Column - Climate Commission now short of scares

The Police tell us most bushfires are deliberately lit.
Deforestation puts remaining forest at greater risk.
Service roads built into forests give arsonists more opportunity to light fires.

Flannery on 7:30 the other night was very careful to use the word “likely” when predicting monthly catastrophic storms in the future.
I’m certain these guys collectively workshop the spin.

Why can’t Julian Assange hack into Flannery’s PC?

Roads through forsests are also used for firefighting, many of them have gates on them which are kept locked.

Not only that Green councils have caused fuel build ups by not back burning, letting the sides of the road over grow, and making it harder to cut down trees around houses. These councils have also made it more expensive to burn leaf litter around properties as you have to pay for permits now.

My parents lived close to the recent fire in Perth. Coincidentally the Green council have not back burned for 6 years in that area. When I lived there back burning was a yearly event rotating around all the bush blocks and reserves.

Idiots light fires, some times accidentally to. Fools do not try to prevent them.

Can’t help but notice that Andrew doesn’t show the whole transcript of his interview with Williams in the article. I reckon this would be because if in a newspaper more people will read it and notice that this wasn’t William’s position at all and was pestered by Andrew to say it is possible, even though it isn’t what he expected. E.g., it’s possible a comet will hit Earth this year, but I don’t think it will happen.

More tabloid/gutter journalism. The media, including Bolt, is getting worse and worse, not representing people correclty etc.

Chas

Can’t help but notice that Andrew doesn’t show the whole transcript of his interview with Williams in the article.

That transcript has been published so many times that some people here know it off by heart.

Stop being so lazy, stop your infantile whining and look it up.

Chas he was pestered to say he doesn’t think it would happen but he wouldn’t, he insisted it was possible, not unlikely. You’re the one who is reading it wrong.

“we know beyond reasonable doubt”

This is not the language of scientists, AS.

“The report also fails to note that the average warming of 0.17 degrees a decade over the past 30 years is almost identical to the warming from 1860 to 1880, which no one blames on humans”

Gee whiz ....continue to mislead your followers…

The fact is the planet was a whole degree cooler back then

Human emissions are not the only climate forcing. Just because we know the cause of the present warming, in no way does this mean other influences don’t exist.

“we know beyond reasonable doubt that the world is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause.”

Yet, the report provides no evidence whatsoever to support this statement.

Given that the authors’ cushy jobs depend on those holding the pursestrings believing this statement, what does that tell you?

Yes, we know you know how to cut and paste and use the bold tags, you’ve been showing us all for days now, and we think it’s terribly, terribly clever.

But what else can you do?

Keep flogging that dead nag, son, it might still have some life left in it in 1,000 years.

And just BTW, 0.5 metres is less than an average human’s knee height, let alone waist height.  And a horse’s too, except if it’s dead.

Yes AS, taking CO2 out of the air is obviously the way to reduce climate change but let’s attack this imminent danger on TWO FRONTS.

Why not eliminent the threat from rising seas as well - simply by removing some of the excess sea water?

We could turn on our desal plants and pump pure, clean water on to the Darling River catchment area from where it would never reach the sea again!

This would lower the sea level (at least in our region) just as effectively as reducing atmospheric CO2 would do its thing.

Bingo. Problem solved with a double whammy.

..with no credentials in the field...” And Tim Flannery’s credentials in the field of climate change are? Juliar Gillard’s?
Oh, AS, it’s always, perhaps, maybe, possibly, in the future, could be etc… It is so palpably WRONG, all this bullshirt that is thrown at us, with the voodoo future armageddon line...No one is listening AS-even Labor MPs are merely echoing the party line, without real belief. All so sad!

“we know beyond reasonable doubt that the world is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause.”

What? You mean a commission made up of the biggest alarmists in Australia said that? I’m shocked! Quick, help me cut the mains off at my flat! The world is doomed!

Pure desperation AS, even with the religious belief they (and you) have, they can’t even bring themselves to predict any more than a 1 metre rise over 100 years, a whopping, 1cm a year! I think Australia will be fine mate.

But hey, don’t let me stop you from posting tiresome cliches. They are always fun to read.

And Labor’s policy will stop this world-wide threat to mankind by...?

Take the blinkers off for a moment and listen to the interveiw Greg Carey did with one former warmie Dr Evans yesterday on 4bc, it might just open your mind a little.

AS, while reading Andrew’s extracts from the Climate Commission Report was wondering if finally this would muzzle you.

But no, you come back with the “wet lettuce, aint it awful” defence:

Climate science is being attacked in the media by many with no credentials in the field, blah, blah, blah, we know beyond reasonable doubt, blah, blah, blah.

AS, shouldn’t you be attacking the Climate Commission for its downplaying of the global warming threat and the many qualifications it makes acknowledging that the science is not settled? 

Talking of credentials, many have asked of yours before, so how about coming clean now the Climate Commission has sidelined you?

The way science works, AS, is by testing hypotheses against observations in the real world. CO2 has been rising for the past 15 years, that’s true, but the world’s temperature has not risen IN A STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT way during this time. In fact, the change has been so small that it’s hard to say whether it has been rising or falling. Add to this the total failure of the models to predict seasonal trends in temperature and rainfall and we have all we need to prove that the AGW hypothesis has been effectively falsified.

Yes, yes, I know - you have all these papers from Leftist “scientists” who peer-review each others work who SWEAR that AGW is real - but take away their “progressive” political commitment and their well-funded university jobs that are built upon the AGW theory, and they would soon be silent.

The jig is up, AS - it was a nice try by the social-engineers, but the curtain has parted and we can see the pathetic old “wizard” working the thunder controls to try and scare us. Busted!!

“we know beyond reasonable doubt that the world is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause.”
No you don’t this wouldn’t even get passed the clerk in criminal court of law, you have absolutely no evidence at all, only hearsay and conjecture by witnesses that have perjured themselves blatantly and publicly for over a decade. 
This wouldn’t even be competitive on the balance of probabilities as the world has been hotter and colder before and we’re still here.
Stick to science, courts and evidence are not a place the AGW movement want to go in case someone notices the high degree of fraud involved in the disclosures and discovery. The high profile institutions and identities involved in supporting AGW have well and truly soiled the nest of the environmental movement with the public.  People would rather risk mildly warmer winters than be seen to be supporting open and unapologetic parasites.

Yawn

Try telling that to Kevin Rudd.

within the climate research community our understanding of the climate system continues to advance strongly.”

Mate, how can this be so if the science is settled?  It seems to me that this statement says ‘we don’t know but we are learning, slowly’.

AS, your worshipping of the Climate Commission is making you look like a dope.

That’s a nice general statement that still sends the message...but where is the refutable data? 
Bolt has stated that temperate has NOT risen in ten years...that’s a claim that can be tested against accessible data, unlike the motherhood statements of the Climate Commission. 
The problem with these climate reports is that the rhetoric in them is so unscientific...unverifiable! 

Excuse me, your comment” is being attacked in the media with no credentials at all” go to google and bring up scientists who do not believe in global warming/climate change, also people like Dr, Evans a former consultant with Australia’s Greenhouse Office, . Professor William Harper, professor of Phisics at Princeton University, Professor Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, also go to Australian Climate Science Coalition on the internet and you will see how stupid your comment is.

How do they know the world is warming? what data are they using? the satellite record and the instrumental record show no appreciable rise in temp since 1998.

What peer reviewed study shows that CO2 is the primary cause? None has been referenced in their report. So it’s a guess or more to the point , a hope. If sceptics made such unsupported claims they would rightfully br pilloried.

Face it AS; the world is in good shape and functioning as it always has. Why don’t you lead the charge against replacing forests with palm oil or soybeans. Now that would make a difference.

As

If it is all so definite and certain why did the report have a disclaimer at the bottom. Maybe they don’t have the confidence you seem to think they have in what they wrote.

