, Pete Ridley, human-made Global climate change sceptic
Sorry about this piece being out of place.
Comment by Pete Ridley on 12 February 2010 at 03:13:38 AM
PART 1
miked, that commercial would be funny if it wasn’t so close to the truth (“there’s many a true word spoken in jest”). On the subject of GM foods, haven’t humans been genetically modifying crops and livestock since the beginning of farming? It seems to me that the human race has benefited enormously from these 1000’s of years of improvements (Note 1). I support your concern about the effects of depleted uranium and any other harmful pollutants or toxins emitted by the military, industry or nature itself, but the truth about CO2 is that it is not a pollutant. It is an essential, life-supporting substance without which life on earth would not exist as we know it. In addition, plants thrive when atmospheric concentrations rise, the optimum in commercial greenhouses being maintained at about 1000ppm, well above present atmospheric levels and well below levels that are dangerous to humans.
Phil (AKA Stormboy) so once again, having slithered into the debate, spat your poison, wriggled and turned to avoid accounting for your actions, you slink off into the undergrowth. I propose to take up your resemblance to “the serpent” on your own evangelical site The Bloodwood Tree, but here let me consider some of the points in your last comment.
1) Your QUOTE: I happily admit that you did not use the actual words and I am sincerely sorry for using the word “statement” rather than “suggestion” or “assertion”. UNQUOTE did not come QUOTE: .. of writing fast when you have too much else to do. UNQUOTE. It was a deliberate dishonest attempt to undermine my credibility. Your apology was not voluntary, rather you were obliged to make it or completely lose your own credibility here. What you had said was a total fabrication which anyone here could verify for themselves.
2) Your QUOTE: .. have I entirely misunderstood you .. UNQUOTE is simply further wriggling, because you deliberately twisted what I said to suit your own purpose, again to try to undermine my credibility. All that you have achieved is to undermine your own further. It is absolutely clear that following the refusal of peers who supported the UN’s IPCC propaganda to review Dr. Nicol’s paper (which he tried repeatedly) I also attempted the same. Both of us tried very hard, repeatedly. In an ideal world scientific papers would be peer reviewed by open and honest peers who are only interested in the pursuit of scientific understanding then published in a respected and unbiased scientific publication. Unfortunately, as “Climate gate” has shown, we do not live in an ideal world. In any (but particularly our real-world) circumstances this should not deny anyone the right to present what they believe to be true opinions/arguments. Others have the opportunity to assess these and make up their own minds. Debate is not something permitted only for “experts” in the particular subject under consideration. You should be fully aware of this, being someone who argues in support of something that cannot be proven, the existence of a benevolent super power.
3) Until I can get sight of the earlier exchanges on the “Penny Wong” blog I cannot be certain about our direct exchange of views, however, having re-checked my posted comments it is probable that I was wrong about that. Presently it appears from my records that we had our first direct exchange on 6th July as you said. I have strong recollection of not knowing anything about your Bloodwood Tree blog until you pointed to it in the “Penny Wong” blog, hence I believed that we had exchanged comments there before 6th July. It looks as though we had both been debating there but not directly and did not exchanged comments there until your comment of 06 July 2009 at 10:20:22 pm. I unreservedly apologise for my claim that you lied about that. That allegation of mine was not done for devious reasons, merely to honestly support my counter to your QUOTE: I do still explicitly accuse you of dishonest conman tactics UNQUOTE. I consider such a statement to be far more insulting and unwarranted than my QUOTE: Phil is being equally gullible with regard to the UN’s climate change propaganda UNQUOTE.
4) QUOTE: Changing the subject to attacks on people’s personal lives seems to be the foundation for the denialist argument UNQUOTE but equally or even more so for the DAGWer argument.
5) I am much more interested in finding out why a DAGWer maintains their faith in the IPCC after all of those “IPCCgates” that are being exposed than being able to QUOTE: show how a denier maintains their faith UNQUOTE. I am also very interested to understand why a believer in a benevolent superpower maintains their faith, but that debate is to be had with the Jehovah’s Witnesses (or on blogs like The Bloodwood Tree – see you there again perhaps).
Comment by Pete Ridley on 12 February 2010 at 03:12:06 AM
What is clear is that the science is far from settled and there are serious allegations of fraud on an issue that would have a massive impact, environmentally and economically on the entire globe. It is encumbant upon all of us to investigate the truth and be open minded to whatever the result may be. In the meantime enough of the Green Gestapo (http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/801.html) there are real environmental issues that require action, such as unlabelled and open planting of GMO foods, Depleted Uranium being fired off everywhere (including Australia) and toxic waste dumping, get angry about those issues and let the truth come out about Co2
Comment by miked on 11 February 2010 at 11:40:44 AM
Pete, I happily admit that you did not use the actual words and I am sincerely sorry for using the word “statement” rather than “suggestion” or “assertion”. Comes of writing fast when you have too much else to do. Would either of these words be accurate or have I entirely misunderstood you and you actually think Nicols, Plimer, Evans, Nova etc should submit their work to genuine journals before arguing from it?
As for the date of July 6 which is the earliest record it seems either of us can find of an interaction between us, I’m not too sure how this amounts to a lie? Do you have an earlier date, or was your accusation of me lying perhaps just a bit of a deviation from the subject? Perhaps not even…true?
Just to be clear, I do still explicitly accuse you of dishonest conman tactics; but if you can show me how my tag, my Christianity, my parent’s previous occupation, the number of people that post on my blog, whether you approve of a social conscience or not or when our first interaction was are important information for people trying to work out whether the science supports AGW or not, I’ll be happy to hear it. Perhaps you could put a case together in a journal article and blow the whole thing out of the water! Changing the subject to attacks on people’s personal lives seems to be the foundation for the denialist argument so you may be able to articulate it for everyone. If you don’t think you have enough information on my personal life yet to completely demolish the AGW argument, perhaps you could hire a private investigator to hack into my emails or spy on me - you might find something like my full first name is Philip (with 1 ‘l’ mind you) not just Phil! Stormboy-gate! This could be it!
I might leave you to it though Pete as I think I’ve given you ample opportunity to leave your lasting stamp on this thread and show how a denier maintains their faith. Probably best if you post something really long and juicy after this so that people are less likely to read back down the trail.
Comment by Stormboy on 11 February 2010 at 11:36:24 AM
Phil, once again you shy away from the truth. Both explicitly and implicitly you have accused me of being dishonest on numerous occasions. Every time that I challenge you to justify your allegation you shift to something else. Your accusations have been false and it is for that and your lying that I would hope that you, claiming to be a Christian, to say QUOTE and I sincerely apologise UNQUOTE. Let me have that first, then we can return to reasoned debate and I’ll once again answer your question about John Nicol’s paper, peer review and my attitude towards it, as well as comment on your claim that I use dishonest tactics.
The specific lie and false allegations that I am referring to are your claim on:
1) 09 February 2010 at 06:53:37 that QUOTE: our first interaction UNQUOTE occurred on July 6th, 2009 at 5:22 pm on your Bloodwood Tree blog.
2) 10 February 2010 at 07:17:50 AM that I QUOTE: You made the statement … that Nicol did not need to get his paper reviewed in a genuine journal. UNQUOTE. (Note that I have transposed two of your sentences. You probably would accuse me of using dishonest tactics doing that, but you’d be wrong as usual).
3) 10 February 2010 at 07:17:50 AM QUOTE: these tactics used by you so frequently are dishonest UNQUOTE.
4) 09 February 2010 at 06:53:37 AM QUOTE: Like I said earlier, this is a conman at work UNQUOTE.
Best regards, Pete Ridley, human-made Global climate change sceptic
Comment by Pete Ridley on 10 February 2010 at 07:32:06 PM
It is not the first time Jimmy Choo has ventured into flat-soled shoes - earlier this year the upmarket brand teamed up with UGG Australia to create a new range of women’s sheepskin footwear.
http://www.jimmychoosale.net
Comment by Jimmy choo shoes on 10 February 2010 at 06:11:43 PM
Pete, perhaps you would be kind enough to tell me directly - should Mr Nicol get his paper reviewed in a genuine journal as Barry Brook suggested? If the answer is “yes”, then I have misunderstood you and I sincerely apologise. If it is “no”, then it would seem that I didn’t misunderstand you and you were being deceptive by suggesting that I was “twisting and turning”. If this is the case, perhaps you could tell me why - the question I have been asking for the past 7 posts. While you’re at it you may also be interested to explain how “my tag, my Christianity, my parent’s previous occupation, the number of people that post on my blog or whether you approve of a social conscience or not” are answers to the question and not dishonest tactics of diversion.
Comment by Stormboy on 10 February 2010 at 12:25:26 PM
Phil, you are twisting and turning again. You now say QUOTE: this discussion is about your statement that Nicol did not need to get his paper reviewed in a genuine journal. You made the statement UNQUOTE.
Please point precisely to where I have made that statement or even a substantial part of it. You can’t. You are the only person here up to this comment of mine to have done so. You’re not stating fact. I leave others to judge who is being dishonest in these exchanges.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Comment by Pete Ridley on 10 February 2010 at 09:01:00 AM
As far as I can see, this discussion is about your statement that Nicol did not need to get his paper reviewed in a genuine journal. You made the statement, I asked you to defend it. It appears to me that my tag, my Christianity, my parent’s previous occupation, the number of people that post on my blog or whether you approve of a social conscience or not are all side issues that don’t really answer the question. I am not being nasty, I am exposing the fact that these tactics used by you so frequently are dishonest, because they give your stance an appearance of legitimacy by caricaturing your opponent without introducing any evidence. A genuine response would be to either answer the question, say that you don’t have an answer or say that you don’t want to answer. Heck, you could even just not answer.
You used the same approach of caricaturing Concerned citizen when he earlier provided a number of serious issues with Nicol’s work. You didn’t address any of the issues at all, and yet you say that it will be sufficient if others do the same and review the paper online. You illustrate very well why this is not viable.
You have however finally given me your answer, and I thankyou for it. You object to the decision to publish or not being in the hands of the editor, and that you were “never told who has made what comments, simply receiving the comments as though from the editor”. I agree that this can be difficult and leaves room for bias. The option is of course to try another journal with a different editor; as I’ve pointed out before there is a trend where some journals seem to bend over backward to get some skeptical papers in there. The fact that you were never told the names of the reviewers though is because the process is supposed to be blind to maintain fairness. If journals give out the names of their reviewers, it leaves room for people who are inclined as you have been on this blog to miscarry the process through attempts to discredit individuals via unrelated material such as their family or religion, rather than just focusing on the science.
So while I agree as I have stated from the start that the process is imperfect, and I prefer the open source method of review similar to the process used by the IPCC where a public trail is left of errors and corrections, you have not yet offered any argument as to why it would be preferable to just discuss theories online. Your use of dismissal and cariciturisation via irrelevant personal information with both Concerned citizen and myself illustrates the point well.
Oh, and I can save you some time in your search to dig up irrelevant dirt on me, I haven’t published any papers under the name “Stormboy”.
Comment by Stormboy on 10 February 2010 at 07:17:50 AM
PART 1
Phil (AKA Stormboy), you have turned what was a reasonable debate about the UN’s COP15 fiasco into a rather nasty one sided set of accusations that I am being dishonest. If that’s how you choose to play it then you’re on your own. I will stick to facts where I can and reasoned opinion where facts are unknown, leavinig others to draw there own conclusions.
As I see it, other than debaters offering Senator Fielding good wishes for Chrismass, the first person to mention anything religious on this blog was - Stormboy on 28 December 2009 at 12:57:36 PM (followed by Glenis on 09 January 2010 at 04:30:50 AM, Margaret Hamilton on 13 January 2010 at 05:46:56 AM, John Watt on 14 January 2010 at 10:54:31 AM then DigitalAdvisor AKA ConcernedCitizen on 23 January 2010 at 10:28:02 AM). My first exchange with you here was Pete Ridley on 30 December 2009 at 10:34:42 PM, with no mention of anything religious, but asking two simple questions, one on CO2 fractionation and one on peer review. Your next comment was Stormboy on 06 February 2010 at 09:54:10 PM, with no answers to my questions, just more questions from you plus an accusation that I am dishonest. Then again Stormboy on 07 February 2010 at 01:58:04 PM provides no direct answers to my two original questions and concludes with the suggestion that we (meaning I?) QUOTE: avoid little deceptive devices .. and just use facts UNQUOTE.
Some (perhaps including Havequestions) might regard your accusing me of refusing to answer questions as hypocritical.
You frequently accuse me of avoiding questions that you put to me. It is significant that you choose to totally ignore the points that I made in my previous comment about courage, honesty and gullibility. You appear, from your comments on this and other blogs, particularly your own evangelical one, The Bloodwood Tree, to have set yourself up as someone who has been appointed by a supreme power to extract the “truth” from others and replace it with your own version of “truth”. Neither you nor I are under any obligation to answer each others questions. We each have the power to respond as we see fit, as long as we stay within the law – by the way, I’m referring to human-made law, not laws cast in stone by a supreme being.
