Brilliant.

A most entertaining analogy. The author concludes:

"Let us not fool ourselves, or be fooled by others.
Stage-managed cabals, pre-determined outcomes,
committee confidentiality and dodgy science are surely
relics from another age, a darker space. ..."



I concur. And, sticking with the Beatles theme set by the article's title 'Julia in the Sky with Diamonds', I make the observation (with apologies to at least one of that gang of four) that:

'When it was USSR,
things were clearer by far.
Now its CCCP*,
not so easy to see.'



We will, of course, all be equal under this lowering cultist sky, which is reassuring. Its just that some will be more equal than others. I can't escape the feeling, however, that solving the issue of energy security generally, and within that liquid fuel supply security particularly, will both trump and solve the climate change issue.

And now I need a nice drink of dihydrogen oxide, cooled by one of its allotropes, before it, too, becomes proscribed. Can't escape the feeling that there should be some sort of postscript to the electoral outcome that has us all now looking so intently skyward for our 'cargo'.






*CCCP: Carbon Cargo Cult Party (only True Believers allowed)

This article conflates two messages; that carbon trading is largely fraudulent (which I agree with) and that climate change is questionable, whereas I think it is irrefutable. The problem with carbon credits is that they may be temporary, exaggerated, double counted or an accounting fiction. The EU emissions trading scheme does not recognise carbon sinks such as tree planting on the grounds the trees will eventually die and rot back into the GHGs methane and CO2. However the EU recognises the even dodgier 'clean development mechanism' type of carbon credit. The Netherlands for example excuses half of its promised carbon cuts via cheap CDM offsets. All it takes for a CDM credit is to declare that someone is using less than their entitlement and that presumed sacrifice can be sold to the coal burners. Example; I read OLO instead of driving the gas guzzler to the shop to buy a dead trees newspaper. I just earned a carbon credit, pity I wasn't registered with the authorities.

As Feynman says we are kidding ourselves but not Mother Nature. I fear that the PM's committee will want play Santa Claus by rewarding absurd types of 'carbon farming' such as less flatulent sheep. The main way for us to reduce emissions is to use less coal, oil and gas in the first instance. That is not the same as burning as much as ever but excusing it with carbon credits, most likely illusory.

Speaking of cargo cults, our entire "culture" is essentially a cargo cult.

The cult of unfettered consumerism, the credo of which is I SHOP THEREFORE IS AM, or shopping as therapy when you are feeling depressed or frustrated GO SHOPPING.

The Temples of this cargo cult are the now ubiquitous shopping malls. Where the cornucopia of bright, shiny and colorful consumer products all appear, magically as if out of no-where.

The calls to the "faithful" (to go shopping) are made 24/7 via TV, radio, the internet and magazines. Which is basically 24/7 hour ubiquitous propaganda.

Answering the "call" to be excited by the latest fantastic colorful consumer product, and thus to own it, the obedient faithful consumer goes to the Temple to obtain his or her cargo. And thus lives happily ever after, or at least until the next MUST HAVE sooper-dooper next big thing is hyped on TV. Or when the neighbours of friends show off their new shiny whatever (keeping up with the Jones's)

Of course nobody is expected to ask any questions as to how this cornucopia of CARGO gets to be in the Temple. Of the human blood-sweat-and-tears involved in creating this cargo. And of the environmental destruction. And of the link between this cargo-cult-cornucopia and the imperial invasion of Iraq, and of all the other imperialist wars (large and small). As George Schultz and the boy emperor George the younger (Bush) famously said: the American (consumerist) way of life is not negotiable.

Shopping AS patriotism!

Meanwhile we are quite literally Amusing (consuming) Ourselves To Death - the title of a book by Neil Postman. And the state of the world altogether is a combination of the nightmares described in Brave New World AND 1984.

Titty-tainment "culture" rules OK!

Julia may be in the sky with diamonds, but she is certainly in a gully here, with the baggage she is toting, Wayne Swan has to be a real burden preventing any improvement in our economy, and I doubt that she is getting good advice in regards to the Mining exports and Imports nor the destruction to the underground water being distroyed by this Gas program, causing water hell for the farmers. I know this is really a problem instigated by the State Government, but it seems that the ordinary working Australians just don't count with either the State or Federal Gaoernments. I'm afraid that some of the Local Governments come into that categery also, The "rich win" is their motto.