IMPORTANT NOTICE – PLEASE READ
This document is produced for general information only and does not represent a statement of the policy of the Commonwealth of Australia. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the material contained in this document, the Commonwealth of Australia and all persons acting for the Commonwealth preparing this report accept no liability for the accuracy of or inferences from the material contained in this publication, or for any action as a result of any person’s or group’s interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in relying on this material.

BTW . I see you mate Dr James Hanson doesn’t think a carbon tax / ETS scheme will solve anything and also his latest paper says the climate models are exaggerating the potential effects of AGW

Nice to see you’ve read the report, AS. Pity you didn’t note that neither of the scientists at the presentation of the report have any credentials in climate science, nor does their main source for climate impact, Ross Garnaut. By focusing on the risks to our economy, the report fails to have any credibility in the claim that a Carbon Tax will have any measurable impact on the environment whatsoever. THAT is the point, and THAT is what the report fails to address.

I read that as your acronym requires another S.

“The science tells us”
Which science exactly? So far all we know is that from the ‘harry_readme ‘ file of the climategate emails that the weather information collected by meteorologists are unsuitable for climate models extrapolating these disasters. Attempts by scientists and mathemeticians to access the science are being denied, even through FOI.

“Climate Research Community”
Who and what is their science? Time to declare vested interests, this community have been supping at the climate scare trough, protected by a compliant media and bureaucracy. The fact that a proportion of the world’s population, many of whom are the top meteorogists, climatogists and statisticians have escaped through a leak in the defences, through a few web sites and blogs is one of the great David and Goliath stories of history.

WHAT a load of rubbish.

Even if you accept all the Commissions gloom and doom predictions, it still does not follow that A equals B.

Meaning they have dismissed put of hand the coalition’s proposals on the basis they will not reverse the trend, but have embraced the Govt proposals fully even though they have also conceded they will not have an effect.

Even the Commissioner’s main spokesmen has conceded that any benefit may not be apparent for up to 1,000 years (meaning he has not got a clue).

So why all the pain for absolutely NO gain.

Why hasn’t there been any mention of research into the effects of water vapour in the atmosphere? or the Milankovitch cycles ( which correspond with ice ages)? or the ocean and its currents? or the primary factor on the climate and the planet, the SUN?
If the research centers on one factor and excludes all others, well, its like targeting one species when fishing. What do you end up catching? The fish you have targeted.
And if models are based on CO2 only, then the models are flawed in itself.
The climate does change without doubt, but carbon dioxide as the primary cause without showing the other causes have an impact is blinkered.
The atmosphere is a complex system and therefore all possible factors must be included.

so the answer is ban procreation, no more humans because they are the problem, problem solved no need for more taxes no need for child care or schools

Give it up, AS.

Real world facts do not support your global warming wet dream!

AS, have you read and listened to Professor Bob Carter from James Cook University Q’ld, a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than 40 years professional experience.

He is a scientist and he has gone through the literature and actual evidence presented by the IPCC. He states that climate does change it has always changed, He also demonstrates that there is not even correllational proof that humans emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere has any effect on the temperature.

I would posit that many of the bureaucrats of this world, particularly in the UN and EU wish to ensure that they have work in the future and for that they need to tax us to supply their monetary needs. The consequence of this is the undermining of industries and economies of nations eg Australia.

Situation normal for you, AS.  You do nothing more than continue to demonstrate that you sing from the same hymn book as flannery, steffen, etc.  You offer nothing new and have no credibility in trying to present your arguments.

That’s exactly right.
Like the paper published in the May 2011 Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (USA) by researchers from Pittsburgh and New York Universities which confirms the existence of the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age across the whole continent of South America, just like Steffen said at page 14 of his report, .... no, wait, he didn’t - actually ... help me out here AS…

Now AS, tell yourself thousands of times the quote:
“we know beyond reasonable doubt that the world is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause.”
And it will magically come true.

Isn’t it funny that when confronted with the basic evidence that the global warming malarkey was based on falsehoods, spurious conclusions, doctored models and exposed as a giant fraud; even the most ardent leftard doles out the absolutes such as “we know beyond reasonable doubt”.  AS, perhaps based on your manufactured assertions of absolutes and proven untruths, you should consider changing your pseudonym to BS.

As usual, no rebuttal, no facts.

Did the individuals make the claims, answer

Yes.

Have they been disproven

Yes

The reason we hear Blah Blah Blah when you make statements like

“Failing to take sufficient action today entails potentially huge risks to our economy, society and way of life into the future. This is the critical decade for action.”

Is because we have heard it before and the sky is in fact not falling in.  The only thing Bolt is doing is point to the sky and making the obvious statement “its still there”.

I believe that the Punch has a $10k offer to anyone that can prove beyond doubt that humans are causing GW.  Stop wasting our time and put your effort into getting the $10k if you truly believe the sky is about to fall in.

I thought the 90s were the critical decade for action. Hang on, it was the 00s.

The science is being questioned because one of the fundamental tenets of science - making predictions based on observation and experiment - is exposing the chicken-littles for what they are.

This is how science is supposed to work. To continue as if their predictions have come to pass would turn this into an unquestioned religion.

Their predictions are worthless.

Hey dumb AS, you still don’t get it !! AB has pointed out in his column , if you can read between the lines and when it comes down to the nitty gritty , the so called Climate Commission don’t believe their own past scaremongering.
Or they are very faint in their praise whilst trying to maintain their stipend from this circus of a government.
Therefore your continual cherry picking in trying to bolster your case is tiresome, irksome and proves your closed mind is tighter than a fishes sphincter.

Martin Ferguson is the only Labor Minister showing any sort of sanity on this whole subject.

the Greens would like to see a world without electricity, gas or fossil fuels.  This would be a grim world indeed.

AS - I have no idea how old you are but as a child I lived in a remote country area without electricity. We had a couple of kero lamps but mainly used home made candles (and soap too, for that matter). We had no running water and a “long-drop” toilet - well away from the house. Clothes were washed using a wash-board and linen boiled in a copper fuelled with kindling and chopped wood. Ironing was done using heavy irons stood on the wood-fired kitchen stove top to heat. Our main “entertainment” was a radio powered by a 12 volt car battery.  Life without - or with rationed - electricity and fuel is very different to life today. You might be looking forward to a return to the “good old days” but I am not.

It is a basic fact: If we will not control the number of humans on Earth we need to be able to produce enough food to feed them. We will not do this unless we have plenty of greenhouse gases in the air and warm weather for food plants to grow. Vegetables and crops don’t grow in freezing temperatures and over half of Earth’s land mass is subject to snow and frozen soils in winter. 

Personally I think we are tackling the wrong problem. Humans are currently not facing extinction but we will be if we fail to sustain food supplies. China is the only country tackling their human population explosion.  This is where the international focus should be.

Hang on ASS, you missed this bit

“the connection between long-term, human-driven climate change and the nature of extreme events is both complex and controversial, leading to intense debate in the scientific community . . .”

WTF?  I thought that the science was settled and there was no debate, let alone an intense debate!!!

So what then if the world is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause?  It’s probably going to be a good thing, as we’ll have to heat our homes less in winter and crops will grow better.

“Andrew Bolt: I ask you, Robyn, 100m in the next century . . . do you really think that?
Robyn Williams: It is possible, yes.”

So that is roughly a meter a year. Therefore, level of the sea should now be about 4 metres higher.
Is it AS?
Is it at least four centimetres higher AS?
How about four millimetres higher?

To be sure davo....

Evidence like what, computer modelling and empirical evidence that you and the rest of the deiners will just say..."it’s matter of interpretation”. There is no evidence that can link one particular weather event to “man made climate change”, the only thing that scientist can say is that with every weather catastrophy the probability rises that it is man made, as advised by the peak sicence organisation’s, the one’s government’s around the world listen too. 

Your just completely ignoring the evidence you can see with your eyes virtually every night on the news showing disaster after disaster. Blinded by your ideology.

‘In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded.’

Marcello Truzzi, the skeptic’s skeptic.

Fundimental question to the deniers (becuase I honestly can’t keep up) do you agree the erath is warming.  Yes or No.

Should be a simple question to answer.

The majority of Scientists working in this field, state that the earths climate is warming, do you accept it is or not?