You seem to believe that peer review sanctifies what has been reviewed. You appear to regard the IPCC reports as science cast in stone by supreme beings (climate scientists) much like a Bible of scientific truth. We disagree on this. I have experience of the peer review process in a professional technical context, have you? You can check this out if you choose, simply by using “Google”, but I’ll make it easier for you by giving you a starter (Note 1). I’ve “Googled” Phil, Stormboy, Autralian Bush Fire Modelling, etc. etc. etc. and can find nothing indicating that you have any such experience. I even tried using significant words from your comment on the “Fight in the Senate” blog on 20th August QUOTE: I’m not Aboriginal. My parents worked on the mission because the local BHP miners had introduced alcohol and it was killing the people. UNQUOTE - still nothing. Detailed searching of the Internet provides no such evidence about yourself, therefore it has to be assumed that you are pontificating about peer review from a position of having had no experience of it.
Try to understand that you are not blessed with infinite wisdom. Also, try being a bit more honest about yourself. It might encourage others to take you seriously. Using your QUOTE: Like I said earlier UNQUOTE I repeat “I leave others to draw their own conclusions about your motives”.
Comment by Pete Ridley on 09 February 2010 at 10:57:09 PM
PART 2
Do you make a habit of distorting the facts? Let me give a couple of examples of why I ask this.
QUOTE: Stormboy on 09 February 2010 at 06:53:37 AM
Have a look at his response to my post on his “note 3”. That was our first interaction .. Like I said earlier, this is a conman at work. UNQUOTE. As you can see from the link, that interaction occurred on QUOTE: July 6th, 2009 at 5:22 pm. UNQUOTE.
But take a look at this, from my first copy of Senator Fielding’s “Penny Wong .. “ blog. That blog presently shows that there have been 242 comments so far but it only presents a limited number of comments, dropping earlier ones off as new ones come in. When I realised this I started taking copies and my first copy, on 27th July, shows: QUOTE: Comment by Stormboy on 06 July 2009 at 10:20:22 PM
Pete, Steve Fielding referred to a graph in the IPCC … UNQUOTE. The truth is that you and I had been exchanging comments long before 6th July. In fact it was in one of these earlier comments that you mentioned your Bloodwood Tree blog and that’s why I commented there. Our “first interaction” occurred well before 6th July and you should know it. Hopefully the blog administrator can clear that up.
QUOTE: Stormboy on 07 February 2010 at 06:14:08 PM
Pete Ridley believes that peer-review is completely unnecessary ... UNQUOTE. You will never be able to produce any evidence of me saying that I believe this because I have never said it and don’t believe it. You could not have bothered to follow up on my challenge to Professor Brook about Professor John Nicol’s paper, pointed out in QUOTE: Comment by Pete Ridley on 24 July 2009 at 08:10:59 AM … perhaps you’d like to take up the challenge that I issued to Professor Brook and associates (Note 3 my comment on 5th June @ 2.22) .. UNQUOTE in Senator Fielding’s “Fight in the Senate” blog.
In that challenge I made it absolutely clear that I understood the need for OPEN peer review, saying QUOTE: I repeat my question of Professor Brook (or any other scientists of similar status) regarding Dr. Nicol’s paper “Climate Change (a fundamental analysis of the greenhouse effect)” available at http://www.ruralsoft.com.au/ClimateChange.doc. Are you able or willing to undertake a thorough review of Dr. Nicol’s analysis and show precisely where he has erred (if he has done so? If not, why not? Until this is done I don’t believe that we lay agnostics will change our opinions UNQUOTE. In fact long before challenging Professor Brook I had unsuccessfully challenged other respected scientists like Professor Keith Shine, Reading University. This is clearly stated in Section 3 of my paper “POLITICIZATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE & CO2” (Note 2) which I repeatedly pointed to in my comments on Senator Fielding’s blogs. Again it would seem that you didn’t bother to follow them up.
It is my experience when trying to have papers published in journals of a learned society (or presented at their seminars/workshops) that the peer review is “in-camera” (and that the decision to publish or not is in the hands of the editor). I was never told who has made what comments, simply receiving the comments as though from the editor. I have no reason to believe that you have experience to the contrary, but correct me if I’m wrong (but please support it with hard - rather than anecdotal - evidence about your paper),.
NOTES:
1) see http://www.compliance-club.com/archive/old_archive/971121.html/
2) see http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1
3) see http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/
Best regards, Pete Ridley, human-made Global climate change sceptic
Comment by Pete Ridley on 09 February 2010 at 10:56:39 PM
So Pete, you genuinely don’t have an answer to my question do you? You sincerely can’t give any good reason why peer-review shouldn’t be a basic standard for climate science as it is for all other areas? You’re now prepared to use threats rather than just concede a single point and stop going around in circles? Initially you tried to gain my confidence by feigning friendship and asking about my life, but that was revealed to be a confidence trick because you used it to try and discredit me with personal attacks. Even in your post below, in the absence of a valid argument you tried to discredit me to religiously bigoted individuals by pointing out that my family were missionaries. You suggested that my Christian faith made my opinions invalid. You suggested that people could have confidence in your claims because you gave your last name, even though you refuse to give a straight answer when I ask you for it. Your entire approach has focused on gaining people’s confidence by character asassination of your opponents. It’s hard to be exposed isn’t it?
Comment by Stormboy on 09 February 2010 at 09:32:49 PM
This is a comment directed at the blog administrator. You will see that in his latest comment that Stormboy has repeated his accusation that I am dishonest, saying of me QUOTE: Like I said earlier, this is a conman at work UNQUOTE. This is a serious accusation to make and I will be calling upon Stormboy to justify his accusation before deciding what further action to take. In the meantime, please would you advise me if you archive all of the comments that have been placed on Senator Fielding’s site and how I can access particular ones.
I have archived the “Assessment of Penny Wong’s Response .. “blog comments since as far back as QUOTE: Comment by Pete Ridley on 06 July 2009 at 09:03:33 PM UNQUOTE but would like to look back to my earlier exchanges with blogger Stormboy in order to resolve without question when QUOTE: our first interaction UNQUOTE took place. My archive (and memory) indicates that it was prior to July 6th, 2009 at 5:22 pm.
As this is issue of honesty I am sure that you will be keen to help.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Comment by Pete Ridley on 09 February 2010 at 07:14:16 PM
Just so that you know why Pete Ridley has put so much work into a personal attack on what is supposed to be a climate change change discussion; this is his 5th response to my asking him what is the basis for his belief that evidence is more reliable if it has not been fact checked by other experts (peer-review). His evidence so far is:
a) My real name is not Stormboy but Phil (oh man! I thought I had you all fooled!)
b) I am a Christian (like Steve Fielding and Roy Spencer), and
c) Not many people write comments on my blog (oh…)
He then suggests that he is to be trusted because he has given you his last name. Add those insights together, and you can see that he attempts to gain other’s confidence using information that has not been reviewed by those who understand the science far better than he does, based entirely on a bit of religious bigotry and some pretty poor assertions that unfortunately also discredit several co-skeptics like “Intelligent skeptic” and “Have questions”. Have a look at his response to my post on his “note 3”. That was our first interaction - see if he relies on any evidence there or on the same little trick.
You’ll notice also that he terms representing the underpriveleged to the western world “pontificating”. His entire case against action on AGW is that we should stop thinking for ourselves, numb our consciences and just believe what he tells us. Like I said earlier, this is a conman at work.
Comment by Stormboy on 09 February 2010 at 06:53:37 AM
For anyone who is interested in better understanding Phil (AKA Stormboy)’s motives when debating climate change, it may help if you take a look at his evangelical site The Bloodwood Tree. On his “Climate Change” thread (Note 1) there is only a single reader’s comment on his 23rd November article on climate change. In my opinion that one SPAM comment says it all about how most people can be expected to react to Phil’s pontifications on both subjects covered in his article – climate change and religion.
While you are there take a look at the other 10 categories that he pontificates on, i.e. Aboriginal Justice & Reconciliation, Environment, God, Human Rights, Peak Oil, Politics, Refugees, The Mountain, Uncategorized and West Papua. You will notice that most times either no-one, a “spammer” or Phil himself comments. There is one exception (Note 3) where there are 7 comments, 3 from Phil, 2 from me, 1 from John Watt (see also below) and one from QUOTE: Rufor Says: Where are you from? Is it a secret? UNQUOTE.
Make up your own minds about Phil’s and my motives, but take into consideration that I have the courage and honesty to use my real name. I have nothing to hide and anyone can find out about me by doing a “Google”. Try doing the same about Phil! then ask yourself “who should I consider most trustworthy, Pete Ridley of Phil AKA Stormboy?
Many climate change sceptics claim that supporters of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis resemble religious zealots (Note 2). Phil, . it is quite clear that your evangelical message on climate change and religion is being ignored. May I respectfully suggest that you not only reconsider your opinion on both but also search your conscience
BTW: There is one exception that I found regarding comments on Phil’s Bloodwood Tree blog. The thread on “22 missionary families to be executed in Afghanistan“ attracted 11 comments from others. But missionary families is something that Phil has intimate understanding of, being from one himself, so that is a subject that he should understand and on which his opinions may be worth hearing. Be warned though that he seems to be easily fooled, especially by spammers. His response to QUOTE: Katy Says: Pretty nice post. I just stumbled upon your site and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your posts. Any way I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you write again soon! June 24th, 2009 at 3:06 pm UNQUOTE was QUOTE: Thanks Katy! I’ll get my act together and write again soon, but let me know if there’s anything in particular that has your interest. June 24th, 2009 at 10:07 pm UNQUOTE (Note 4). As you would expect, there was no follow up by Katy”. Spammers have a nasty habit of doing that.
It seems that Phil is being equally gullible with regard to the UN’s climate change propaganda.
NOTES:
1) see http://bloodwoodtree.org/2009/11/23/putting-climate-alarmists-in-their-place/
2) see http://everything2.com/title/Religious+Zealots+are+the+worst
3) see http://bloodwoodtree.org/2009/07/06/assessment-of-steve-fieldings-stance-on-climate-change/
4) see http://bloodwoodtree.org/2009/06/03/papuan-refugees-finally-given-a-home/
Best regards, Pete Ridley, human-made Global climate change sceptic
Comment by Pete Ridley on 08 February 2010 at 11:01:02 PM
Sure Pete, but I was under the impression that the topic was your ongoing assertion and foundation of your debate that information is more reliable if it has not been fact-checked by other scientists. You keep trying to change the subject to talk about my motives; why can’t you answer the question?
Comment by Stormboy on 08 February 2010 at 06:17:22 AM
Phil, I leave others to draw their own conclusions about your motives. I’ve already presented mine on numerous occasions.
Best regards, Pete R
Comment by Pete Ridley on 07 February 2010 at 08:41:52 PM
Notice that once again, Pete Ridley has avoided answering the question. I’ve tried before to nail him down to a straight answer before when he tried to say that the ice shelves in Antarctica weren’t retreating. We looked at the data which clearly said they were, but despite having nothing at all to refute it with, he was not physically able to write the words to show that he accepted the evidence so far. When I pushed, he accused me of a plot to force Christianity on the world.
In contrast, when Pete gave me a reference showing that there was a theoretical possibility that a volcano was accelerating the flow of one glacier in Antarctica I conceded the point because that’s what the evidence said. I said to Pete that this is part of genuine debate - acknowledging facts when they are presented and being prepared to be wrong. I said that if he was unable to do this we would go around in circles forever. He said “If you really believe “That way we won’t go around in circles as much as we have been” you’re living in a dream world regarding climate change as well. Have you looked at any of the “have your say” threads on Senator Fielding’s site. That’s what is happening all of the time.”
In the world where I live, we don’t go around in circles all the time. When I see new evidence that disproves something I believe, I take it in. Pete Ridley believes that peer-review is completely unneccessary and that we should just take people at their word so long as they agree with his ideology. I’ve asked him to defend that view and he clearly can’t; he just needs it because his view falls apart without it.
Comment by Stormboy on 07 February 2010 at 06:14:08 PM
PS:
Just thought I’d mention the lates list of “IPCCGates”.
Glaciergate
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/1/20/ipcc-and-wwf-statements-on-glaciers.html
http://www.climategate.com/glaciergate-another-scientist-rats-on-the-ipcc-fraudulent-ways
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/glacier-show-comedy-in-many-parts.html
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/great-glacier-show-part-ii.html
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/glaciergate-still-long-way-from-truth.html
Greenpeacegate
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/greenpeace-and-nobel-winning-climate_28.html
WWFGate
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-dodgy-citations-in-nobel-winning.html
NewspaperArticleGate
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/02/gate-du-jour-ipcc-ar4-references-nyt-story/
UnpublishedStudentPaperGate
http://climatequotes.com/2010/02/03/ipcc-cited-multiple-masters-students-in-ar4-some-unpublished/
Africagate
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/and-now-for-africagate.html
Hurricanegate
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/castles-built-on-sand.html
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/02/im-not-aware-of-that.html
Amazongate
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/and-now-for-amazongate.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/25/de-jour-gate-flavor-amazon/
Boysownadventuregate
http://www.climategate.com/mountain-ice-disappearance-claims-by-ipcc-based-upon-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article
Comment by Pete Ridley on 07 February 2010 at 02:34:43 PM
Phil (AKA Stormboy), as you no doubt recall you and I have had numerous, intense exchanges, starting back in June on Senator Fielding’s blog “Assessment of Penny Wong’s Response … ” then continuing on his blog “The real reason I’ll Fight in the Senate ...” in July. I don’t recall that you ever offered anything new to the debate, always relying upon “consensus” dogma and the perceived “sanctity” of peer review and those now discredited IPCC reports. This is not scientific, as one who claims to be a scientist (even if only as a modeller of bush fires) should be well aware. Science thrives on scepticism and hypotheses are validated, refined or even destroyed by it yet throughout these debates you have never expressed any scepticism about any of the claims supporting The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis
On 7th July I referred to the comment that I made on your blog “The Bloodwood Tree” QUOTE: As I said on your blog, all that I’ve seen so far from you is a regurgitation of the same arguments that all supporters of the “significant human-made global climate change” hypothesis keep pouring out. UNQUOTE. If I remember correctly (and if I’m wrong then please provide evidence) you have been the same ever since.