Did you know that today is "Climate Fools Day" & there is a peaceful protest in Brisbane, King George Square, 12 noon.

Whatever you may think of the hypothesis that industrial emissions are warming the atmosphere - and I have pointed time and again to the problems with it - carbon trading is a straight waste of time. In fact it is difficult to think of any initiative that has seriously reduced emissions on a national, let alone world-wide basis.

Most of the activites suggested or which have actually occured, amount to little more than gestures.

The one consolation activists can take away from this mess is that the IPCC projections for carbon dioxide emissions, and most certainly those for methane, are almost certainly completely wrong in the first place.

Mark, you may want to comment here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11072#187198

HoHum
Go right ahead and stop consuming.

The term "cargo cult" doesn't mean going to the shop and buying things. It means not understanding that the 'staka goods long stoa' comes from people supplying them for payment of money, and believing instead that they have some kind of divine provenance, and can be procured by rituals or activities that do not in fact have the effect of procuring a supply of manufactured goods. A closer analogy would be the socialist belief that by invoking government we can make everyone better off.

And of course the cargo cult has failed for many people in the USA. And what we are seeing is a right-wing populist revolt fueled by the inevitable anger and frustration of this failure.

In the form of the Tea Party. See also Farewell Mon Amour by Henry Giroux via Truthout.

The article a load of codswallop - whilst there are reasons to look carefully at the effectiveness of specific policies the need to reduce emissions is based on good science and lots of it, starting with the absorption and emission characteristics of atmospheric gases and the changes in their concentrations.

For cult beliefs that are bound to result in disaster it's hard to find worse than the cult of disbelievers of climate science. When every peak scientific body, including the very conservative and prestigious US Academy of Sciences, finds the science to be fundamentally sound, betting the future of our world on the tiny and false hope that they are all completely wrong is dangerously irresponsible.

Dangerous denialist drivel - that's what this appalling opinion piece is Michael. Give me the real story from real scientist at real institutions that actually study climate any day over your twisted misrepresentations.

The drought is over for Aust and it will be interesting to see if our mean temps fall.According to the AGW cult,we should have an expodential rise in temps comensurate with rises in CO2.

There so many people making a living out of AGW theory,that any real science and stats will get buried in ad hominen invective.

"Give me the real story from real scientist at real institutions"

Ahh that would warm the hearts of so many writing grant applications right now

Give us more money so we can study the climate some more .. and come up with the same answers, with caveats, assumptions, warnings, gross exaggerations and some hysteria thrown in.

Maybe even "hide" some decline eh what!

Climate Scientists are no longer held in the regards of many other sciences, when they obviously collude, have conferences with no one invited who might have an alternative view .. it's not science anymore, it's just group think on the gravy train .. nes pa?

Arjay says:

"According to the AGW cult (sic),we should have an expodential rise in temps comensurate with rises in CO2."

Interesting Arjay, did you make that up yourself?
Alas, it would help if you got your facts right before sprouting your understanding of what climate sensitivity is.
Aside: as an exercise, it would be interesting to see how many real "climate change sceptics" will denounce your musing, we will see.

As to your "ad hominen invective" comment. Yes, it would be ad hominem if someone simply called you an "idiot". It would not be ad hominem if they called you an idiot and demonstrated why they came to that conclusion.

Oh, and rpg is it? Your comments suggest that "climate science" should not be researched or funded at all.

Clearly, these are the comments from someone who has made up their mind - not on any past or ongoing research, but on what they want the findings to be, what they want to believe.

rpg, scientists would get more funding and recognition for demonstrating that AGW is "crap" - you got it the wrong way round.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11150#187168

Taswegian, ALL of the "Climate Science" so far, has been produced by "Academics" working for "Research Institutes" that got their funding from, either Red/green/getup/labour/socialist Alliance governments, or tax deductible donations from "International Banksters" who want to make trillions from trading CDS, Carbon Default Swaps, CCO, Collateralized Carbon Obligations for shares in Storm Finance, Timbercorp & Great Southern Plantations.

Have you made the connection yet?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11150#187175

Ho Hum, spot on mate & who did this to the land of OZ?

Comrade Whitlam, Comrade Hawke, Comrade Keating from the Red/green/getup/labour/socialist Alliance plus their comrades at state, territory & local level in politics, bureaucrookracy, academia & journalism over the last 50 years.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11150#187185

merv09, too true.