If you answer No, then I really can’t fathom why you think that when all the evidence contradicts you, and I fully believe you are probably have the same amount of people who think the moon landing was faked.

If you answer Yes it is warming, then the next question is, do you think Humans are the main cause.

If you answer No to this, then a simple question would be, what is the reason for the warming then?

I am defeated. 

I frequently have to defend myself against charges of verbosity by explaining that meaninful input on this topic requires some back up statements and references and that usually takes more space than this kind post from denialists:

Rae replied to AS
Wed 25 May 11 (08:07am)
Yawn

But the avalanche of complete and utter nonsense here defeats any attempt to provide reasons for that statement within reasonable time and space. 

Although I have responded to all these furphies at some time or another on this blog. But denialists not only block their ears when scientists are talking, they close their eyes while reading anything that goes against their antiscience religion.

Gee, AS, it must be driving you nuts that despite ten years or more of this climate change propaganda being blasted at us there are millions who think it rubbish and, what’s more, as NOTHING happened, millions more are becoming “deniers” who believe that it is a nonsensical scam.  What you and these highly paid( with our tax dollars) climate propagandists..  oops..commissioners forget is that there are thousands of people who know as much , if not more, about science as they do and who have the knowledge and intellect to shoot their prognostications down in flames.  You see AS You may fool all the people \some of the time and some of the people all the time but not all the people all the time so keep on with you gloom and doom but the rising tide is now running against you

In this war by gillard on the Australian economy, as always the ‘first casualty is truth’

I must admit, I can understand AS’ empathy with this report.

The report itself contains no new research. It is copied and pasted from a bunch of other reports (the which lies are thus repeated one more time in the hope people will eventually accept that as a criterion of factuality).

You will notice that copy/paste is how AS argues too.

AS replied to AS
Wed 25 May 11 (07:35am)

‘The fact is the planet was a whole degree cooler back then’

Wrong, yet again!

The temperature graph that Pachauri used in his keynote address at Jokenhagen shows at most a temperature range of approx 0.8C°. Note, I said range. That is from minimum to maximum over the full period of 150 years.

Look at the graph here or here.

If you want the original graph, it can be found on p9 of the IPCC 2007 report—without the trend lines.

For some reason, the IPCC has not published the graph with trend lines as used at Jokenhagen. If they had, I would reference it directly rather than through the published articles.

Fair & Balanced (Livid). Rusted ons like yourself , AS , Brian S, Big Ted et al are the ones blinded by ideology.
Havn’t got a job yet I see.

Brian S, dry your eyes princess.

You aren’t ‘defeated’ because we won’t listen. You are defeated because you are wrong.

Deal with it.

Brian S

I hate to be the one to point out the obvious but I think it’s time that you accepted that nobody else is nearly as enamored with you as you clearly are.

But denialists not only block their ears when scientists are talking, they close their eyes while reading anything that goes against their antiscience religion.

You are a walking, talking appeal to authority and I’m sorry but that’s just not going to cut it anymore.

“I have responded to all these furphies...”

Which would be?

The responses to the absolutist claim made by AS in the first instance, which is a claim not even the AGW proponents themselves make?

Furphies.

You know, I think it’s your whole approach, Brian. And maybe your attitude. And maybe a certain level of distrust when it comes to your sources. Gosh, I think it’s a whole lot of things. Added to that, people like AS don’t help you very much, either.

Post hoc replied to AS
Wed 25 May 11 (11:28am)

Fundimental (sic) question to the deniers (becuase I honestly can’t keep up) do you agree the erath (sic) is warming.  Yes or No.

Yes, the earth has been warming since the last ice age, and more so since the end of the little ice age, around 1850 or thereabouts.

The majority of Scientists working in this field, state that the earths climate is warming, do you accept it is or not?

Yes, but you’re repeating yourself. Can you get to the point, please?

If you answer Yes it is warming, then the next question is, do you think Humans are the main cause.

The earth warmed about 0.6degC over the last century.  What proportion of that 0.6C was due to human emissions of greenhouse gases, and what part was due to natural factors is unknown, but I’m prepared to accept for the sake of argument, and so that you can get to the point, that humans were responsible for “most”, ie. a bit over 0.3degC.  So, my answer is “yes”, we are responsible for a monumental increase of 0.3degC in a century.

If you answer No to this, then a simple question would be, what is the reason for the warming then?

Well, I didn’t answer “no” but can you tell me what caused previous warm and cold periods, eg. the roman warm period, medieval warm period, little ice age, etc?

Anyway, I’ve answered your questions honestly, but I still don’t know what your point is.  You appear not to have one.

Brian S - I have enjoyed reading your contributions and appreciate the time and effort you put into your comments here.

thanks

AS, another silly lefty/green thing with no idea of how we are about to be screwed by this labor government. And if he/she does know then he/she should be ashamed. A suggestion AS: Add another “S” to your online nick (after the “S” already there.

The Climate Commission reminds me of the Y2K doomsdayers of 1999. It didn’t happen.
The commission does show some understanding of who is paying them, and what the report needs to say.

It appears that Gillard just wants another tax. If she wanted to take steps to clean-up the environment she would work with State governments to generate clean electricity using molten salt reactors.

With flags flying and marching bands playing…
“… our understanding of the climate system continues to advance strongly.”
Just like the economy of North Korea.

Fellas, was going to put this as a reply to the 7:09 am post from AS but in response to your comments to me here, this (and the reply there to Geoff and redneck elsewhere which also applies to bennoba) is in part what I mean:

From the from the first 5 replies. Denialist sloganeering with not a single attempt to discuss the science:

The Climate Commission has no evidence to support it

The public also knows that the report this week comes from people paid by the Government and who have a vested interest in promoting their science.

AS replied to AS

Nothing like trying to convince yourself what you preach is right ,no argument there.

AS you are a voice of reason in this blog. The truth is however that most people here aren’t interested in a reasoned debate or simply don’t know enough to do so.

Bolt certainly isn’t and he uses known methods to manipulate and deceive. 

Bolt uses weasel words to belittle and mock those with valid views ...

global warming scares, panicked, fools, catastrophe, threatened, joke.....

He avoids discussing the science and instead concentrates on nit picking.
His usual method is to take what a person says “may happen or “is possible” or “could happen” and then turns it into they said this and they said that in a definite sense. Then low and behold he points out that as it didn’t happen it means the person doesn’t know.
Thus he attempts to establish that the person has been proved wrong.
Once he achieves this he then calls into question the science.

However the whole argument is based on the misrepresentation Bolt makes and implies.

Not based on fact.

John of Findon wrote:

His usual method is to take what a person says “may happen or “is possible” or “could happen” and then turns it into they said this and they said that in a definite sense. Then low and behold he points out that as it didn’t happen it means the person doesn’t know.
Thus he attempts to establish that the person has been proved wrong.
Once he achieves this he then calls into question the science.

John, is not the best test of a theory its ability to make predictions?  The problem as you’ve rightly stated is that proponents of the global warming hypothesis (leaving aside for the moment the question of whether it really qualifies as a scientific hypothesis) make outlandish claims about what “may(sic) happen” or “could happen”, that time and time again are proved false.  They are consistently unable, and even unwilling to predict what will happen.  Their inability to make predictions is what calls their science into question.  It doesn’t take an Andrew Bolt to discredit them, they do it themselves.

It then, therefore, follows, Axeman, Why wait for damage tomorrow when you can destroy it today?

Sorry, Dud arguement.

The problem is the science and logic, not weather or not someone wants damage tomorrow as opposed to today.

Gee, I would’ve thought a Greenie Gulargambone would’ve been tarred, feathered and run out of town!

“How many more ‘scares’ do you want?”

None, thanks. But then, that’s been the point the entire time.

I guess you just haven’t been listening.

The AGW proponents now whinge about apparent disinformation from ‘deniers’.

The fact is, the disinformation, in the form of insane scares and hysterical forecasts, has come entirely from them.

All the ‘deniers’ have done is asked for unvarnished, unfiltered, un-hyped, unspun facts.