You withdrew from debate on 22nd August since when all you have done is pop in now and again with a little more dogma. You returned for a couple of weeks on the “My No-vote on the ETS” blog then the “Copenhagen Done and Dusted” blog with the same old dogma. On 30th December I pointed you to the debate I am engaged in at Chris Colose’s blog (Note 1) on the validity of the reconstruction of atmospheric CO2 concentration from ice-cores. Two days later you dropped in on that site, this time using your real name, threw in “peer review” along with a few sarcastic comments then withdrew then, when asked, hadn’t the honesty to acknowledge that you and he were one and the same.
The debate on Chris’s blog is a serious one about one of the “tenets” behind The Hypothesis. Maybe now it is time that you put up or shut up. That debate is an opportunity for you to try debating openly and honestly. If you cannot then maybe it would be best for you to just go away quietly and enjoy yourself with your followers on your evangelical blog (Note 2)
NOTES:
1) see http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/richard-alley-at-agu-2009-the-biggest-control-knob/#comment-1908
2) see http://bloodwoodtree.org/
Best regards, Pete Ridley, human-made global climate change sceptic.
Comment by Pete Ridley on 07 February 2010 at 02:18:34 PM
Notice that as I stated, Pete Ridley has avoided answering the question. He gives no argument at all as to why material that has not been peer-reviewed is more reliable than material that has. To keep his beliefs he has to avoid it because there is next to no peer-reviewed science that supports his ideology, and what there is has been demolished easily because the peer-review process means that the writer has to be transparent in their work.
Now, I take your claim Pete that there is a conspiracy to stop all anti-AGW science from being published; people have personal prejudices that do bias them. But the evidence doesn’t seem to weigh in your favour because the fact is journals have printed papers with dissenting views, or are you unaware of any such papers? What I’ve seen of the illegally obtained emails so far on the subject was anger that a journal printed a number of particularly poor papers, work that normally would never get through peer-review because of its obvious errors. The frustration was that the journal was doing the opposite to what you claim - looking so hard for the controversy dollar that they were printing total rubbish.
So to back your suggestion that anti-AGW science cannot get published in peer-reviewed journals (which I agree would then make it unfair to impose as a minimum standard), could you please provide the evidence that the authors of the emails had the means and influence to stop all such articles being printed? Evidence of course means making a valid case so you would need to quote for us the relevant emails you are talking about, then show the trail of evidence that proves they have this level of influence and that the journals have been successfully intimidated. Referring to “climate gate” or “IPCC gate” is very dramatic and will no doubt impress people who haven’t read the emails or realised that the IPCC error was not a central claim but a single sentence out of thousands of pages, so let’s avoid little deceptive devices like that (as you would have to if you were writing for a peer-reviewed journal) and just use facts ok?
Comment by Stormboy on 07 February 2010 at 01:58:04 PM
Phil (AKA Stormboy) welcome back It’s good to hear from you again. How’s your PhD going?
We’ve had the debate about the strengths and weaknesses of the peer review system so there’s no point in going over it again, however, you seem top be ignoring the revelations from the “Climategate” scandal about how influential supporters of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis have bent over backwards to prevent sceptical science being published. Then there are all of the subsequent “IPCCgates” to consider. It really is time that you started being realistic instead of simply accepting what you are told.
Best regards, Pete Ridley, human-made global climate change sceptic.
Comment by Pete Ridley on 07 February 2010 at 09:31:59 AM
Just poking my head back in and I see Pete Ridley still in fine form. Pete, you quoted Barry Brook saying:
“Mr Nicol only need submit his paper to a scientific journal and he’ll get his peer review. I wonder why he hasn’t done so, if he believes he’s made a serious contribution to the science. Or perhaps (I am only speculating here), he has, and has had the paper rejected — in which case he would have the reviews. Either way, the avenue for proper evaluation of Mr Nicol’s work is quite clear.”
Now, please tell me why this is not an excellent response. Please, explain to me why Mr Nicol is exempt from having his work reviewed by anonymous experts in the field like the rest of the scientific world. Why doesn’t he have to have his arguments tested carefully over months like the rest of us have to? How can those of us not experts in his field have any confidence that he is telling us the truth if all we have to rely on are the opinions of ex-engineers etc to rely on? Peer review is done by peers, not random people on the net.
I notice that rather than responding to anything written by ConcernedCitizen, you’ve suggested that he has changed his alias and focused on that instead. He did what you asked and reviewed a lot of the ‘paper’ but you ignored it. See if you can give me a straight answer and stick to the subject. You know that I think you are a fake - a con-man who preys on the people that want to trust this politician because they don’t know what to believe. By all means, give me a straight answer and prove me wrong. I asked you this same question months ago and never got an answer, maybe you’ve had time to think of one. I have consistently answered so many of your questions but not recieved a single straight response from you. I won’t be holding my breath this time either.
Readers, beware of this man.
Comment by Stormboy on 06 February 2010 at 09:54:10 PM
PS: BTW John, I forgot to mention that Roger Taguchi is a contributor to the debate on the Rocketscience blog.
Comment by Pete Ridley on 03 February 2010 at 11:44:37 PM
PART 1
John (Watts), DigitA (AKA ConcernedC) has never engaged in open debate in all his comments on Senator Fielding’s various threads. Yes, it is a great pity when people will not debate openly and honestly, but that is par for the course in the human-made global climate change debate. This has been a complaint made by sceptics against supporters for years with no acceptance of its validity.. I have tried to get staunch supporting individuals and organisations like Mark Lynas, Jonathan Porritt, Greenpeace, Forum for the Future, Futerra, etc. etc. but only get either nothing or dogma.
After reading papers by Heinz Hug, John Barratt and John Nicol around July 2008 I wrote a paper “POLITICIZATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE & CO2” (Note 1) and in Section 2 I said QUOTE: In mid-October 2008 a challenge was issued to several climate scientists and to the chairman and commissioners of the Sustainable Development Commission to provide a detailed scientific analysis showing where Dr. John Nicol’s analysis is flawed. So far there has not been a single response. Later in October a paper on the subject was submitted to the Sustainable Development Commission asking for it to be made available on its Web-site for open debate, again with no response. UNQUOTE.
As I could get no response there I decided to try the Internet for any attempt to review Nicol’s paper. This led me to Bravenewclimate, the blog run by the Australian government’s chief climate science advisor Professor Barry Brook (Note 2). The QUOTE: Comments Policy – I welcome comments, posts, suggestions and informed debate, from a wide range of perspectives. However, personal attacks, insulting/vulgar posts, or repetitious/false tirades will not be tolerated and can result in moderation or banning. Trolls will be warned, and then disemvowelled. UNQUOTE
On 3rd June 2009 I asked Brook to help me either by pointing to a review paper of reviewing it himself - ignored. On 4th, 5th June I asked again on another thread (Note 3). This time Brook responded quickly, but only with QUOTE: Mr Nicol only need submit his paper to a scientific journal and he’ll get his peer review. I wonder why he hasn’t done so, if he believes he’s made a serious contribution to the science. Or perhaps (I am only speculating here), he has, and has had the paper rejected — in which case he would have the reviews. Either way, the avenue for proper evaluation of Mr Nicol’s work is quite clear. UNQUOTE.
I transferred the debate to a more recent thread of Brook’s in which he was criticising Professor Ian Plimer’s book “Heaven and Earth”. I repeatedly challenged all of the subscribers to that thread to review Nicol’s paper. As a consequence, on 7th June the blog editor said QUOTE: In my judgement, you are trolling, and you continue to do so. For instance, you asked for a ‘review’ of Dr Nicol’s internet-only non-published piece, you got your answer about what he should so (submit to a peer reviewed journal), UNQUOTE.
I next referred to Nicol on 21st, but in the meantime had started asking pertinent questions about Brook’s acknowledgement of scientific uncertainty about climate processes and drivers. This he didn’t like so on 23rd Brook complained “Your deliberate use of highly selective, out of context quotations of me, is underhand, deceptive and illegal. I’ll ask you nicely to cease and desist at once, or action will be taken“. On 24th my final comment was disemvowelled and I was banned.
Comment by Pete Ridley on 03 February 2010 at 10:09:49 PM
PART 2A
I haven’t been back to that site since, until today and was delighted to see that others took up the sceptical debate with increase vigour, especially after “Climategate”. In the end Barry Brook (who had been unusually quiet) commented on 29th November QUOTE: .. Anyway, no more time on this thread for me. You’re nothing more than a conspiratorial looney, “John Berns”, so begone with you and the rest of the foetid trolls who have infested this thread. I edit morons, not data. Vangel, Berns, PeterW, JeffT, gianmarco, Wick: you’re all on moderation. UNQUOTE. Eventually Brook childishly resorted to QUOTE: Shorter Denis Maclaine: “Blah, di blah blah blah” UNQUOTE (13th December) and QUOTE: Bob Thomas: “Blah di blah blah blah. Go away, you conspiratorial crank. This blog is for serious discussion. UNQUOTE (18th Dec). Finally on 19th QUOTE: This thread has degenerated to the point where comments here are no longer serving any useful purpose. It has become infested by trolls and delusionists who are more interested in pushing ideology than discussing matters of science or evidence. Comments closed. UNQUOTE. Open and intelligent debate banned – just accept what I say!! What must not be overlooked is that despite Brook being appointed recently (2007) to the University of Adelaide’s Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change he has no significant research background in climate sciences. He is a biologist/ecologist (environmentalist?) who claims to “have made a range of fundamental contributions to research on extinctions, biodiversity management and conservation ecology” (Note 6). Brook seems to pontificate on virtually all matters pertaining to climate change but his area of specialisation is very limited.
Comment by Pete Ridley on 03 February 2010 at 10:09:27 PM
PART 2
There are very good reasons why open debate is abhorred. “Climategate”, “Pacahurigate”, “Glaciergate”, Amazongate” and “Disastergate” (AKA “IPCCgate”) has exposed the UN-inspired propaganda about DAGW as a lie as potentially damaging to global democracy as were the lies of Hitler’s Third Reich.
You may be interested in looking at another fundamental analysis of the greenhouse effect, this one by Roger Taguchi (Note 4). That paper has been revised since and I have an updated pdf version if you’d like to see it.
DigitA (AKA ConCit) refers to Ramanathan’s paper. He tried to use Ramanathan’s arguments on the “Climate Change” thread in August, but Ramantahn seems to change his mind with the wind. Professor Keith Shine, a researcher specialising in atmospheric water vapour impact, considers that Ramanathan’s earlier paper in 1995 is one of the key papers. I discussed this with Dr. Richard Glassman (Note 5) back in July.
Recently DigitA has removed all of his previous posts from Senator Fielding’s threads and changed his name – obviously had second thoughts about his rants. He’s moved over here because contributors on the threads have put him on “ignore”.
NOTES:
1) see http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1
2) see http://bravenewclimate.com/about/
3) see http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/06/03/sa-sets-a-33-renewables-by-2020-target/
4) see http://mistakesinipcccalculations.blogspot.com/2009/08/mistakes-in-ipcc-global-warming.html
5) see http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2009/03/_internal_modeling_mistakes_by.html
6) see http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/barry.brook
Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change sceptic
Comment by Pete Ridley on 03 February 2010 at 10:08:16 PM
John Watts,
There are a few issues whereby we can call into question Nicol’s theory.
1. Saturation of C02 in the long wave spectrum
2. Whether this saturation is extinguished quickly
It is true that observation since 2000 would seem to falsify the hypothesis.
We do not have a direct refutation of Nicol’s paper. This is limited to direct references of his paper in how some of his hypothesis is incorrect. I can certainly reference snippets of these.
To my best knowledge the 2007 part 1 and 2 go a long way in refuting the hypothesis as it deals with the “wing” spectrum analysis and is highly technical.
There is another paper (1998) which should you derive satisfactory answers from as well. I commend this paper for your urgent perusal in the most sincere way possible on this blog.
It is my belief there should have been public roadshows clearly demonstrating the facts of AGW for the general public. We should not under estimate the general public’s interest in such important matters as would affect our daily lives into the future.
The paper is from the:
http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/RamAmbio.pdf
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences also have an updated Statement on Climate Change (2009).
ConcernedCitizen
Comment by ConcernedCitizen on 03 February 2010 at 02:58:19 PM
Concerned Citizen
Thanks for the realclimate references. However you will have noticed that Nicol’s analysis was released in mid-2008 so that the realclimate archive material dated 06/07 is not going to directly address Nicol’s work.