Do you vote for REAL minor parties & independents?

The Nationals claim to support farmers but in coalition have almost never crossed the floor. The Red/greens claim to care for our environment but have a record of supporting its destruction.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11150#187199

Curmudgeon, why have none of these Loony, Lefties, or the LNP, for that matter, suggested offering discounts on corporate taxation to businesses, that actually DO something like replace their electric hot water system with gas or solar when the old one wears out.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11150#187200

Bonmot, Why do you want to steal from the poor & give to the Mega Rich International Banksters?

herewith, once more, American environmentalist Ernest Calabash's
4 laws of ecology:

1- ALL THINGS ARE INTERCONNECTED
2- EVERYTHING GOES SOMEWHERE
3- THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH
4- NATURE BATS LAST.

This reminds me of the fairytale of "the EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES."

It behooves us to listen to climatologists like NASA's Schmidt and Richard Feynman to keep us rigorously honest. And if leaders think the outcome is more important than the process, that is inherently anti-democratic and must be challenged, but most of us just go along like the good sheep that we are. Because most of us are scientifically illiterate, and it's beginning to show - and wear thin.

Bonmot my words do not eminate from the brains of brow beaten AGW cult followers like yourself.I have an open mind on the subject unlike your religious zealots who are locked into monetary self interest.

bonmot "Your comments suggest that "climate science" should not be researched or funded at all."

No I didn't say that .. don't verbal me. Most researchers are not studying climate at all, they study the effects on various things - those in biology or anthropology for instance, all now can apply for funding to research, say, "the effects of climate change on lions in the Serengeti", sarcasm of course - but all these other areas of science are now jumping on the AGW gravy train, because to mention Climate Change is an easy way to get money .. have a look at how many papers now include researching the effects?

What do you think this skewing is doing to actual scientific research?

"Clearly, these are the comments from someone who has made up their mind ... on what they want the findings to be, what they want to believe."

I could easily say the same of you, couldn't I? It's easy to verbal people and attack them in this forum.

"rpg, scientists would get more funding and recognition for demonstrating that AGW is "crap" - you got it the wrong way round."

Rubbish, no climate scientist would apply for a grant to disprove the current "consensus", they know very well that the conductors and masters of the gravy train would never fund them. Look at the Climate gate emails, and how the senior climate scientists collude.

Yep, this article has put it very well, it's a cargo cult.

Your knee jerk defence of your religion is very cute though. (Your slip is showing .. as my dad used to say.)

Grants and the so called “AGW gravy train”.

“Grants” typically go to universities and government research institutions. In Australia, ARC funding is usually at the top end (in terms of dollars available) when compared to industry research funds (sadly lacking). As anyone can see from the following link, salaries/stipends are not excessive.

http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/2010_salaries_stipends.pdf

Research ‘grants’ are never paid in addition to the normal salary. They are only paid to fund extra temporary positions required for the research, or to fund equipment and sometimes facilities.

Government research institutions don’t generally allow scientists to earn money outside their salary from work-related activities. Universities used to allow staff to earn extra funding from private activities such as consulting, but most these days either limit personal earnings from such activity or prohibit it. In any case, it has no relationship to research grants.

More can be found out here: http://www.arc.gov.au/applicants/default.htm

The “gravy train” does not exist, despite the claims of those that continually trot out this fallacy in logic. Each individual scientist must compete for limited funds.

The best way to advance your career within the scientific community is to poke holes in each other’s hypotheses, or arguments – this is what the scientific method and the peer review process is all about (clearly rpg does not understand this salient point).

The fact that no one can come up with a genuinely robust hypothesis that debunks the scientific consensus on AGW speaks volumes about the strength of its evidence. Nevertheless, despite the shrill to the contrary, funding IS provided to try and poke holes in it (AGW). Indeed, some very powerful overseas lobby groups in particular are funding research to that end. Why? Because, if they do debunk AGW, then much money, insecurity and global stress will be averted.

The article is very clever, particularly for its play on words.

Ken Fabos

You have posted elsewhere [4 January 2009 at 7:17 AM] that the "suitably qualified would (should) get taken more seriously than someone like myself who has no relevant qualifications or holds no relevant position."

Such a person is Dr David Evans. He's a "real scientist". He gives the "real story" in his "Is the climate (science) establishment corrupt?" series at www.joannenova.com.au.

"Magna est veritas et praevalebit!"

Alice