These have been staggeringly difficult to come by (no matter what you pretend).

What a stupid comment.

The planet has been warming steadily for 20,000 years (with variances over this period), as we came out of the last Ice Age.

Therefore the sea levels has risen 10s of METERS over this time. The current sea level rise is a NATURAL process, because we are in an interglacial period.  Do you understand??

Only fools and the gullible have bought into this Global Guessing con…

Promoting a scare may get us to alter the ways in which we treat this world maybe one tool to use, but to use this report to bolster the claims of Juliar to introduce a carbon dioxide tax is laughable.

No, that’s not his opinion, that’s just a simple statement of fact...you will be dead a century from now!  You don’t actually believe that you’ll still be alive 100 years form now.  I assume your at least 20 years old? 

All Andrew Bolt is doing is showing the inconsistencies of the Climate Alarmist claims.  The problem isn’t Andrew Bolt, the problem is the incoherent message of the Alarmists.  As a marketer (spin doctor) I can see several problems with their technique of communication…

1. They seem to exaggerate then retract their claims to a more moderate stance.  This is called basic vacillation which sends a the message that you actually making it up...even if you aren’t!

2. They also seem to use extreme language in describing their opposition.  ‘Denial’ is a strong word that forces people with lingering doubt (due to the poor communication of Alarmists) to become more entrenched in their opposition. Your claim that Bolt is stubborn is a case in point...in fact...that lead me to the next point…

3. Absolutism is also plaguing the Alarmists.  Their message keeps changing but they are absolutely unyielding in their beliefs.  It looks like blind faith. 

4. Playing the Man, not the ball.  Never win an argument this way...just creates trench warfare.

5. Lack of logic used in articulating an educated position.  Bolt is right in highlighting the illogical statements and claims of the Alarmists.  That’s his job and he does it very well...you anger at him proves the fact.  In the end it is their job to communicate (as cogently as Bolt) and help us accept their scientific conclusions. 

The government, the IPCC, etc. have completely dropped the ball in communicating and disseminating information.  It is a big problem for this government as a whole variety of policy & issues.  I just wonder who is giving them advice about communication, it is very poor indeed.

No Mr.Bolts postion is that we could rebuild the enitre country in 100 years time so a half a yard rise in seawater and a half a degree rise is the winter temperature will probably be a bonus not a problem.  Only pessimistic short sighted losers can’t see this as a major opportunity for an agricultural country.  More of the continent will be closer to the sea and thus subject to better rains and easier transport for exports.  Bringing the sea closer to mines and our agrarian base can only reap benefits in country like ours.  Just because thats where the houses are now does not mean that they’ll be there still in hundred years.  If you want things to stay the same for a century maybe you should be looking at universal cryogenics. Either ways you don’t sound progressive more reactionary and backwards looking, embrace change for the better mate, its the only genuine constant in life.

“developing science” ?? Sounds like someone trying to get their foot in the door of a government subsidy?

Way to go axeman, bedazzle us deniers with insults. Guess you can’t use facts when you have none…

They need to keep ‘scaring’ us?

Are you serious? How many dud predictions do you need? These boys and girls have cried wolf too many times and more and more people are getting sick of it.

muddy the waters of a developing science

You hit the nail on the head there. The science is still developing and we do not know anywhere near enough about the climate system to be making stupid predictions like these guys continually come up with.

Errr Axeman I think that this is the simplest way for you to understand the AGW/CC scare

- the climate has always ‘changed’ and will continue to change until the earth is blown to dust and returned to the stars
- the activities of man may have a very minor immaterial effect on some aspects of climate change – noting that ‘climate science’ has not yet proven this immaterial link
- natural unstoppable climate change is not able to be materially impacted by any actions of man
- Australia must take all sensible precautions to address the effects of climate change as and when those effects become undeniably apparent (just like we always have)
- Co2 is an insignificant trace gas in the atmosphere that notwithstanding it is absolutely essential for all life on earth
- Australia must continue with policies to limit all real pollution – Co2 is not a pollutant (notwithstanding in extremely high concentrations it can be toxic – just like oxygen can be)
- Elevated atmospheric levels of Co2 does not represented a threat to life on earth
- Even if Australia had zero Co2 emissions the reduction in global atmospheric levels of Co2 would be minimal.
- Any efforts by Australia to limit our Co2 emissions by a ‘price on carbon’ will have no effect on the global atmospheric load of Co2 but the cost will be enormous – 100’s of billions of dollars just used in wealth distribution, payments to the UN, green white elephants and of course wasted in providing massive fees to those involved in the money go round (banks, fund managers, lawyers, accountants, brokers etc – not surprisingly the ones most in support of a ‘price on carbon’)

There you go, stop believing all the alarmist end of the world garbage spruiked by those parties with vested interests in a ‘price on carbon’ that will deliver to them vast amounts of money, fame and influence……..and all without having any effect whatsoever on the temperature of the planet.

Well, Axeman, sea levels rose by about a metre during the 20th Century.

Did anyone even notice?

Comment completely empty of fact, Axeman.  You cherry-pick an attack quote totally out of context, and then insult Andrew. Nice. You have demonstrated the real problem of the inane media, the ALP and the ‘developing science’ - the only phrase you use that has a brain in it.
‘The future of the planet’ and the Australian economy deserved an intelligent response.  Go talk to China first.

We are not arrogant enough to believe that we are responsible for the future of the planet. Also we don’t lust to control others from cradle to grave. I suspect we prefer to adapt to climate changes and exploit any new energy breakthroughs as they come along after being tested by the market place.
We also don’t lie in bed at night wetting ourselves about what the climate will be like in 2100. We just want to live now whilst enjoying our freedoms from rapacious neo-fascist Greens and obviously clueless politicians.

Don’t you have eggs to lay instead of screaming about the sky falling chicken little?
Perhaps you should do what most sensible people who aren’t vulnerable to indoctrination and/or cultish behaviour do and follow the money trail of this climate scam.  You’ll be surprised to find out what it’s all really about, unless of course you’re deluded into thinking you’ll profit from it as well.
Start with the East Anglia emails and work from there.

“...a developing science whose main aim is the future of the planet”?
Vague

Axeman, You said “developing science”, you’re right it’s a developing science and we may have the answers by mid-century.

We simply can’t blame co2 for the current heating when it’s happened before. The Arctic has survived 2 periods of melting in the past 200 years and we may survive the current melting.

I’m sure we all agree that we can’t emit co2 into the atmosphere forever, but we can’t damage the economy just in case you’re right with a case you can’t prove and to date all of the alarmists have been proved wrong.

Chicken Licken got hit on the head by an acorn, said Chicken Licken “I must go tell the King the sky is falling” Chicken Licken then met Goosey Loosey who asked “were are you going” to “see the King to tell him the Sky is falling”
Now axeman notice how Goosey Loosey acted just like you and the prime minister, without checking all the data Goosey Loosey ran off with Chicken Licken only to run into Foxy Loxy who ate goosey loosey.

The morale of the story Dont believe everthing your told without checking the Facts, the Sky is not Falling, Climate Change has been Happening since the dawn of creation/Big Bang or whatever, AGW on the other hand is only a Hypothesis, Just like the acorn that hit Chicken Licken. 

Are you for real?
Bolta has been producing non-stop facts, figures and counter-arguements from credible scientific sources for years (he was doing it yesterday). And you lose the bottle because he makes a flippant comment?
Tell me - do you remember what the main concern of the scientific community was 100 years ago? Can you tell me what the most learned politicians, philosophers, business leaders and academics were banging on about prior to WW1, before the Titanic sailed?
Didn’t think so.

I almost feel sorry for you warming chumps ‘The Axman’. You’re so thoroughly scammed by the alarmists you can’t even tell you’ve been duped.  If you want to live in pre-industrial squalor no-one is stopping you.  Just don’t ask the rest of us to sacrifice the wealth of this country for a trumped-up crisis that even the alarmists are admitting is actually not so much of a crisis after all.  The crazy thing is they still want us to live like 18th century peasants to avoid it.  If you’re a little too dim to see that you’ve had the wool well and truly pulled over your eyes, keep on visiting this blog and some time you might twig to how much of a chump the warmists have made you.