I will continue to seek clarity on Nicol’s analysis elsewhere.
Margaret,
Pl. seek out what Tony Abbott really said with respect to climate change. Unfortunately with selective reporting rife in our media that might be a little difficult.
Meanwhile the ETS/CPRS comes back into Parliament and Senator Fielding still does not have an answer to his question.
Regards
John Watt
Comment by John Watt on 03 February 2010 at 09:21:05 AM
Hello John Watts
Sorry for tardiness in reply. I suggest you ignore the lampooning of me by this Pete Ridley.
I am ConcenedCitizen and I treasure my privacy as I have posted my real identity before and it seems that some Anti-AGW campaigners can be rather cruel if not very much full vitriol in there personal attacks.
ConcernedCitizen
Comment by ConcernedCitizen on 02 February 2010 at 05:47:57 PM
We had Tony Abbott telling us climate change science is crap, Nick Minchin telling us it is a global communist conspiracy, Alby Schultz telling us its Nazi science, Moncton telling us the atmosphere is too low in CO2 and we should increase it.
Now Tony Abbott is proposing a big new tax to fix the climate problem that he says does not exist.
I dont get it? Has Tony Abbott become a communist?
Comment by Margaret Hamilton on 02 February 2010 at 05:30:30 PM
Pete Ridley,
If you are right that is a great pity.
As mentioned previously I have been aware of Nicol’s work since late 2008. I have found him willing to explain his analysis in layman’s terms. I trust his request in his final paragraph for constructive critricism, to the extent of asking for and receiving such constructive criticism from Prof Jack Barrett. I passed this criciticsm on to a grateful Dr Nicol in the hope that these two experts, a physicist and a chemist, would open a discussion on fundamental aspects of CO2’s behaviour. I think it is fair to say that the typical climatologist does not have enough knowledge of the fundamental behaviour of CO2 to justify the ETS/CPRS legislation.
Surely if there is to be a tax on a gas then we need to have the basic information on its behaviour. No amount of data gathering and analysis is going to provide that basic information.
The best the data crunching can do is suggest the nature of the basic process in play. We need to find and understand that process. Nicol is attempting to define that basic process. In what I uderstand to be the spirit of genuine science he requests constructive criticism.
So I live in hope that Concerned Citizen has such ctiticism to share. If so then it can only help improve our understanding and assist Senator Fielding in his imminent task.
Regards
John Watt
Comment by John Watt on 02 February 2010 at 09:39:43 AM
John (Watts) I see your still trying to get some sensible debate with ConcernedCommedian (AKADigitA). He will not provide anything that refutes what Dr. Nichol says, or what Roger Taguchi says or anyhtng else for that mattr. All that he will do is keep throwing warmist dogma at you. I repeat that you are wasting oyur tije trying to debate sensibly with him We’ve tied very hard on Senator Fielding’s “Climate Change” thread and most of us have resorted to putting him on “ignore” where he belongs.
Comment by Pete Ridley on 02 February 2010 at 04:39:52 AM
Concerned Citizen,
We really are getting somewhere!
You say Nicol’s paper has been soundly refuted. I have been looking for such a refutation since late 2008. Therefore I would be very grateful if you would point me at the analysis that addresses Nicol’s paper and sets out and quantifies the effects of these fatal flaws in Nicol’s work.
Regards
John Watt
Comment by John Watt on 31 January 2010 at 01:59:51 PM
Jonh Watts
Just to go back to the reason for the blog,,...Senator Fielding’s question.
None of the data crunching fraternity can satisfy his concerns. Perhaps it is time fo pay attention to a theoretician.
I am sure there are many out there who could replicate Nicol’s analysis.
Comment by ConcernedCitizen on 31 January 2010 at 10:45:15 AM
Concerned Citizen,
Just to go back to the reason for the blog,,...Senator Fielding’s question.
None of the data crunching fraternity can satisfy his concerns. Perhaps it is time fo pay attention to a theoretician.
I am sure there are many out there who could replicate Nicol’s analysis.
Regards
John Watt
Comment by John Watt on 30 January 2010 at 10:04:35 PM
Hello John Watts,
I have difficulty in accepting just ones Scientists position as a definitive solution or answer to our response.
The trend for 2010 and facts are thus:
Christy - a skeptical scientist now accepts there is positive global warming.
Spencer when he adjusts his models (another Skeptic) is likely to fall into line as well.
If this the trend to a consensus by Skeptics transpires then there will be a blazing trail for this year and not ClimateGate and Not GlacierGate or any other gate. It’s going to very rusty very quickly.
ConcernedCitizen
Comment by ConcernedCitizen on 30 January 2010 at 08:23:14 PM
Concerned Citizen,
Your reply outlining the potential pifalls/complexity of measuring temperature highlights the need for an analysis such as Nicol’s.
If the use of basic laws/principles of physics /chemistry indicates that CO2 has a negligible effect on climate then we save the effort being put into the measurement dilemmas you describe.
I am sure , as indicated in his closing paragraph, that John Nicol would be pleased to accept any constructive criticism you have of his analysis.
Regards
John Watt
Comment by John Watt on 29 January 2010 at 07:24:20 PM
John Watts correctly asks the following:
I think we might be getting somewhere. Uherek has identified trapped energy.Can we quantify the impact on the surface temperature of any extra energy trapped in the atmosphere as a result of increased CO2 concentration?
Isn’t that precisely what Nicol’s analysis has addressed?
John Watts also said:
Isn’t this essentially the question Fielding asks?
Yes - however the complexity of the science tended to “hide” or make murky this very clear information and evidence from him. It should our most important point of response to both skeptics and deniers.
More on the Christy and Satellite data:
This figure compares the global average surface temperature record, as compiled by Jones and Moberg (2003; data set TaveGL2v with 2009 updates), to the microwave sounder (MSU) satellite data of loweratmospheric temperatures determined by Christy et al. (UAH 2003; data set tltglhmam version 5.2 with 2009 updates) and Schabel et al. (RSS 2002; data set tlt_land_and_ocean with 2009 updates). These two satellite records reflect two different ways of interpreting the same set of microwave sounder measurements and are not independent records. Each record is plotted as the monthly average and straight lines are fit through each data set from January 1982 to December 2009. The slope of these lines are 0.187°C/decade, 0.163°C/decade, and 0.239°C/decade for the surface, UAH, and RSS respectively.
It is important to know that the 5.2 version of Christy et al.‘s satellite temperature record contains a significant correction over previous versions. In summer 2005, Mears and Wentz (2005) discovered that the UAH processing algorithms were incorrectly adjusting for diurnal variations, especially at low latitude. This correction raised the trend line 0.035°C/decade, and in so doing brought it into much better agreement with the ground based records and with independent satellite based analysis (e.g. Fu et al. 2004). The discovery of this error also explains why their satellite based temperature trends had disagreed most prominently in the tropics.
Within measurement error, all of these records paint a similar picture of temperature change and global warming. However, climate models predict carbon dioxide based greenhouse warming should result in lower atmosphere warming roughly 1.3 times higher than the surface warming. This prediction is consistent with the RSS vs. surface comparison, though by contrast the UAH vs. surface comparison suggests a troposphere warming by slightly less than the surface of the Earth.
Note: In the above figure, there is still a significant discrepancy between the very earliest satellite measurements and the ground based measurements at that time. For this reason only the interval 1982-2005 was used in calculating each trend. Including the earliest years leads to a wider dispersion , with trends of 0.170°C/decade, 0.116°C/decade, and 0.192°C/decade for the surface, UAH, and RSS data respectively. The origin of this discrepancy is unclear.
As with all posts I am concerned at the verasity of the graphing. Robert A. Rohde is a newly-minted Physics PhD from the University of California, Berkeley. I joined the physicsdepartment, following undergraduate degrees in physics and mathematics, but despite having taken all the traditional physics coursework (e.g. quantum mechanics, cosmology, general relativity, etc.), I ultimately discovered those topics are not what I want to devote my life to. Most of my research time has been focused on the earth sciences, climatology and related areas.
Regards
Concerned Citizen
Comment by ConcernedCitizen on 29 January 2010 at 04:27:53 PM
ConcernedCitizen,
I think we might be getting somewhere. Uherek has identified trapped energy.Can we quantify the impact on the surface temperature of any extra energy trapped in the atmosphere as a result of increased CO2 concentration?
Isn’t that precisely what Nicol’s analysis has addressed?
Isn’t this essentially the question Fielding asks?
Regards
John Watt
Comment by John Watt on 27 January 2010 at 10:35:13 PM
John Watts,
In line with our ongoing conversation regarding Nicol’s hypothesis which you claim is more detailed.
My approach has been to address the basic laws of physics at this point in time. As requested by you you said: “some basic science to quantify the real drivers of climate change.” - which I supplied to you.
This link I provided: ttp://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/2__Radiation___greenhouse_gases/-_CO2__CH4_l8.html actually gives two simple experiments one can carry out in their kitchen along with carefully (but in very basic format) understanding of the physics behind C02. It is the foundation of global warming as the first cause but not excluding other well known factors that are involved with global climate influences.
It is with this reasoning as to why I reject Nicol’s hypothesis. These empirical measurements are little known in the skeptic and the denier camps.
It all starts with a basic concept: Inputs and outputs - much like an accounting budget of credits and debits. We take the input - the sun’s long wave radiation in this case and compare inputs (captured energy) to the outputs (lost energy - escape to space). The science in the recent studies has found an increasing energy imbalance (increasing Crs as opposed to Drs). We find the earth’s atmosphere is increasing its net (credit) of energy (sun) as C02 @ ppm as it increases. Therefore it is correct to assume Nicol’s hypothesis is substantially incorrect.
CO2 traps heat
According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations.
Thus the paper found “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”. This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).
ConcernedCitizen
Comment by ConcernedCitizen on 27 January 2010 at 07:53:23 AM
ConcernedCitizen,
Thanks for the link to Dr Uherek. It would be good to get Drs Uherek and Nicol in the same room. We might all learn something!
My understanding of Nicol’s analysis is that he is able to use basic science ( 3rd year undergraduate level in an Australian Uni) to explain both the greenhouse effect which keeps this planet habitable and the impact of increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2.
As stated previously his conclusions on the latter effect are that it cannot cause the temperature increase effects that have most of our politicians in a spin.
Nicol’s analysis displays a level of rigour and plausible use of basic laws of physics/chemistry not evident in the Uherek material you referred me to. Commonsense says to stay with Nicol. I suspect Uherek needs to consider the mechanisms by which the greenhouse gases dispose of the absorbed energy.
Hence I continue support Senator Fielding in his quest to get a clear answer on the role of CO2 and the efficacy of an ETS/CPRS before giving his support to the Rudd/Wong legislation. Politicians advocating ETS/CPRS owe the public a plausible, commonsense explanation of the need for the legislation.
Fielding is asking for this explanation on our behalf. Just doing his job…unlike the bulk of our media who continue to show us power station cooling towers belching water vapour as evidence of evil CO2 emissions. With such obvious misinformation as the above featured in our media, you wonder what else in the “CO2 is evil mantra” is also incorrect.
Regards
John Watt
Comment by John Watt on 26 January 2010 at 07:28:52 PM
I failed to post an educational link:
Read Dr. Uherek explanation.
This web site shows why greenhouse gases are increasing the temperatures of our Globe. Water vapour absorbs at a wide range of wavelengths the infrared radiation emitted by the Earth surface and keep back the heat.
However we must use care how we calculate and conclude how global warming works. At some wavelengths however, the absorption is weak or close to zero and the water vapour barrier has an permeable window. That is why there is so much confusion on web sites and blogs about the science.
Other greenhouse gases as well: nitrous oxide, ozone and chlorofluorocarbons absorb and lock in the greenhouse effect.
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/2__Radiation___greenhouse_gases/-_CO2__CH4_l8.html
ConcernedCitizen
Comment by ConcernedCitizen on 26 January 2010 at 10:10:46 AM
John Watts
You kindly posted the following reply:
Please point me at the fundamental physics/chemistry. If it is Fourier, Tyndall,Arrhenius and Co then I suggest you Google “John Nicol Greenhouse” to see where I am coming from. If not then I would be very interested to see another analysis that uses Nicol’s fundamental approach but comes up with a contrary answer.
Reply by ConcernedCitizen:
The reason why there is heat absorbtion in the stratosphere in those IR wave numbers is because GH gases, in the STRATOSPHERE, RELEASE HEAT TO SPACE. Read Dr. Uherek explanation.
“Greenhouse gases (CO2, O3, CFC) generally absorb and emit in the infrared heat radiation at a certain wavelength. If this absorption is very strong as the 15µm (= 667 cm-1) absorption band of carbon dioxide (CO2), the greenhouse gas can block most of the outgoing infrared radiation already close to the Earth surface. Nearly no radiation from the surface can, therefore, reach the carbon dioxide residing in the upper troposphere or lower stratosphere. On the other hand, carbon dioxide emits heat radiation to space. In the stratosphere this emission becomes larger than the energy received from below by absorption. In total, carbon dioxide in the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere looses energy to space: It cools these regions of the atmosphere. Other greenhouse gases, such as ozone (as we saw) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), have a weaker impact, because their absorption in the troposphere is smaller. They do not entirely block the radiation from the ground in their wavelength regimes and can still absorb energy in the stratosphere and heat this region of the atmosphere.”
Comment by ConcernedCitizen on 26 January 2010 at 09:35:08 AM
John Watt, you will realise soon enough that trying to debate logically with “concernedcitizen” is rather a waste of time. Best placed on “Ignore”.
Comment by Peter Ridley on 26 January 2010 at 01:23:50 AM
ConcernedCitizen,
Please point me at the fundamental physics/chemistry. If it is Fourier, Tyndall,Arrhenius and Co then I suggest you Google “John Nicol Greenhouse” to see where I am coming from. If not then I would be very interested to see another analysis that uses Nicol’s fundamental approach but comes up with a contrary answer.
Regards
John Watt
Comment by John Watt on 23 January 2010 at 10:55:04 PM
In some respects they all act in very similar ways — for instance, when you put in more carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas, it increases the opacity of the atmosphere and it warms up the surface. That is a universal feature of these models and it is universal because it is based on very fundamental physics that you don’t need a climate model to work out.
But when it comes to aspects that are slightly more relevant — I mean, nobody lives in the global mean atmosphere, nobody makes the global mean temperature an important part of his expectations — things change. When it comes to something like rainfall in the American Southwest or rainfall in the Sahel or the monsoon system in India, it turns out that the assumptions we make in building the models (the slightly different decisions about what is important and what isn’t important) have an important effect on the sensitivity of very complex elements of the climate.
ConcernedCitizen
Comment by ConcernedCitizen on 23 January 2010 at 02:41:45 PM
John Watts
They have posted these. However the lobbyists in the States have created tumult of intrigue. There are alliances within the US that are utterly crazy. Alliances between Creationist (7 Day) to Fatalistic Atheists, extreme right wing movements, energy companies and the like. All creating the noise of propaganda over laid over the science distorting and arguing on countless hundreds of blogs funded by them.
It is really up you to cut through this nonsense and get to the bones of the issue as I most certainly have. And it takes a lot of research and attending meetings I assure you. A journey like this can take the part of a good six months to get through the dross and get to core science that is truly remarkable and empirical.
ConcernedCitizen
Comment by ConcernedCitizen on 23 January 2010 at 01:21:01 PM
ConcernedCitizen,
So why don’t these learned climatologists publish a straightforward explanation of how CO2 drives climate change using basic laws of physics/chemistry? They need to get outside their peer-reviewed environment and communicate with the public who are going to bear the cost of the politicians’ interpretations of the climate models
I suspect the physics/chemistry of the behaviour of CO2 in the presence of infrared radiation are outside the scope of the average climatologist. Climatologists need to embrace such knowledge before constructing climate models. Until then the results of the models are neither credible input for IPCC reports nor a sound foundation for effective legislation.
Regards
John Watt
Comment by John Watt on 23 January 2010 at 12:48:42 PM
John Watt
You said:
Like Steve Fielding I agree with you that climate change is happening and has potentially dire consequences for the ways in which humans have chosen to inhabit this planet and use its resources.
You said:
However to simplistically blame carbon dioxide and opportunistically label it as pollution is the issue that concerns me. I suspect the drivers of climate change are much more complex.
The argument you posit here is also misleading. The science is irrefutable in regard to the signature of C02 as being the main forcing of Global warming for over a century. All you have to is ask the Academy of Sciences USA for an answer from the Climate disciplines. By all means ask 10 or 20, perhaps 100 even a 1,000 of them their science opinions. By all means do get the empirical evidence whilst carrying such an exercise.
Make your mind John Watts up. Make up your mind up.
It all been done, its just that you were not listening for the last 5 years.
ConcernedCitizen
Comment by ConcernedCitizen on 23 January 2010 at 11:15:07 AM
ConcernedCitizen,
Like Steve Fielding I agree with you that climate change is happening and has potentially dire consequences for the ways in which humans have chosen to inhabit this planet and use its resources.
However to simplistically blame carbon dioxide and opportunistically label it as pollution is the issue that concerns me. I suspect the drivers of climate change are much more complex.
I would like to see the resources being spent by both sides of this debate redirected into some basic science to quantify the real drivers of climate change.
When we identify the drivers then we can plan for our future. Maybe we can influence climate. May be we simply have to live with what nature has in store for us.
Grow different crops in different places. Don’t populate low-lying land unless we are prepared to construct the necessary bariers etc.
Regards
John Watt
Comment by John Watt on 23 January 2010 at 10:45:17 AM
The simplistic method you imply Rudd was using had the agreement of the Liberal Party at one stage. It was a baby step - a step to change our habits. The alternative in a warming world is not a pretty sight. Unless Countries of the world take steps to alter the money flow in their economies - nothing can be done - even started.
Why this continued idealism of no proof as as recent as June 2009: The U.S. Global Change Research Program reported in June, 2009 that:
Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities.
The report, which is about the effects that climate change is having in the United States, also says:
Climate-related changes have already been observed globally and in the United States. These include increases in air and water temperatures, reduced frost days, increased frequency and intensity of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and reduced snow cover, glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. A longer ice-free period on lakes and rivers, lengthening of the growing season, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere have also been observed. Over the past 30 years, temperatures have risen faster in winter than in any other season, with average winter temperatures in the Midwest and northern Great Plains increasing more than 7°F. Some of the changes have been faster than previous assessments had suggested.
This is a strawman argument. You imply by non-provision of proof, this is proof nothing exists to make up one’s mind. Clearly demolish an argument on this basis reminds of the three monkey positions, see none, hear none and speak none. Many have tried - and still Steve produces this out dated graph everywhere he goes.
This is a political focus rather then science focus. By opposing the present administration - this a under current in your words that nothing exists. There is another story untold and unspoken into your own thinking.
If your point references are clearly the blog science and denial movements who no doubt have had a biased effect on your own thinking along with a prejudiced politic - only God of heaven can strike such a man as you down convinced otherwise.
The Damascus experience is to first blind the one to their denial and then open their eyes to the “new” way. As a Christian of the non-left - a false misleading accusation on those who support AGW - I have had both - my eyes opened to the eternity of man’s state and our fragile earth we are presently destroying at an alarming rate.
You cannot imply the term integrity to one fellow and not fairly distribute integrity to those whom oppose your own political viewpoints. That is being partisan and is not the mind of true objective investigator seeking the truth. That is: Integrity is not the domain of one’s ideal - it belongs to all men of all persuasions and is called commonsense and on the spiritual level - common grace extended to all.
Comment by ConcernedCitizen on 23 January 2010 at 10:28:02 AM
Is Copenhagen done and dusted?
I heard a very interesting segment , with Alan Jones and Tim Wilson, on the 19th January.
Title:- THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE COPENHAGEN MEETING.
http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_podcasting&task=view&id=2&Itemid=41
scroll down and it’s 2nd last from bottom. I haven’t seen anything in the media about this, and Rudd has been silent (which is the norm) about Copenhagen. Can someone tell me if what was said is true?
Comment by Angie on 23 January 2010 at 12:19:58 AM
Concerned Citizen,
I suspect many of us are concerned about climate change. However we should also be concerned about the simplistic remedy our Govt is proposing.
Where is their proof that human generated CO2 is driving climate change? If they don’t have the basic physics/chemistry analysis that shows that CO2 is the culprit then why are they pursuing an ETS/CPRS?
If they can’t provide such analysis to Senator Fielding how can they expect him to vote in favour of the legislation? After all that question is the reason for this and related blogs on this site.
So the question stands…show us the basic physics /chemistry of the interaction of atmospheric CO2 with earth’s infrared radiation emissions. Once that is established then we are in a position to judge the effectiveness of ETS/CPRS in modifying the impacts of climate change.
How did we give ourselves a Govt that develops legislation that has no firm foundation to support it? Be grateful that Fielding has the integrity to ask the question!
Regards
John Watt
Comment by John Watt on 22 January 2010 at 08:36:25 PM
John Watt,
You made this statement:
“To do that effectively he is looking for an answer to his query on the role of CO2 in the global warming /climate change process. To date no one has been able to do that. It is a question of basic science…the fundamental physics/chemistry of how atmospheric CO2 behaves in the presence of the infrared radiation emitted from the earth’s surface.”
There have many attempts to answer and address this question to Steve Fielding. He remains stubborn to the facts actual science on the following counts:
1. Evidence of energy imbalance increasing caused a complex factor: C02 increased ppm. Studies on papers that PROVE the calculated energy global imbalance are as follows: Our planet is suffering an energy imbalance and is steadily accumulating heat (Murphy 2009, von Schuckmann 2009, Trenberth 2009)
2. Contrary to denier opinions on blogs: Antarctic ice loss is accelerating (Velicogna 2009), even from East Antarctica which was previously thought to be too stable to lose ice mass (Chen 2009)
Greenland ice loss is accelerating (Velicogna 2009, van den Broeke et al 2009)
Glaciers are shrinking globally at an accelerating rate (WGMS 2008)
Arctic sea-ice loss is accelerating with the loss rate exceeding model forecasts by around a factor of 3 (Stroeve 2007).
3. The most outstanding proofs we would in warming world: The height of the tropopause is increasing (Santer 2003, press release)
Weather patterns are changing not seen since man globally dominated the world by his civilization:
Jet streams are moving poleward (Archer 2008, Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
The tropical belt is widening (Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
There is an increasing trend in record hot days versus record cold temperatures with currently twice as many record hot days than record cold temperatures (Meehle 2009 ).
You ask:
“Can someone can answer that to Fielding’s satisfaction? Clearly the focus has to be on the basic science and not on the participating personalities.”
Okay you have science papers listed - it now over to Steve Fielding and yourself to look into.
This is not basic science. Never has been. And could please tell Steve to stop using that outdated graph as proof.
Regards
John Watt
Comment by ConcernedCitizen on 22 January 2010 at 09:51:59 AM
CR on 15 January 2010 at 04:46:11 PM
“Can anyone see any correlation in this ? as in not happening ! “
Its very obvious when you do a fake line of best fit - ie the green line in the graph.
And c3 have the audacity to call climatologists “frauds”
Comment by Margaret Hamilton on 20 January 2010 at 11:33:47 AM
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a7c87805970b-pi
Can anyone see any correlation in this ? as in not happening !
Comment by CR on 15 January 2010 at 04:46:11 PM
Margaret,
You are obviously passionate about the moral , religious and ethical contexts of this question. However the whole purpose of this blog and the related blogs is to help the Senator vote on the ETS/CPRS legislation. To do that effectively he is looking for an answer to his query on the role of CO2 in the global warming /climate change process. To date no one has been able to do that. It is a question of basic science…the fundamental physics/chemistry of how atmospheric CO2 behaves in the presence of the infrared radiation emitted from the earth’s surface. Can someone can answer that to Fielding’s satisfaction?
Clearly the focus has to be on the basic science and not on the participating personalities.
Regards
John Watt
Comment by John Watt on 14 January 2010 at 10:54:31 AM
Tony Abbott & Barnaby Joyce are being manipulated by atheists, drug addicts and sodomites!!!
I saw some comments about Ian Plimer & Monckton so decided to check myself - Plimer is a radical atheist & hates Christians – he has been shown to be incompetent (see http://creation.com/ian-plimers-bloopers-a-selection) and dishonestly anti Christian – see http://creationwiki.org/Ian_Plimer “In 1994, Plimer published Telling Lies for God. In this book Plimer employs straw-man arguments, innuendo, guilt by association, and outright false accusations to malign creationists in general and C.S.F. in particular. ” Plimer lost a string of lawsuits including defamation actions after defaming decent honest Christians
- and our country is founded on Christian values.
Plimer is getting ExxonMobil money to bring Monckton to Australia - Monckton is a liar – he lied about being a Lord , he lied about being a Nobel Laureate, he lied about being a scientific advisor to Thatcher. He called for building concentration camps to imprison all AIDS suffers for life (read it in his outrageous book - “The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS,” – I have a loved relative who got AIDS from a blood transfusion : Moncktons stormtroopers would arrest her & lock her up for life, just like the Nazis)
And then look at the biggest supporters of Monckton in the local press – look up yourself (I cant print their names obviously) and you will find an aggressive serial homosexual, a cocaine abuser and a vile hypocrite who lectures us on morals but has been sacked from many jobs for sexual harassment and physical abuse of female staff
Why is this alliance of atheists , frauds, drug abusers, perverts & sodomites trying to take over the policy and thinking of the Liberal & National Party? Why are Tony Abbott & Barnaby Joyce falling for this?
Comment by Margaret Hamilton on 13 January 2010 at 05:46:56 AM
Thank you Pete Ridley for your comments. I have read the articles and I would simply say, “so what”
What has puzzeld me for a long time is why all these people (17000 of them no less at Copenhagen) are so anxious and obsessed with the idea of betraying the sovereignty of their own country to an unelected bunch of foreigners who can come here and tell us what to do.
They seem obsessed with the desire to submit themselves to a worldwide dictatorship which will tell us how much you can travel, what kind of light you will read by, at what temperature you may set your bedroom thermostat and controlling every other aspect of our daily living, and all for the sake of carbon chastity.
It appears they are they all gone mad, but parhaps understandable condidering many would be Gaia worshippers.
Please enlighten me on that one if you can.