Yes Case I have to watch my back out here . Well good to see some of Andrews friends & relos can type. Yes ad hominem attacks, looking for a grant, thats a new one.  Youre akin to fundamental theists, absolute proof wont even or ever be enough.  Remove every trace that humans were ever here, let evolution stop without man, & you think the earth ‘looks’ the same?  (You do believe in evolution dont you?)

Wake up’s comments are completely correct.

“...Absolute proof wont even or ever be enough”

Except you have no proof whatsoever.

See the difference?

No, I didn’t think so.

..you will be dead a century from now!

Which has what relevance to the climate change debate?

That the future of the planet is only a concern if the people reading this blog are alive to suffer or enjoy - who gives a toss about our descendants?

I’m not sure that climate change is a man made effect, but I AM sure that I would like to separate myself from that kind of unintelligent, boorish, selfish and irresponsible attitude.

As usual you read it the wrong way. Strange how you guys see what you want to see. The statement about us all being dead was not ‘therefore who cares’, it is about the fact that these scare mongers cannot be proved wrong if they predict so far into the future that no one, including them, will be around then to make them account for their scare mongering.

“Any efforts by Australia to limit our Co2 emissions by a ‘price on carbon’ will have no effect on the global atmospheric load of Co2 but the cost will be enormous – 100’s of billions of dollars just used in wealth distribution, payments to the UN, green white elephants and of course wasted in providing massive fees to those involved in the money go round (banks, fund managers, lawyers, accountants, brokers etc – not surprisingly the ones most in support of a ‘price on carbon’)”

This should have been the first item.

And the last.

It’s what really motivates the likes of Axeman.

Spin doctor I like your blog. I agree with nearly all you say but cant agree with one part of point 5

Lack of logic used in articulating an educated position.  Bolt is right in highlighting the illogical statements and claims of the Alarmists.  That’s his job and he does it very well...you anger at him proves the fact.  In the end it is their job to communicate (as cogently as Bolt) and help us accept their scientific conclusions. 

The word illogical. The statements are not illogical in fact they are quite logical however they are frequently pitched towards the extremes. At least the media picks up on that. So the players make conditional extreme statements like the “sea can possibly rise 100M by..”

Bolt then turns that into a solid prediction “ the sea will rise by 100m...” Thus he can then simply demolish that if the sea has not risen by 100m etc.

Also lack of a consistent message is a problem even though those who oppose AGW are even less consistent that is not what people consider.

Hermit…

Maybe you should get out more often. The top 1000 polluting companies will have a tax, the public will get compensation. Government will provide a carrot and stick approach to industry in that the tax will make it less attractive for companies to continue polluting and will be encouraged, with assistance from government, to move to the new energy economy sweeping the world, such as in the UK. They know it’s coming as do all the countries in the world with a carbon tax… such as New Zealand. Even China plans for a carbon tax Feb 2012.

It is childish to keep stating that Australia will not impact on world Co2 emmissions on it’s own..niether would the UK ...or New Zealand...nor any country on it’s own. It’s a combined effort like in Afghanistan or Iraq, we would not win on our own....

How you people can compltetely ignore this reality is beyond me. It’s as if Howrad did not acknowledge this reality once Abbott tapped into the denialist approach aided and abetted by regime change, the (SNIP) press and shock jocks. Conservatives have always been anti-Green and refuse to accept that the enviornment/climate is in danger on ideological grounds. It’s not about the science for you, it’s about politics.

Do you people just hide under the bed as soon as the news comes on the telly with more catasrophic weather events.... screaming “where’s the empirical evidence this is man made climate change” avoiding what you see with your eyes or are they wide shut ??? It’s much easier to argue about interpretation on empirical evidence or computer modelling, which you guys won’t believe anyway. It suites you to skew the arguement and just spin until it’s too late.

The Sun rose this morning and it will tomorrow and the day after and the day after, and ,and and etc. Just as it did in times gone by.    

The boy has cried wolf far too often.

As our resident wolf crying lunatic Livid (currently posting ironically as Fair and Balanced) continues to illustrate.

Note that he has not posted one shred of evidence - ever!

Fair and Balanced - and what when prices and bills rise above the compensation level ?
- are you so naive to believe that companies, suppliers, utility companies, manufacturers etc. won’t see this as a potential cash cow and ramp up their prices blaming the carbon tax ?
- it has already been admitted the carbon tax will rise each year.
- It is already in companies own interest to reduce polluting as that is a sign of inefficient practices.
- it will be more beneficial for companies still polluting to go off shore dumping their work force where they can pollute all they like without this penance stick.
- if you think growing countries that have a vested interest in maintaining their productivity with pollution as a by product will drastically wind down to match us, you are delusional.
- ‘refuse to accept that the enviornment/climate is in danger on ideological grounds’ - got that right, it’s all based on ideology from you lot.
- get off your butt and do some research - catastrophic weather events have been worse before in history than today, it is not a flat line situation.
- ‘It’s much easier to argue about interpretation on empirical evidence or computer modelling’ - you feed inaccurate flawed data in, you get the same out - and it has been known now by all (except you I guess) that it also gets manipulated.

Fair and Balanced,

you are anything but Fair and Balanced. Promoter of the ALP/Greens propaganda more like it.

Which of the countries with a Carbon Tax besides German (France scrapped theirs) are doing well economically?? None

An easy observation to make is that the countries pushing most for the Carbon Tax are also the ones in most financial stress. Coincidence? Maybe maybe not. I would suggest they are linked, deficits need to be paid somehow. What better way then through new taxation??

Yes they claim the top 1000 polluters will be taxed, they will however pass on the tax to consumers.

Yes they claim people (some only) will be compensated but no mention has been made that that will increase in line very year with the planned increase in the CO2 tax. Thus most likely increased costs to the population over time and a decreasing living standard.

Britain is moving to a 50% reduction but they have a get out clause you failed to mention, being if the rest of Europe does match them they wont do it. Add to that they will use Nuclear Power mainly to do it anyway.

The environment changes as does the climate. The claimants need to prove it will be dangerous changes and most will accept that if they can prove it, but to date nearly all predictions the alarmists make have been wrong. People should not support bad policy and propaganda particularly when its proved wrong.

So you should open you eyes and look around, your blind faith and the blinkers you wear have blinded you. And you haven’t even needed to hide under the bed to achieve that.

“They certainly don’t have any evidence that refutes the climate commissions summary,”

The Climate Commission has no evidence to support it. Surely the fact that they are now spending our money to produce this report to justify the government taking even more money from us through a carbon tax that will do nothing for the environment is something far more important to concentrate on.

AS must be one of Brownie’s shock and awe (or should that be Awe and Shock) greenshirt stormtroopers railing against the “shock jocks”.

Keep up the fine work there son - the noisier you are the less we listen!

Looks like the panic call went out early this morning from Green central, another post by Bolt which has the temerity to point out the faults in our latest propaganda, oops I meant serious climate report.

Noting the call, AS leapt bravely to the keyboard and let off an almighty broadside of verified facts and information which would defeat the evils of Bolt.

Except all he did was make the usual references to deniers, make vague references to unidentifiable ‘facts’ that can’t be identified let alone verified and then waited for Michael F, Big Ted, Brian S and the other caped crusaders of the green movement to leap into action and support him.....

Epic fail again.

So what was factually wrong about the article? Oh that’s right, nothing at all.

The truly funny thing about this comment is that it really is all you have left. Baseless snipes and name calling from the sidelines.

Excellent.

If you and the Labor Party are so sure of your facts, let’s have an election and let the people decide whether they want a carbon tax or not.

It seems that research done by Hugh Mackay’s organisation is that when Copenhagen failed in its mission, the people decided then and there what their attitude to this exercise would be.  The public is not stupid.  (Richard Glover ABC702)

The public also knows that the report this week comes from people paid by the Government and who have a vested interest in promoting their science.  This troubles me.