I trust you read the article in todays Herald/Sun on page 28 titled “Climate theory catches cold”
Comment by The flying Dutchman on 12 January 2010 at 06:21:33 PM
Glenis & flying Dutchman, you may be interested inreading/joining the debate on Senator Fielding’s “Clmate Change” thread at http://www.stevefielding.com.au/forums/viewthread/125/P6525/
Comment by Pete Ridley on 11 January 2010 at 02:23:08 AM
Hi Steve,
Now that the fraudulent Copenhagen circus (the brain child of that useless and dangerous gravy train the UN)
has been exposed, it is time that Family First takes an open stand of “No ETS and no carbon exchange program” under any circumstances. And that includes irrespective what any other country does.The idea that anyone can “save the planet” by doing something about climate change is as insane as saying that we are going to save the planet from earth quakes, sunamis, volcanic eruptions or any other of nature’s awesome power. Climate change has always been part of the earth’s conditions and has nothing to do with looking after the environment in a responsible way.
Keep up the good work.
Comment by The flying Dutchman on 10 January 2010 at 06:22:04 PM
My eyes are glazing over with the so called proof of global warming posted here by lefties. I believe that this global warming is a huge scam by left wing socialists on orders from their International Socialist masters to enslave the capitalist system of the free world and con their Governments into supporting this spurious science so that the huge tax can be given to the lazy left wing Socialist Governments, not the poor countries so badly affectedby poverty, not global warming.
They want a New World Government paid for by people who do not want it. Soviet Russia tried this at the expense of over 35 million Russian lives, the attempted destruction of their religious beliefs. It collapsed in the end because no worker is going to do anything more than the barest minimum if all the benefit is going to the State and he has nothing to strive for. In the meantime, the Islamist menace has grown enormously and if all the might of the West cannot subdue these neanderthal thugs how do the Socialist thugs expect to do so. Wake up you Socialist sheepies. You are just the means to an end. There are no guarantees that your children and grandchildren will be safe from these monsters you are supporting, either intentionally or not.
Comment by Glenis on 09 January 2010 at 04:30:50 AM
PART 1
FG, come on now, stop the scare-mongering. You sound just like the politicians supporting the UN’s agenda of:
- enhancing the status, power and finances of the privileged few,
- establishing a framework for global government,
- redistributing wealth from the taxpayers in developed economies to the privileged few in underdeveloped economies.
You possibly haven’t heard of UK politician Sammy Wilson or of “maverick weather forecaster” (Note 1) Piers Corbyn, who claims that the forecasts of his Weather Action consultancy are far more reliable than those of the UK’s Met. Office. Corbyn’s forecasts are QUOTE: based on what is called “The Solar Weather Technique.” UNQUOTE. Today’s Weatheraction page (Note 2) headlines their International Conference at Imperial College London on 28th October 2009 and gives a link (Note 3) to an excellent presentation given by Sammy Wilson. Back in Jan/Feb last year Sammy Wilson, who was at that time Environment Minister in Northern Ireland, had the courage to speak out against the UK Government’s human-made global climate change propaganda campaign and was hauled before the Environment Committee for a ticking off. He was eventually moved from Environment to Finance.
One of the comments that he makes relates to this blog. Sammy Wilson refers to this claimed QUOTE: they say .. we’ve got a big knob called CO2 that we can turn like the temperature gauge on a cooker and turn the world’s temperature up and down .. UNQUOTE. In a very humorous way Sammy Wilson touches on several of the hypocrisies that members of political and environmental organisations demonstrate repeatedly. (examples of these are the UN’s gigantic CO2-vomiting extravaganza in Copenhagen, COP15 and the refusal of organisations and individuals like Greenpeace, Al Gore, the UK’s Forum for the Future, Mark Lynas and Jonathan Porritt to debate with sceptics). Sammy Wilson also talks about the words of a UK Met Office representative who acknowledged that they use the same computers for forecasting weather as they use for climate. On 30th April they forecast (Note 4) that QUOTE: Summer temperatures across the UK are likely to be warmer than average and rainfall near or below average for the three months of summer. UNQUOTE and as a result was re-named the Wet Office. On 23rd July they forecast (Note 5) QUOTE: .. Winter 2009/10 is likely to be milder than last year for the UK .. UNQUOTE and look what we are having!!. (See some of the comments about this forecast at the time it was made – Note 6).
Have a look and listen –anyone with an open mind should enjoy it. It is so re-assuring for sceptics to hear a politician having the courage to challenge the UN’s political propaganda supporting The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis. Let’s hope that more and more will “come out”, although it’s unlikely, since they do want those environmentalist votes.
The UK’s Wet Office forecasts are discussed in the Daily Telegraph by Christopher Brooker (Note 7), who has written a very interesting book that I received as a Xmas present. “The Real Global Warming Disaster” poses the question on the front cover “Is the obsession with ‘climate change’ turning out to be the most costly scientific blunder in history”? It has the following quotations on the back cover:
- “Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled” – in 1992 by politician Al Gore (famous for those “inconvenient misrepresentations” which helped to win him his Nobel Prize – for politics),
- “The disaster is not set to happen in some science fiction future many years ahead, but in our lifetime” – in 2006 by politician Tony Blair (famous for those “weapons of mass destruction” and other distortions,
- “The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear” in 2008 by politician Barack Obama (famous for being the first “African American” US president but nothing else),
- “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer predictions combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age” in 2007 by Professor Richard Lindzen (famous for his scientific expertise in meteorology).
Between those covers is an excellent analysis of the facts behind the “significant human-made global climate change” political scam. Well worth reading if you have an open mind.
Comment by Pete Ridley on 06 January 2010 at 09:14:09 AM
PART 2
NOTES:
1) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn
2) see http://www.weatheraction.com/
3) see http://www.kane-tv.com/wa/sammywilson.html
4) see http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20090430.html
5) see http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/science/creating/monthsahead/seasonal/2009/winter.html
6) see http://theweatheroutlook.com/twocommunity/forums/t/27515.aspx
7) see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6257987/What-makes-Met-Office-long-term-forecasts-so-wrong.html
Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agos(cep)tic
Comment by Pete Ridley on 06 January 2010 at 09:13:48 AM
Heya NUFF NUFF. I got your name from another BLOG, I thinks it suit you very well. Here is the proof.
Hottest decade on record: official
January 5, 2010 - 3:23PM
Australia experienced its hottest decade on record from 2000 to 2009 due to global warming, the nation’s bureau of meteorology said today.
The average temperature in Australia over the past 10 years was 0.48 degrees Celsius above the 1961-1990 average, the Bureau of Meteorology said in its annual climate statement.
And 2010 is forecast to be even hotter, with temperatures likely to be between 0.5 and 1 degrees above average.
“We’re getting these increasingly warm temperatures, not just for Australia but globally. Climate change, global warming is clearly continuing,” said bureau climatologist David Jones.
“We’re in the latter stages of an El Nino event in the Pacific Ocean and what that means for Australian and global temperatures is that 2010 is likely to be another very warm year—perhaps even the warmest on record.”
Environment Minister Peter Garrett used the report to attack opposition politicians for blocking the government’s key climate policy, a carbon emissions trading scheme (ETS) aimed at reducing greenhouses gases causing global warming.
“Australia is one of the hottest and driest inhabited places on earth and our environment and economy will be one of the hardest and fastest hit by climate change,” said Garrett.
“Today’s statement finds that the patterns of the last year and the decade are consistent with global warming. It (passing the ETS) is in the national interest and it is in the interest of the world,” he said in a statement.
The government has promised to reintroduce its ETS legislation to parliament in February, a move which may trigger an early election in 2010 if the legislation is again defeated.
An election is due in late 2010.
The year 2009 will be remembered for “extreme bushfires, dust-storms, lingering rainfall deficiencies, areas of flooding and record-breaking heatwaves”, said the bureau.
In fact, 2009 was Australia’s second warmest year on record, with the annual mean temperature 0.90 degrees Celsius above the 1961-1990 average, driven by three record-breaking heatwaves that caused Australia’s most deadly bushfires, killing 173 people.
“To get one of them in a year would have been unusual. To get three is just really quite remarkable,” said Jones.
Outback Australia was warming more quickly than other parts of the country, with some inland areas warming at twice the rate of coastal regions, said the bureau.
But as Australia warmed, with large tracts of the country battling a decade-long drought, the northern part of the country was becoming wetter, said the bureau.
Floods now cover large parts of northern New South Wales state and the tropical state of Queensland.
“Australia as a whole has been getting warmer for about 50-60 years and it’s actually been tending to get wetter,” said Jones. “You see this paradox—the country, particularly in the north, it’s getting wetter but is also warming up.”
Comment by FG on 05 January 2010 at 07:13:33 PM
Phil (AKA Stormboy) and Havequestions, please see my comment on Senator Fielding’s “My No-vote on the ETS” blog.
Comment by Pete Ridley on 02 January 2010 at 04:19:36 AM
Havequestions,
you have been answered ad nauseum; now you’ve settled for trying to deceive people into believing I haven’t.
You don’t need more information about me, you just need to tell me why you won’t accept the mountains of evidence I’ve given you. If you have trouble reading the papers or understanding aspects just tell me, I have all the time in the world for a genuine person but no patience whatsoever for con-men.
Comment by Stormboy on 01 January 2010 at 08:09:03 PM
Below are the questions Stormboy is trying to avoid answering, while at the same time trying to imply or claim that he is actually a scientist (eg his statement “We in science ...”). Since Stormboy has no publications he cannot claim to be a scientist.
Most of the ‘believers in the ‘Dangerous AGW’ hypothesis seem to think that because the planet has been warming since the Little Ice Age that this is evidence in support of DAGW.
In my opinion it is not.
What is needed is evidence that this warming is unnatural. It needs to be shown that current temperatures are higher than in the past and/or the rate of warming is greater than in the past.
Is there any strong, persuasive evidence of this?
For some background for those who may not be aware:
The planet is always either warming or cooling. We are currently in an ice age. The third ice age in the past 600 million years. The current one started about 30 million years ago. Within ice ages, there are oscillations between glacial and interglacial periods. We are currently in an interglacial period.
Normally, there are no ice caps at the poles. Ice at the poles is rare. So melting of the ice and glaciers is not evidence of man-made global warming.
The planet is normally significantly warmer than present. When warmer, it is wetter. Vegetation thrives. Coral reefs thrive. Marine life thrives. Winds are less (there is less dust in the air, sand dunes are far less extensive), deserts shrink, there is more carbon tied up in the biosphere (evidence that life thrives when warmer).
There are multiple, interacting natural cycles of warming and cooling:
1. plate tectonics (ice ages only occur when there is a large land mass at one or both of the poles AND there is a continuous land mass from high northern to high southern latitudes (like the Americas are now)
2. 40,000 and 100,000 year period glacial and interglacial cycles (triggered by certain orbital and axis tilt conditions)
3. 900 year period (Roman Warm Period , Dark Ages cold period, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Modern Warm Period
4. multi-decadal cycle (11 and 22 year Sun phases, ocean currents, many other)
5. Ad hoc (volcanic eruptions, comet and meteorite impacts, etc)
I understand the GHG THEORY (to the extent I need to). But we need the empirical evidence to test the theory. Evidence that the planet is warming is not sufficient. It needs to be demonstrated that the warming is largely man-made.
Is there such evidence? What is it?
Comment by Havequestions on 01 January 2010 at 03:50:31 PM
Stormboy,
“I think I’ve seen enough [Storemboy]; you use the lamest excuses to avoid the answers. You’re a prime example of how the world has gotten into the mess it’s in. ” Exactly !!
You haven’t answered my questions. Nor have any of the other alarmists.
You try to imply you are a scientist (eg your comment “We in science ...”). If so, why haven’t you shown your publications list here?
I suspect you are a total fraud.
Are you prepared to post your publications list here?
Are you prepared to answer my questions?
Comment by Havequestions on 01 January 2010 at 03:12:17 PM
I think I’ve seen enough Havequestions; you use the lamest excuses to avoid the answers. You’re a prime example of how the world has gotten into the mess it’s in.
Comment by Stormboy on 31 December 2009 at 02:53:25 PM
Stormboy,
You say “we in the scientific community don’t dismiss evidence based on gossip and character assasinations”.
Which just goes to prove that a) you are not a scientist, and b) you are an oarrogant persons who thinks he is an expert on everything but is actually not on anything.
Instead of continuing to arry on with your arrogance, as repeated here, again, why don’t you imply answer the question and elave the rest of the rubbish ou. Each time you start off a post with derogatory comments, I don’t bother reading any further. From past experience it is obvious you cannot answer the question.
Comment by Havequestions on 31 December 2009 at 01:49:18 PM
Pete, as I responded to you on the other thread, try to get back on topic.
Havequestions
we in the scientific community don’t dismiss evidence based on gossip and character assasinations - you need to find fault with the actual science and as I’ve demonstrated the US National Academy of Science and many other studies independendently examined the work and found it stood up to the worst of the criticisms.
You have given me a list of papers, but you may not realise that only the first 2 references have any relevance to the Hockeystick which has become the subject of our debate since you said that it would be “persuasive” evidence. As much as I’d like to discuss the others, let’s stick to the subject ok?