Do you know what a null hypothesis is AS? You fail as do all your warmist mates because you try to reverse the null. CO2 does not cause global warming. Your IPCC using tricked up data still only reached 90% and laughably Steffen tries for 75%.

Null hypothesis

The Climate Commission know nothing of the kind.
The “warming” temperature claims are suspect due to “adjustments” and “proxies” used in determining temperatures. There are no dependable world wide temperature measurements, even for the last 30 years and certainly none before that.
And the human cause claim is totally dependent on CO2 triggering other atmospheric changes that are the main source of increased temperture. These enhancers have never been demonstrated to be true and in the case of the predicted “hot spot” in the atmosphere above the equator, it has not happened). Even the IPCC says CO2 alone has minimal effect on temperature, it is only a trigger for other changes that are the moment assumed not proven. In the end there may be other causes for any warming but they are ignored in favor of the easy to calculate CO2 levels.
If you have a study to refute this let us know.

AS your name should be BS. You are a fair dinkum moron. To continue to ram this rubbish down our throats exposes your religion as a joke. Tell me AS how does the 4% of our breath help turn the climate haywire ? - I thought so - dont have any hint of an idea do you. I think I heard the school bell ring - you may learn something today.

The report was full of..."probables, assumptions, may lead to, most likely , could possibly, maybe......”

Read the thing again. It shows a whole bunch of dodgy figures followed by all of the above. Even the government sponsored so called scientists are starting to cover their arses now… knowing that in a few years their reputations will be shot to bits and they will become objects of ridicule like Flannery.
By the way, no competent reputable scientist has categorically stated that “human emissions of greenhouse gasses are the primary cause”. Only you! Says a lot. Most say “may contribute”.

So brainiac, if we know beyond resonable doubt, prove it. They have not provided one shred of evidence that it is “man made"and most of their lies have been proved to be refutable. Remember they also said we wouldn’t get any rain again in Victoria due to climate change mmmmm. So if the average warming of the temperature over the past 30 years is the same as from 1860 - 1880 can you explain what caused it back then?  When will you get it through your thick skulls that this inept government are borrowing 130 million dollars a day due to their fiscal failures - THEY NEED A TAX BECAUSE THEY ARE SENDING US BROKE and that is what it is about.

we know beyond reasonable doubt that the world is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause.

This statement is an opinion by some with a commercial interest to do so.

The people who say this are NOT credible scientists but fearmongers.

61% of global CO2 emissions are output by the countries of China, the USA, the EU and India.  The populations of those countries comprise 49% of the world’s population.

I have been told that a “carbon” tax in Australia is intended to help change the behaviour of Australians.  Australians comprise 0.33% of the world’s population and output 1.35% of the world’s CO2 emissions.

The point is, if the commission’s summary is correct, what do we do about it?  How does changing the behaviour of a flea affect the direction of the elephant it is riding?

Climate deniers?

Equivalent of heretics in the Salem witch trials?

What a joke you lot are, we know this is just a great big money grab and distraction.

We are no longer listening to a word Gillard’s mob.
They are all LIARS! and thieves, stealing from Australia’s working families.

Out of all the disasters and floods and droughts we have had recently,there has always been an event preceeding it that has been worse! So how have things changed? Only a fool could believe in such blatant propaganda and social engineering.
Climate change/global warming will go down in history as the biggest con job of our time! The believers are just too lazy and stupid to think for themselves!

AS - that’s two posts now peddling the same nonsense.

If you actually read the report (or try and comprehend Andrew’s summary above), there is no way the commission could have reached that ridiculous conclusion based on the evidence presented unless it had an agenda to push and a master to please.

Are you that intellectually lazy or easily lead that you believe this nonsense simply because they commisssion said so?

Take a look at its membership. Led by a dinosaur expert and staffed by professional alarmists and with a mandate to make a case for the carbon tax.

And it couldn’t even do that looking at its own report. After making an excellent case for caution and scepticism, it then draws the opposite conclusion because it has to.

Disgusting propoganda paid for by your taxed (assumint that is that you pay taxes).

AS,

You still here? Sorry to burst your bubble, but you are delusional.

Riddle me this. One of the few accurate items in Gore’s movie ‘Inconvenient Truth’ was a graph showing the correlation of the level of CO2 to temperatures, but whilst Gore tried to portray that CO2 was the driver of temperatures, the truth was the levels of CO2 actually followed the movement of temperature by up to 1,000 years.

So through the history of the world, CO2 has been an effect, not a cause but we are now told that this scenario has completely reversed and CO2 now drives temperature, based on an apparent ‘agreement’ (or consensus) supported in the main by various models, which have all failed miserably, although they continue to be updated and doctored as necessary to try to keep abreast of what is actually happening.

More BS from AS.
Where’s the quote come from AS?  The climate commission you say?  The one where Tim Flannery has been proven time and again to be a liar, a fraud and so far removed from reality they’re thinking of naming a condition of delusion after him? 
Mate, you need an uppercut for being so gullible and/or stupid; whichever occurred first.

The evidence needs to be supplied by the ones making the ridiculous pronouncements of their doomesday ‘give us all your money or you will die’ global warming cult.

Posting it twice does not make it any more credible.

When a “commission” hired by the govt for lots of tax money says what the government always wanted them to say it is not a GOTCHA moment no matter how much you might wish it.

‘This sort of article is all the deniers have left ..... ’

Rubbish ASs!

There is the data from the IPCC Head’s keynote address at Copenhagen where Rajendra Pachauri showed that the world is warming—by about 0.5C° over 150 years.

Also, Andrew is a little soft on the warming and cooling periods recorded over this last 150 years. According to Phil Jones at East Anglia University, those three periods of warming—preceded by periods of cooling—are statistically identical.

Then you say:

‘They certainly don’t have any evidence that refutes the climate commissions summary,’

Well let’s see.

‘...we know beyond reasonable doubt that the world is warming...’

Correct! The world is warming and it has warmed 0.5C° in the 150 years following the Mini Ice Age.

‘...we know beyond reasonable doubt that ...human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause.’

Wrong!

This is an assumption from the high priests of the Church of Climatology repeated ad infinitum, as nauseum, by disciples of the Church like yourself.

I have asked many disciples—yourself, Crazy Horse from Gosford, the wobbly one, Big Ted, et al—to show us proof that this 0.5C° temperature rise over 150 years is no more than part of a natural cycle following the Mini Ice Age.

Nobody has provided an answer.

Epic Fail!

On the other hand, the serial failure of the catastrophic predictions of Flannery, Williams, W(r)ong, et al, to even be close and the commission’s own refutation of the hysterical rants of Brown and the Greens regularly provide thinking sceptics with solid grounds for their scepticism.

Because, we just “know”.

If we knew beyond a reasonable doubt then there wouldn’t be so much dissent from such qualified, respected scientists; a group that is much more credentialed and with a better track record of success than those currently working as climate scientists.

Nonsense - there is truckloads of peer-reviewed scienceshowing the Commission report is a complete exaggeration.

Deniers - you mean like the father of Global Warming James Hansen, the head of NASAs Goddard Institute, or maybe our own CSIRO scientist Clive Spash (before being gagged and subsequently resigning) . The problem with this science is that it is based on opinions and not fact. Science has always been subject to scrutiny, but it seems not in this case. What are the alarmists afraid of?

hey matey.
do you get your infomation from Phantom comics?
go up to your room now and get into bed and i will be along soon to tuck you in and read you a fairy storey.

sigh,,,,another lunatic.

They certainly don’t have any evidence that refutes the climate commissions summary

excellent comment, ASS.  So now I can come out with any ridiculous claim totally unsupported by evidence, and the onus is on everyone else to prove me wrong.

The Easter Bunny is real.

we know beyond reasonable doubt that the world is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause.

As human emissions are 3% (secondary) of the total greenhouse gases it is impossible to be the primary cause

Hi AS,

ummm there is plenty of evidence contradicting what predictions have been made in the past i.e sea level rises of 100m and 8 storey buildings underwater, which they now claim will be 1m. so why did they sprout such utter nonsense?