STEVE MCINTYRE’S link didn’t work, however if he wants to genuinely discredit a scientific paper he should know full well that all he has to do is publish his findings in a peer-reviewed journal where people are given enough information and opportunity to do to his work what he tried to do to Mann’s. Failure to do so is just sneakiness.
LOEHLE’S work starts out by dismissing tree ring data based on theoretical and unproven objections. His central objection is extremely flimsy when applied at a global scale, ie that when temperatures get too warm, tree-ring growth reduces due to water stress. A legitimate finding on a site level but what is too warm across the planet? Every second post on this blog says that rainfall increases as temperatures rise. Still, there’s nothing wrong with examining the other data by itself but you should note that this reduces the data set to 18 points which is pretty small, and that the proxies he uses have other issues that he does not even discuss.
- After dismissing dendrochronology, Loehle doesn’t give any discussion as to how he can overcome the fact that the proxies he uses have dating errors often of a century or more.
- He shifts a number of proxies forward by 50 years so that the temperature he reports for 2000 is actually the 1950’s temperature when things were considerably cooler.
- The medieval period is only covered by a very small number of his proxies as most do not go back that far. You could be forgiven for understanding his statement “all data were used that had at least 20 dates over the 2000-year period” to mean that all of the proxies covered at least the 2000 year period, but this is not the case (eg http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/paleocean/by_contributor/demenocal2000/658_sst.txt). Although he attempts to compare med to modern temps, only 5 of the 18 proxies cover both periods.
- On at least one proxy he uses the actual raw measurements of Mg/Ca rather than the interpreted temperatures
- A number of the proxies have never actually been validated against real-world temperatures.
- He uses a kind of bizarre approach statistically - rather than standardising the series to each other he subtracts the mean of each series from the series itself so that in the end he is comparing apples and pears.
Overall, it’s a pretty shoddy paper, but the beauty of peer-review is that he had to provide enough details for me to question his findings.
So really, when I gave you 9 peer-reviewed papers and the US Academy of Science (I’ll add here the 650 reviewers for the IPCC AR4), you’ve given me 1 paper based on 5 proxies to represent the entire planet and using statistics that distort the whole picture. No I’m sorry, the Hockeystick has not in any way been discredited. That leaves you either looking hard for some more evidence, being educated by the evidence I’ve given you or in denial. Which is it?
Comment by Stormboy on 31 December 2009 at 09:00:57 AM
PART 1
Thank goodness that COP15 fiasco has turned out to be a miserable failure. Seeing the UN’s COP15 talks disintegrating by the 19th December those devious politicians fell back on what they know talks best – money. The developing economies said “thank you very much – that is all we wanted out of this” and everyone is happy, except the UN. None of this fiasco has anything to do with trying to control global climates. The agenda has nothing to do with this but everything to do with:
- establishment of a framework for global government,
- enhancement of the status, power and finances of the privileged few.
- redistribution of wealth from developed to the politicians and privileged few in the underdeveloped economies.
For the UN it is a great disappointment that they couldn’t get any of their objectives backed by legally binding agreements, but they’ll keep trying. It’s going to be interesting to see if the investigations on both sides of the Atlantic into the “Climategate” scientific scandal is more thorough and open than the “scientific” approach suggested by those leaked UEA CRU files. This should put an end to the “significant human-made global climate change” scam but will not stop the UN trying to achieve the three objectives given above.
The IPCC is involved in this scandal as is its chairman Dr. Rajendra Pachauri. There is a lovely E-mail (Note 1) QUOTE: April 19, 2002, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) plenary voted for Dr. Rajendra Pachauri as the sole chair of the IPCC. Dr. Pachauri, an economist and engineer, will replace Dr. Robert Watson, an atmospheric chemist, as chair of the IPCC. This outcome was actively sought by the Bush Administration at the behest of the most conservative elements of the fossil fuel industry. This development threatens to undermine the scientific credibility and integrity of the IPCC and may weaken the job this extraordinary body has done to bring the world’s attention to one of the most pressing environmental problems. UNQUOTE
Taking into consideration the implications of 20th December Daily Telegraph article (Note 2) “Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri” there are parts of the lead article here that strike me more than others. These are QUOTE: The rich-poor disputes in Copenhagen …. Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh .. told Hindustan Times that India had “upheld the interests of developing nations” and their “national sovereignty” UNQUOTE.. It’s those words “rich”, “poor”, “India” and “interests” that stand out and draw my attention again to that Telegraph article questioning the business activities of the UN’s IPCC chairman Dr Pachauri
The climatescience.org site says that (Note 3) QUOTE: Dr. Rajendra Pachauri . was born in .. India … head of .. Tata Energy Research Institute ... UNQUOTE and so much more! There’s nothing poor about the Tata Group, which has its fingers in virtually every engineering pie going – QUOTE: Tata is India’s largest conglomerate UNQUOTE (Note 4) and Chairman of the group, Ratab Tata, is certainly not poor – he’s a billionaire..
The Telegraph article is not too complementary and should be read in full to appreciate the context of those extracts that I present here QUOTE:
Comment by Pete Ridley on 30 December 2009 at 10:35:34 PM
PART 2
No one in the world exercised more influence on .. the Copenhagen conference .. than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the ..IPCC .. and mastermind of its latest report in 2007. Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist .. with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all. ..Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations. .. banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in ‘carbon trading’ and ‘sustainable technologies’ .. soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year.
.. in addition to his role as chairman of the IPCC, Dr Pachauri occupies more than a score of such posts, acting as director or adviser to many of the bodies which play a leading role in what has become known as the international ‘climate industry’. .. only very recently has the staggering scale of Dr Pachauri’s links to so many of these concerns come to light, inevitably raising questions as to how the world’s leading ‘climate official’ can also be personally involved in so many organisations which stand to benefit from the IPCC’s recommendations.
The issue of Dr Pachauri’s potential conflict of interest was first publicly raised last Tuesday when, .. he was handed a letter by two eminent ‘climate sceptics’ .. Stephen Fielding, the Australian Senator .. Lord Monckton, .. Their open letter first challenged .. a graph .. used in the IPCC’s 2007 report .. shown again by Pachauri in his lecture… they went on to question why the report had not declared Pachauri’s personal interest in so many organisations which seemingly stood to profit from its findings. The letter ..was circulated to all the 192 national conference delegations, calling on them to dismiss Dr Pachauri as IPCC chairman because of recent revelations of his conflicting interests. ..
In India, Tata exercises enormous political power, .. it has managed to displace hundreds of thousands of poor tribal villagers .. to make way for large-scale iron mining and steelmaking projects. ..
since Pachauri became a vice-chairman of the IPCC in 1997, TERI has vastly expanded its interest in every kind of renewable or sustainable technology, in many of which the various divisions of the Tata Group have also become heavily involved, such as its project to invest $1.5 billion (£930 million) in vast wind farms. ..
One subject the talkative Dr Pachauri remains silent on, however, is how much money he is paid for all these important posts, which must run into millions of dollars. Not one of the bodies for which he works publishes his salary or fees, and this notably includes the UN, which refuses to reveal how much we all pay him as one of its most senior officials. .. TERI .. Dr Pachauri’s main job for nearly 30 years .. is so coy about money that it does not even publish its accounts – the financial statement amounts to two income and expenditure pie charts which contain no detailed figures.
Dr Pachauri is equally coy about TERI’s links with Tata, .. But the real question mark over TERI’s director-general remains over the relationship between his highly lucrative commercial jobs and his role as chairman of the IPCC. TERI ..
UNQUOTE.
Coming just after the “Climategate” scandal broke and at a time when the integrity of influential scientists on both sides of the Atlantic is being questioned and investigated, this provides us sceptics with even more reason for being suspicious of the validity of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis.
Comment by Pete Ridley on 30 December 2009 at 10:35:04 PM
PART 3
Phil (AKA Stormboy), as I posted today on Senator Fielding’s “No to the ETS” blog you are still repeating the same old opinions that failed in July/August to convince us about the validity of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hyothesis! Try moving on.
Can you provide any evidence showing that CO2 in ice is unable to preferentially fractionate because of its small size, hence distorting the re-constructions of pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentrations from ice cores – something that the IPCC relies upon to justify its position on The Hypothesis. If you have any worthwhile contribution to make on this (although if past experience is anything to go by you won’t have) then please join us on Senator Fielding’s “Climate Change” thread (Note 5) or on Chris Colose’s thread (he’s a staunch supporter of The Hypothesis, just like you, so you ‘ll feel more comfortable there Note 6).
BTW, what do you think of the “Climategate” scandal? DO you still have so much faith in that peer review process that you used to have?
NOTES:
1) see http://climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=270&s=tag252
2) see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html
3) see http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/bios/pachauri.htm
4) see http://www.woopidoo.com/biography/ratan-tata/index.htm
5) see http://www.stevefielding.com.au/forums/newreply/125/
6) see http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/richard-alley-at-agu-2009-the-biggest-control-knob/
Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnos(sep)tic
Comment by Pete Ridley on 30 December 2009 at 10:34:42 PM
Strormboy,
The ‘hockey stick’ is totally discredited. If you are still hanging onto that, then no waonder you are so arrogant.
Go to ClimateAudit and read !!.
The link you posted was to a paper authored by Michael Mann. What would you expect from him. Are you totally out of touch with what has been going on for the past 10 years at least?
Bring yourself up to date;
http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/climategate/history/2009.12.23_climategate_30_years_in_the_making_banner.pdf
And:
Here are references to 9 Peer Reviewed articles listed by BD a regular poster on the weatherzone web site forum “AGW theory is fatally Flawed”
(QUOTE) “That should end the belief that “the debate is over” about global warming. It should also destroy the illusion that there is a “consensus” amongst scientists about the causes of global warming. Those propagating the myth of man-caused global warming are simply distorting reality and the facts…..and that is putting it politely”
I am going to list 10 papers, and start with a non peer-reviewed paper as an exception because of his sustained and exemplary efforts, any one of which is worthy of a Doctorate.
1. Steve McIntyre’s Ohio State University Address;
How do we “know” that 1998 was the warmest year of the millennium? (May 16, 2008)
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/ohio.pdf
This is a seminal paper which synthesizes all the errors and obfuscations to do with the Hockey Stick. It also demonstrates McIntyre’s methodical, scientific and unadorned approach to the issue.
2. Craig Loehle’s paper;
A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies, Energy & Environment 18(7-8): 1049-1058. 2007
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
This paper was important because it was a counterpoise to Mann’s tree-ring data and provided good support for the Medieval Warming Period, a major obstacle to AGW.
3.Douglass, Christy et al; this is the first of the GCM critiques;
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology, 2007
http://www.scribd.com/doc/904914/A-comparison-of-tropical-temperature...
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3058
This paper really touched a nerve and the level of hostility leveled at it was astounding; it mostly boiled down to nit-picking about Raobcore data and whether a falsification was distinct from a bias. The second link is to an addendum to the paper; comments 69-74 are entertaining.
4.Koutsoyiannis et al;
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/850
Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series. Geophysical Research Abstracts, 2008
This link is to the first presentation. This was a crucial paper; it covered the 18 year predictive history of the GCM’s on a regional basis; regionalism is the Achilles Heel of AGW.
5.Stockwell;
http://landshape.org/stats/wpcontent/uploads/2008/08/article.pdf
Tests of Regional Climate Model Validity in the Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report. 2008
This paper did the job on CSIRO and demonstrated the political imput into the AGW science.
6. Misckolczi;
Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary Atmospheres. Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, Vol. 111, No. 1,
January-March 2007, pp. 1-40.
http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf
This is my favourite. It has everything; the dead hand of AGW censorship, and the demolition of the AGW’s semi-infinite opaque layered atmosphere. People have quibbled about the Kirchhoff equations but
Miskolczian -ve feedbacks have been established.
7. Essex, McKitrick, Andresen;
Does a Global Temperature Exist? Journal of
Non-EquilibriumThermodynamics, 32 (1) 1-27. 2007
http://www.reference-global.com/doi/abs/10.1515/JNETDY.2007.001?cooki...
The fallacy of a global average temperature was taken to task in this paper, and, again, the reaction was hostile. This paper wittily compared averaging temperature to averaging the phone book; an important addition to the regionalism lexicon.
8. Spencer and Braswell;
Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A simple Model Demonstration, Journal of Climate.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%... list would be complete without Mr Cloud and -ve feedback. As well,Spencer has been a bastion of reliable temperature data
If you also do some research, with an open mind, you’ll find what has gone wrong with the peer review process in the Climate Change sciences, and the IPCC.
Comment by Havequestions on 30 December 2009 at 07:26:50 PM
Ashley,
you’re confusing “discredited by the scientific community” with “dismissed by some people that don’t want to believe them.” We in the scientific community challenge papers by submitting evidence to peer-reviewed journals, not by writing tablod pieces on websites. If any of your websites have anything whatsoever to discredit these scientists with, then no doubt they will have the peer-reviewed papers to back their statements. If you could please just post the references here to discredit all of the papers I’ve cited, I’ll look into them. If you don’t have them then I suggest that you’re a little too trusting.
Havequestions, you gave the Hockeystick as an example of “persuasive” evidence. I’ve shown you that contrary to your sources that misled you and left you to make a fool of yourself, the Hockeystick has not at all been discredited. You have your evidence in the precise form that you gave, but now you have avoided even mentioning it. Having been proven dead wrong you could have saved face by just saying “thanks for that, I’ll look into it some more”, but instead you avoided the subject completely.
You made the rules - the Hockeystick was your proposed evidence. Now what do you have to say about the 9 peer-reviewed papers and the US National Academy of Science all saying that you’re wrong? I gave you a direct answer and I deserve one in return.
Comment by Stormboy on 30 December 2009 at 03:42:09 PM
Stormboy,
You quoted me as follows:
“You said: “What is needed is evidence that this warming is unnatural. It needs to be shown that current temperatures are higher than in the past and/or the rate of warming is greater than in the past.” “
Then you asked:
“Why? No one has made this claim. You continue to be given answers and make up new hoops for people to jump through so that you don’t have to back down. Why does it matter if it was warmer 30M years ago? If it wasn’t, how would this show that the current warming is anthropogenic?”
Alarmists are arguing that the modern global warming is man-made. They are arguing that it is not natural. I am asking for the evidence that it is man-made rather than being natural. Most alarmists answert this question by referring to the theory and the models (which are the theory). But this is not evidence. If the models could model the climate it would be evidence to show that the theory is correct. But the models cannot model the climate correclty. So they are not evidence. What is needed is evidence to show that the modern warming is abnormal, or some other evidence that shows that the warming is due to increasing CO2 concentrations.
Just because CO2 concentrations are increasing and the planet iws warming is not evidence that the increasing CO2 concentratrions are the CAUSE of the warming. CO2 concentrations have been far higher in the past and they did not cause warming. And increases in CO2 concentratrions followed the start of the warming during the glacial-interglacial cycles. During the glacial-interglacial cycles, greenhouse effectiveness increased jst as it is doing now. So what is the evidence that the present warming isn’t natural?
Comment by Havequestions on 30 December 2009 at 02:57:44 PM
The scientists you quote have largely been discredited within the scientific community. See:
- http://climateaudit.org
- http://wattsupwiththat.com
- http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria
For a good article on “Why Politicized Science is Dangerous” see:
- http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html
Comment by Ashley on 30 December 2009 at 11:34:10 AM
Havequestions
You said: “What is needed is evidence that this warming is unnatural. It needs to be shown that current temperatures are higher than in the past and/or the rate of warming is greater than in the past.”
Why? No one has made this claim. You continue to be given answers and make up new hoops for people to jump through so that you don’t have to back down. Why does it matter if it was warmer 30M years ago? If it wasn’t, how would this show that the current warming is anthropogenic?
You finished by saying that “The ‘Hockey Stick’ was persuasive in 1998 to about 2003. But it is discredited. What is the evidence now?” The Hockey Stick was not disproved, it was debated; there is a difference. McIntyre & McKitrick (2003) said that it must be wrong because they were unable to replicate it, but Wahl & Amman (2007) showed that replication was easy if you just followed the instructions. Determined to prove objectively that their hunch was right whether the evidence said so or not, McIntyre & McKitrick had some more tries in 2005 by introducing some new data which they said showed the reconstruction had been calibrated wrongly; although they wouldn’t say how wrong. Wahl & Amman (2006) applied their theory and found that it only revealed a maximum error of 0.05 degrees C. The US National Academy of Science examined all of the evidence and concluded in 2006: “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world”. Since then, Mann et al have repeated the analysis with a wider dataset and the statistical techniques recommended by their critics, and arrived at the same conclusion again (http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252). That news is now 3 years old, but the sceptic websites don’t seem to want you to know it. Sucks to be kept in the dark and look ignorant doesn’t it? I suggest you need some new friends.
As the US Academy of Science said, other analyses have come to the same conclusion; eg Esper et al 2002, Crowley et al 2003, Mann & Jones 2003, Cook et al 2004, Moberg et al 2005, Rutherford et al 2005, D’Arrigo et al 2006.
So, knowing that the Hockey Stick was not disproven and as you’ve made it clear that you thought it was “persuasive”, I gather this was the evidence you were looking for. You have it now, so I look forward to working with you fixing what we’ve broken.
Comment by Stormboy on 29 December 2009 at 10:33:11 PM
Stormboy,
Copenhagen was a talkfest for extremists and wackos. Let’s get over it and get rational. Neither you nor anyone else who believes in the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis has been able to answer the key question. You and the rest of the Alarmists all avoid answering it. The question is:
Show us the persuasive evidence that increasing CO2 concentrations are the CAUSE of the modern warming.
This question is not about the theory. It asks for the evidence to test the theory. Where is it?
Most of the ‘believers in the ‘Dangerous AGW’ hypothesis seem to think that because the planet has been warming since the Little Ice Age that this is evidence in support of DAGW.
In my opinion it is not.
What is needed is evidence that this warming is unnatural. It needs to be shown that current temperatures are higher than in the past and/or the rate of warming is greater than in the past.
Is there any strong, persuasive evidence of this?
For some background for those who may not be aware:
The planet is always either warming or cooling. We are currently in an ice age. The third ice age in the past 600 million years. The current one started about 30 million years ago. Within ice ages, there are oscillations between glacial and interglacial periods. We are currently in an interglacial period.
Normally, there are no ice caps at the poles. Ice at the poles is rare. So melting of the ice and glaciers is not evidence of man-made global warming.
The planet is normally significantly warmer than present. When warmer, it is wetter. Vegetation thrives. Coral reefs thrive. Marine life thrives. Winds are less (there is less dust in the air, sand dunes are far less extensive), deserts shrink, there is more carbon tied up in the biosphere (evidence that life thrives when warmer).
There are multiple, interacting natural cycles of warming and cooling:
1. plate tectonics (ice ages only occur when there is a large land mass at one or both of the poles AND there is a continuous land mass from high northern to high southern latitudes (like the Americas are now)
2. 40,000 and 100,000 year period glacial and interglacial cycles (triggered by certain orbital and axis tilt conditions)
3. 900 year period (Roman Warm Period , Dark Ages cold period, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Modern Warm Period
4. multi-decadal cycle (11 and 22 year Sun phases, ocean currents, many other)
5. Ad hoc (volcanic eruptions, comet and meteorite impacts, etc)
I understand the GHG THEORY (to the extent I need to). But we need the empirical evidence to test the theory. Evidence that the planet is warming is not sufficient. It needs to be demonstrated that the warming is largely man-made.
Is there such evidence? What is it?
The ‘Hockey Stick’ was persuasive in 1998 to about 2003. But it is discredited. What is the evidence now?
Comment by Havequestions on 28 December 2009 at 10:25:21 PM
Steve, your prophecy that nothing would come of Copenhagen wasn’t all that daring really was it? For something to come of Copenhagen it would mean nations caring more for others than for their own economies, and when even the “Christian” leaders are prepared to use deception to prevent people from putting others first, what hope do we have?
It’s also not that admirable that you have been fighting climate “alarmism” by telling the world that it’s all part of a massive conspiracy to bring in a one-world government. Wow. http://bloodwoodtree.org/2009/11/23/putting-climate-alarmists-in-their-place/
Comment by Stormboy on 28 December 2009 at 12:57:36 PM
Yes, Mr Rudd is trying to con the Australian people. Please continue to wake up the oz people because most are so brainwashed that it is not funny.
Comment by john james on 27 December 2009 at 05:13:42 PM
Hi Steve,
I used to think you were an idiot for questioning Human Induced Climate Change after “The Science is Settled” and in the face of broad Mainstream Media humoring.
Following Climategate and Copenhagen, I now see you took a brave stand for what you believe and have been truly vindicated.
Together with Lord Monckton and the Open Letter to IPCC Head, Pachauri (http://bit.ly/5hJya6), you have helped expose the IPCC for what it is - a massive public funded UN organisation entrenched in self interest (also exposing Pachauri’s conflict of interest in $$$ from CO2 credits); Rather than funding Real Science behind Climate Change.
With Trillions $$$ riding on IPCC findings this foul smell covers the stink of a scandal of the highest order. Everyone, including True Believers, should be fundamentally concerned.
Whilst I am no longer a Human Induced Climate Change Believer, I remain open to findings from Real Science - not the Junk Science funded by IPCC (and exposed by Climategate). I think this is an important distinction that needs to be made clear.
(Memo to True Believers:) IPCC has also done an immeasurable dis-service to the global community by distracting and dis-enfranchising Real Science from real environmental issues the world faces (pollution, population growth and resources, to name a few).
Well done, Steve! Your efforts are deserving of much more recognition than have been received so far.
It will be interesting to see how (True Believer) KRudd weasels his way through this in the next few months, as more Climategate revelations and fallouts occur.
Comment by MT Judd on 24 December 2009 at 10:31:54 AM
Excellent work Mr Fielding.
AGW is a con and the only thing that would happen to Australia with an ETS is the loss of jobs and the installation of a Carbon Based Nazi Control grid on the Australian People.
Keep up the good work!
Comment by Erik in Sydney on 24 December 2009 at 10:19:58 AM
Hi Steve
Thank you so much for your Gutsy stand, and good work at Copenhagen,
I wish you well with you brave attempt to hold the IPCC chairman accountable for his outrageous lies, in his speech at the conference.
You are a fair dinkum good honest Aussie battler whom I respect very much.
I admire you greatly and appreciate your hard work and determination in
investigating and seeking the truth behind this flawed AGW theory and
subsequent policies.
Although I have not voted Family First in the past, I will be supporting you
in future.
Keep up the good work and stay safe.
Best wishes to you and your family over the Christmas season
Bet regards
HofH
Comment by Hard of Hats on 23 December 2009 at 03:50:17 PM
Well done Steven for standing up to these globalist. Rudd is part of them, he does not care about common people. This scam it what it is. Steven they have lost the first battle, but BELEIVE me these people will come back to try and pass this global tax. IT will destroy not only Australia, but the third world. Were is the money going. A world bank .Come on people put ENOURMOUS pressure on our govermemts, to tell the truth. Only with getting out information and informing people is this going to happen.The Mainstream medis is complicit to these people, so we need people like you STEVEN. God bless and have good christmas.
Comment by john james on 22 December 2009 at 03:52:24 PM
Thank you so much Steve for making the effort to be at Copenhagen on the behalf of the UNPRECEDENTED number of Australian’s who voiced their opposition to Kevin Rudds ETS “SCHEME” and his Copenhagen lie.
It was extremely important to have BALANCED representation at Copenhagen which is what a democratic society is all about.
Congratulations again for doing what you are meant to do as a politician-CHALLENGE THESE CORRUPT SOCIALIST BULLIES AND REPRESENT THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE.
Kevin Rudd must be made accountable for his blatant disregard for public interest and opinion and for his constant refusal to supply Australians with DIRECT answers to DIRECT questions.
Just listen to his responses to questions asked by political opponents or the various media. HE NEVER ACTUALLY ANSWERS THE QUESTION BUT JUST RESPONDS WITH AN INSULT to ANYONE WHO CHALLENGES HIM OR A RANT ABOUT HIS OWN AGENDAS.
ALL of the responses are almost identical. They are irrelevant and OUT OF CONTEXT WITH THE QUESTIONS or he simply IGNORES them.
He is constantly trying to plant and cultivate a thought pattern to throw people off the real issues. THE TRUTH!!
He consistently refuses to supply information or to engage in debate over these HUGE issues of national importance.
Not even the senators in parliament were provided with the information that they had been seeking (for up to 2 years) from the Rudd/Labor government to enable them to make informed decisions about the legislation that Kevin Rudd was trying to FORCE on us.
We have a right to be FULLY informed about these issues and we need people like you Steve, to make this happen.
Well done and thank you again FOR DOING YOUR JOB and acting in the interests of all concerned AUSTRALIANS.
Comment by JHos on 22 December 2009 at 02:48:12 PM
Good on you Steve for sticking to your WORD and for looking after the People of Australia which the others
could not care about.
JUST a world ideology to which they have.
At long last COMMON SENSE has come out for a LONG LAST change.
Well we have seen the TRUTH slowly coming out.
All proving it was a Carbon trading scam just to make a select few huge amounts of money for doing nothing except a piece of paper at the expense TAX of the peoples of Australia and other countries.
Now to DRIVE the point home. We have COLD weather hitting Europe, USA,Russia,Poland ext.
Similar to what it used to be a few years ago.
All the bull was just a CON which comes from the word CONROY, It to bring in a new GST Grab Steal and Take Tax.
But this TAX money WAS to go over seas to a NEW WORLD GOVERNMENT.
NOT to go around in our country.
Money is the life blood of a Country.
Take to much out and it dies just like tha HUMAN body.
WELL all the best to you and your family Steve for Christmas and new year.
That also goes to all others who CARE for thisGreat Country of Australia.
Albert Hopkins Shirley.
Comment by Magna Carta on 22 December 2009 at 12:26:59 PM
It will be interesting to see how Rajendra Pachauri responds to the letter.
I suspect he will not respond at all, but good on you.
Comment by Vince on 22 December 2009 at 11:12:56 AM
“Put simply, Kevin Rudd likes to stand on the international stage with a ‘look at me’ attitude. That’s not right and the people of Australia shouldn’t have to tolerate it.”
Funny how politicians like to stand on international stages ... Is that why you co-signed the document with Lord Monckton?
Comment by nickhodge on 22 December 2009 at 10:42:57 AM