“we know beyond reasonable doubt that the world is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause.”

i don’t think that the article in anyway disagrees with the statement, even if that is infact the opinion of the author or not.

to me that is the big problem with the entire debate. If you do not agree 100% with what one side or the other are saying then you are wrong. You are either an alarmist or a denier. There is no middle ground for some who want to say yeah ok the world is warming up because be burn fossil fuels, but hey why do you want to force pure rubbish down our throats like 8 storey buildings will be underwater and coal mines are to blame for floods when 1 year earlier it was the same reason for droughts that would never end. PLEASE we are not all this stupid and do not all belong to the today tonight believe anything you tell us in a report demographic.

what would you label me? I agree that global warming does exist and its probably because of our pollution, but I disagree with a stupid carbon tax that forces me to pay more FOR NOTHING. I disagree with some “scientist” getting paid over 2 times my salary going around making stupid predictions that never come true. Does this make me a “deniar” as you call it? or am I just an average person frustrated by being told what’s good for me and what to believe by people in ivory towers.

How’s this for a quote - this whopper of a disclaimer (why necessary ??) was found at the end of the handed down ‘report’ - it effectively blows away any credibility it had -

IMPORTANT NOTICE – PLEASE READ
This document is produced for general information only and does not represent a statement of the policy of the Commonwealth of Australia. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the material contained in this document, the Commonwealth of Australia and all persons acting for the Commonwealth preparing this report accept no liability for the accuracy of or inferences from the material contained in this publication, or for any action as a result of any person’s or group’s interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in relying on this material.

Dear AS, re your claim that “deniers don’t have any evidence that refutes the climate commuissions summary”. You should know it is often impossible to produce evidence to rebut a ridiculous hypothesis. For example, while you evidently believe strongly in AGW, I believe just as strongly that the pixies are going to take us all to the moon, unless the government brings in a big tax to stop them. Can you provide evidence to disprove my hypothesis? Thought not!

PS Please keep posting, I love reading your comments, they crack me up! 

We can explain how wrong it all is till we are blue in the face numerous times but until he actually understands what the scientific method is he’ll never recognise it. But then he’s happy in his ignorance. He’s part of the “cool” crowd now which would never have happened without the AGW farce.

..we know beyond reasonable doubt that the world is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause.

What we all know is that despite repeated requests, you cannot supply one peer reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record.

Not one!

Global Warming justifies Gillard’s CarbonTax and the Carbon Tax is Gillard’s Speed Camera.

Geoff of the Central Coast replied to AS
Wed 25 May 11 (09:43am)

Nobody has provided an answer.

bennoba also keeps demanding this. I keep explaining but he is another denialist who reads with his eyes closed.

Leaving aside the unscientific demand for “proof”, here is one such item of evidence.

I know. I know.  Cue the ignoramuses who will tell me that matching data to theory is not science.  (Sigh).

‘They certainly don’t have any evidence that refutes the climate commissions summary,

we know beyond reasonable doubt that the world is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause.’

The deniers - an insulting claim - don’t have to prove their point of view.
Its up to the Alarmists to prove theirs. Something they find impossible to do without telling lies.

Brian S

I keep explaining but he is another denialist who reads with his eyes closed.

I am not demanding an explanation. I am not interested in your explanations. I have asked for empirical evidence and you can’t provide it.

I know it, you know it and everybody who reads this blogs knows it.

Leaving aside the unscientific demand for “proof”, here is one such item of evidence.

Haha, yes, demanding evidence is ‘unscientific’! I guess when your whole world view is based on your religion being ‘scientific’ this makes sense.

Also love the link to Simulations of the 20th Century .

I know. I know.  Cue the ignoramuses who will tell me that matching data to theory is not science.  (Sigh).

You know the saying ‘hindsight is always 20/20’? It is really REALLY easy to make data match your ‘predictions’ if the results are in the past. It’s whether or not the same assumptions predict future events.

In the case of the AGW religion, a defining characteristic is that your predictions are consistently wrong. So you can ‘sigh’ all you want, you still haven’t produced anything of worth.

bennoba and MattR.

Thank you so much for confirming what I have said about the denialist attitude to evidence:

“Call that evidence.  That’s not evidence.  This is evid.. Well no I can’t tell you what evidence is, but that ain’t it! “

Tell me Mattr, how do you check theory against observation without hindcasting.  If it checks you can have some confidence in predictions.

HOW else do you think science works?

And you wonder why I use the term ignoramuses.

Don’t hate her, feel sorry for.

The people you should dislike are the ones who keep her there.

G-d probably hates her even more.  I wonder if that makes G-d part of the ‘hate press’?

PS I hate bob brown even more than the Liar.

And Gillard hates us. But not our money.

Giggle, flick hair, flutter eyes, touch your arm, giggle some more, now you’re friends.  And you didn’t even feel her stealing your wallet.

Awesomo3000, great episode of SP,

Funniest thing on Insiders where they interview the cartoonists who are now just contemplating drawing a bum with red hair.

You HATE someone you’ve never met???? That certainly says more about you than anyone else.

Terry reckons God hates her!!! I take it you’re not a God botherer, they keep telling me he loves me, but will send me to hell for all eternity if I don’t believe in him.

The comments here really add to the debate. I wonder how exactly they got through the tough moderation here at Bolt’s blog? I guess the moderators and Bolt don’t care as long as it’s anti-Gillard and anti-Labor anything will be published. The Herald Sun and Andrew Bolt are nothing more than Liberal party cheer leaders. Guess it’s true that Rupert wants a change of government and that because of his wishes News Ltd are going to throw all hints of fairness out the window, just to appease him. How very sad!

Well said.

Big shout out to those who can’t reply directly to maggie

- care to provide a link ? - I can also claim to say here the moon is made of cheese without any proof from me, so link please.

Be honest ?
Exactly how has Watts been dishonest ?
He has sufficient integrity to fairly present the results of his study - a self-funded, volunteer-based effort that none of the big carbon funded organisations could be bothered with.  He has produced a very important database that many researchers will find useful for years to come, and enable improvements in weather monitoring.
Did you expect Watts to behave like the CRU clique by losing data, not publishing methods and reviewing each other’s work ?
Members of the CRU clique bragged about hiding the decline, and you speak of false claims ?  Watts made an allegation he was prepared to research and quantify and ultimately partially falsified his theory.  He didn’t smear anybody or cast allegations of impropriety about individuals in the process, he just got on with the task.
Contrast this with the CRU crew, who rejoiced over the death of the sceptical John Daly.  The same crew, who admitted the “travesty” of their inability to account of the recent decade long cooling trend.

Andrew has also confirmed on radio that he acknowledges the Watts result.  What more do you want ?  There are now superior means of monitoring global temperatures with greater coverage.  How’s the new satellite data going ?  Oh, and please provide proof of a linkage between warming trends and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.  It’s your side’s allegation - where’s your proof ?

I won’t bother to monitor this for a response for you, as you have proven time and again that any response you post will come up empty.  Why don’t you retreat to your own blog and throw mud at people.  You’re particularly good at that.  Play to your strengths I say.

Universal:  you need to read the post at Watts up With That (now quite far back in the old posts) in which co-author Pielke Snr summarised the key findings of the surfacestations.org paper that he, Watts & some other co-authors have written.  A key finding:

“In the United States, where this study was conducted, the biases in maximum and minimum temperature trends are fortuitously of opposite sign, but about the same magnitude, so they cancel each other and the mean trends are not much different from siting class to siting class.”

This is after years of Watts saying that the warming bias from poor siting meant the US temperature record was artificially inflated.  He even wrote a booklet for the Heartland Institute about it. 

I am pleased to hear from Keith that Andrew has acknowledged the Watts result on his radio show. 

That’s good.  I have not noticed that he has acknowledged it anywhere at this blog - and given that the result is wildly different from what Watts told him on the radio in June 2010 (he estimated warming bias accounted for .5C of the US temperature increases - a very big claim) it is clearly a matter which Andrew should acknowledge here.

Keith - if the equivalent had happened from the other side - a researcher making highly political use of a study for 3 or 4 years before its results were actually analyzed statistically, we would never have heard the end of it from the “skeptic” blogs.  But this is exactly what Watts was doing, and he made a very inaccurate claim to Andrew’s face.

There was nothing wrong with Watts conducting his study - and it has produced material of interest regarding daily temperature range.  It was his highly political use of his pet project before it was finished that is the problem.  Watts is letting this slide away as quietly as possible - he does not seem to believe in retraction or apologies for past false claims.

Good point, Amazing.  The greatest moral cause of our time is to prevent the Greens from turning us into a third world country.  That is nothing less than their aim, and the climate scare is their means. Thankfully Australians are waking up to it in their thousands every day now, in large part due to the work of AB, PA, JA, AJ and a few others, at considerable personal cost.  They will never get the thanks that they are due.

Difference between “could” and “possible” is?

Wow AS, now you’re making Andrew’s argument for him.

Re-read your post mate.

Williams said it was possible that see levels would rise by 100m in answer to a direct question (cajoling, please).

Clearly complete hysterical nonsense.

That is the point.

And the report appears to state it is not possible. Not by 99%. If nothing else, that seems like a resonable testament to the gullibility of more prominent and more influential warmists than yourself.

Clearly getting very agitated today AS.  Take a deep breath, relax, and consider this:

I have a 70 year familiatity with Sydney Harbour.  The rocks on which I played as a child are no more covered today at high tide as they were then.

Yet the harbingers of doom have for some time been reporting that the ice at both poles is melting so much that the North West Passage will soon be navigable.

Tell me AS, where has all the water from the freshly melted ice gone ‘cos Its certainly not Sydney Harbour?  And its not Tuvalu either!

It’s a cowardly opt out to use any term that paints a statement as being potentially not factual, it just proves the presenter doesn’t even believe what they are saying themselves -
i.e. - I can state here for a fact that the moon is made of cheese - possibly.
Andrew is focusing on what a farce William’s statement was.

The price of fish could double tomorrow.

It is possible that the price of fish will double tomorrow.

These two statements mean different things how?

The whole premise of AGW is could AS. You can’t have it both ways.

Saint replied to AS
Wed 25 May 11 (09:51am)
Williams said it was possible that see levels would rise by 100m in answer to a direct question (cajoling, please).

Thank you Saint, you have given a great example of how sensationalist reporting works on the dimwitted.

You are taking the quote put in by Andrew as gospel. When you read the whole transcript it is obvious this is not what Williams thinks and Andrew wouldn’t let up until he got the answer he wanted. Andrew knows this too otherwise he would give us the whole transcript.

I don’t know why I bothered with this, none of my comments ever make it on the blog. Especially with the more valid arguments. Censorship?

AS, I thought that, being battered from pillar to post all day, all week and all year, you would of had enough. But no, like a broken record, you go on and on.  The carbon tax certainly must have a buck in it for you. Everyone knows Big Teds only in it to fill his pockets, surely you are the same or maybe you are one of the biggest fools that walks amongst us.
Yes, that must be it.

Chas replied to AS
I don’t know why I bothered with this, none of my comments ever make it on the blog.
Surely, your not talking to yourself ------ this time.

Almost treacherous to think this, but they looked almost cute, up there together in their balloon

Well noted Robert, this is the disclaimer. They push their ‘message’, but throw in a couple of lines that allows them to avoid criticism when their doomsday predictions inevitably fail. Just read anything from AS or Big Ted. They are quick to throw in the line that Tim Flannery said a disaster “MAY” happen or the B.O.M said we ‘COULD” have a warm winter. They do it all the time, this allows them to push their agenda in a dishonest and deceitful manner.

Personally, I am in the market for a large SUV like a Ford Territory or Explorer with the intention of heading out to the mountains this winter (and for many more to come) and enjoy the SNOW (as I did as a child) with my children who are now old enough to go. I don’t for one minute believe that winter will disappear… along with the snow as predicted by these charlatans.
The SUV will not only be for my own enjoyment, but also my statement and a one fingered salute to all the enviro-nazis out there!

After it’s earthquake the island of japan actually shifted 1.2m (GPS data), this in turn altered the Earth’s rotational path by more than 10cm - a small planetary amount but I suggest in the long term, as the effects of that shift gradually multiplies, it will gradually create changes in our weather, environment and tectonic plate stability - and no tax or carbon reduction will stop that.

..."whilst here in Oz"…

Rosemary are you insinuating that Australia is the only country in the world that believes in “man made climate change”..??

And that 192 countries did not attend the Cancun Climate Summit and will not attend the next Summit in South Africa. JUst to bring you up to speed, the UK conservative government just introduced the most radical policy on cutting Co2 emmissions in the world, that is a reduction of 50% by 2027.

Obviously the rest of the world doesn’t know what their talking about… do they.??? Or doesn’t exist up there in Qld.

Fair and Balanced - that’s nice - so let’s look at one of the biggest emitters, China - you know, the China that is in a economic boom period in which the Gillard government is selling our ‘nasty’ coal to so they can fire up their coal power stations in which several are under construction each month.
So how about you write them a letter to ask them to stop doing this and ‘do as we do’ ?
And is the UK imposing a ‘carbon dioxide tax’ on THEIR population ? - if not, why not ? - isn’t it meant to help reduce emissions as we are told ??

Fair and Balanced,

Keep misrepresenting the facts. Can’t let a good story get in the way of the truth now can you.

Britain’s 50% reduction has a get out clause. Its contigent on building Nuclear plants and will also be reviewed in 2014 and if other EU countries aren’t doing the same thing Britain will op out of its undertaking.

Wonder how many of the heavily indebted EU countries will further hobble their recovery by doing what Britain claims they will do.

Greece do you think?, what about Ireland, or Portugal or Spain. Highly doubtful!! We know France won’t, they got rid of their Carbon Tax.

What about somewhere else? Canada maybe. Nope sorry again they just elected a party that campaign for no Carbon Tax. To bad, it just might be catching. 

Fair and Balanced, you seem to believe in fairy stories. Do you really think the UK can and will cut their emissions by 50% by 2027? Lip service, nothing more. By 2027 they’ll all be retired on their generous pensions and won’t give a damn.
Of course all those counties attended the junket in Cancun and achieved nothing. They will also attend the next junket and achieve nothing but they’ll have a lovely time eating, drinking and being merry whilst producing plenty of CO2.

Swimming in those waters is kinda strange. It’s like being in a warm bath, and not really refreshing.

There are no waters in the world too warm for coral reefs, but vast areas are too cold. In a warmer world the GBR would adjust. There would be some short-term damage, but in the long term the reef would extend further south and become much larger than today.

I read that letter. It was wrong and simplistic.

Madang water temperature:

The water temperature 27 C to 29 C year round

Water temperatures on the GBR range from to 18-33 C. Depending which end of the reef you are at.

The temperatures at madang are no different to the temperatures on the north barrier reef. To say that there is a 4-6 degree difference is wrong. It maybe true of the central and southern barrier reef but it is not true of the northern barrier reef.

Furthermore, will not the coral just move south towards the cooler water? Image the tourism boost to SE Qld if there was coral off their coast

Hey Louis, just check in with every peak scientific body in the world, the information you require is there for you. PS - conspiracy theorist blogs aren’t real science.

Turnbull was involved with Goldman Sachs - given his enthusiastic belief in climate change/global warming and a enthusiastic desire for a carbon tax/ETS, one has to wonder is he still ‘involved’ with Goldman Sachs in some way ?

Louis ,im with you mate,what you have posted is to the point with no nonsense.
we dont have climate change,,we have CLIMATE VARIATION this has been happening since the dawn of time,and will continue to do so until the sun starts to die and gobbles this old planet up in the process.
Turnbull yoused to work for Goldman Sachs,,,i wonder if he still has a fist full of dollars buried there somewhere hence his interest in carbon trading and an ETS etc.
Hmmmm,,,just chatting.
cheers J.C.