Michael Kile puts all his faith in one climate denier/sceptic (Laframboise) who argues that science and activism should not be mixed. It's only partly true. Scientists should advise on policy but not determine it themselves. Nevertheless, not to speak out on an issue that is set to destroy the world as we know it is profoundly irresponsible. Well done, James Hansen, is all I can say for speaking out. As for the kids and their activism on climate change, good on them. Climate change will affect their future profoundly and it is is very much in their interests that we keep global warming to less than two degrees.
It's a pity about Michael Kile. So very good on population and so disappointing on climate change. Read some science papers Michael and get off this ideological bandwagon that is wrecking your reputation.

Required reading is the original Children's Crusade. Bunch of unsophisticated kids encouraged to band together to right a wrong but all the way exploited enslaved or killed by the people who encouraged them.

When Gore and Hansen give up some of their riches for this cause as opposed to making more! What am I saying, this is the whole point of this madness

In a recent article in The Australian on the search for the Higgs boson particle a scientist is quoted thus - "...the new results have a higher dgree of certainty - 99 percent - but still fall well below the threshhold of discovery. For scientists, certainty requires a threshold of a no greater than five in ten million chance of error. ..."

If only our climate "scientists" applied the same amount of rigour to their results we might have a lot less hysteria.

Was Galileo a scientist or an activist?
Darwin, scientist or activist?
Watson and Crick, scientists or activists?
Science inevitably and invariably changes we way we think in very fundamental ways; about life, about existence, about the Universe and about ourselves.
It has always struck me that the most strident opponents of AGW are right wing libertarians. It has also struck me that such libertarians almost always not sociologists, or psychologists or philosophers or anthropologists... They are invariably economists.
How many economists would favour burning up capital, rather than accrued interest?

Grim

How many right wing libertarians does it take to change a light bulb?

None.

The bulb does not need changing, it would cost too much and everything is fine without change.

Real Red Guards stuff. Young people brainwashed by relentless fascist propaganda to think they have a high mission to destroy the lives and liberties of large numbers of innocent people.

Of course to declare their independence from fossil fuels, there’s no need to urge government to do anything. All they’ve got to do is stop using fossil fuels.

“Was Galileo a scientist or an activist?
Darwin, scientist or activist?
Watson and Crick…?”

Well they weren’t actively and publicly agitating for government to campaign on policy, were they?

And they certainly didn’t fail to get the evidence to support their theories, secretly concede their critics’ points and admit it’s a travesty their own theories are unsupported by the evidence, while publicly declaring the science is settled and their critics are "ideologues", did they?

“Science inevitably and invariably changes we way we think in very fundamental ways; about life, about existence, about the Universe and about ourselves.”

Yes but that doesn’t resolve the issues, because the problem is that the pronouncements of the major government-funded institutions are unsupported by the *actual science*. That's why no warmists in here has EVER been able to defend their position on the science, but only lapse into silence on my three unanswered challenges.

“It has always struck me that the most strident opponents of AGW are right wing libertarians... invariably economists.”

If their criticisms are sound, it doesn’t matter who they are.

Besides which, economics is about when we face choices because of the scarcity of resources. AGW policy is an attempt - admittedly ignorant, confused and corrupt - to solve economic problems - supposedly not enough earth. The least you should do is *understand* how economics disproves their case IRREFUTABLY.

“How many economists would favour burning up capital, rather than accrued interest?”

Good point. But that doesn’t mean that AGW policy action represents the conservation, rather than the massive destruction of capital. That's what's in issue, and it's precisely on that point that the warmists have been irrefutably disproved.

Hi Michael, a good article and thanks. Unfortunately we are still dealing with symptoms rather than causes and effect. No rationalist would have any problem with what you have presented and much, much more in a similar vein.

If I may back up just a little, to assist with context and relevance.

Firstly, Democratic societies need to be very wary of any non-elected bodies with international reach that seek to raise taxes and subsume national sovereignty without representation. Currently we have two such entities, the UN and the EU, both of which fit these criteria.

Secondly, in his 1959 Rede lecture, CP Snow highlighted the fact that the Two Cultures of scientific and humanities studies were failing to communicate. In subsequent essays from 1962 onwards, various authors made it clear that this had escalated into open warfare. The two primary problems identified, and which are getting worse today are the “dumbing down of the educational curriculum” and the “socialization of science”.

It is now abundantly clear that we have a very public and open conflict between those representing scientific conclusions and the socialized perspectives held by those representing humanities

The socialization advocates promote the abandoning of the idea of science as a separate domain of activity and enquiry, they promote that science must be understood not as a means of acquiring objective general truths about the world but simply as another for of social behavior, They further postulate that scientific laws are the product of “consensus” and must be understood in terms of the prejudices, social pressures and power relations that result in the emergence of consensus and not in terms of advances in understanding, in logical consistency or correspondence with external reality.

Now where have we heard all this before?

The socialization of science undermines itself, if scientific discourse has nothing to do with reality, why does streptomycin cure TB and not magic?

Cont’d

Cont’d

There are many other documented perspectives by which to validate the “AGW phenomena”. Armstrong and Green correlated some 26 other public alarm phenomenon, Autopoietic networks in behavioral science also define it, the historical model of the Church of Rome vs. Martin Luther is a precise match, the Entity Relationship Analysis business modeling describes it’s form, USA based structure and cult characteristic research provides a direct cross correlation with methodology and the socialization of science beautifully describes the “how” this is all perpetrated.

It is hard to imagine any more monumental example of the socialization of science than that of AGW. By thrusting one of the most complex scientific debates imaginable into the public domain we have seen the proselityzation of pseudo-science (socialized science) adopted by hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of members of the public. So powerful is this adoption of someone else’s opinion that the level of self indoctrination has taken on religious (cult) fervor for many.

The instant science is politicized it is corrupted, hence the expression socialization of science, it is a political construct.

So bringing all this together, we have two candidate entities that have become the primary political sponsors, the EU and the UN. We have form and function as described by entity relationship analysis, we have an historical prior event reference model, we have a behavioral science validation in Autopoietic networks, we have the “rhetoric engine” provided by the cult model, we have the public alarm phenomena by Armstrong/Green and we now have the methodology profile in the dumbing down of the curriculum and the socialization of science.

At a local level the AGW advocacy block comprises, political sponsors, progressive media, vested interest academics and industrial opportunists. Is it any wonder our children and grandchildren have become victims of this abomination?

Curiously, and I haven’t figured this out yet. Why have so many apparently well educated people been drawn into this mess? I’m beginning to think that education and ego are no substitute for intelligence, they are just gullible, dangerous but gullible.

spindoc,

More to the point, it's the "politicisation" of science that has spawned the denialist movement. Notwithstanding that Peter Hume decrees it perfectly acceptable that we imbibe out scientific information from economists (or any old hack blogger, for that matter) rather than from the scientists.
http://theconversation.edu.au/a-journey-into-the-weird-and-wacky-world-of-climate-change-denial-1554

Poirot, I think I coul have written that response for you.

3. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society.

13. Attack Independent Thought - Critical thinking is discouraged as prideful and sinful, blind acceptance encouraged

15. Totalism - "Us against them" thinking, Strengthens group identity. Everyone outside of group lumped under one label.

19. It encourages blind acceptance of the orthodoxy and rejection of logic through complex lectures on incomprehensible doctrines.

21. It supports extreme obsessiveness regarding the group orthodoxy, resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.

23. Members exhibit a dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor.

29. Need to internalize the group's doctrine as "Truth"

32. No critical questions about the leadership, doctrine, or policy seen as legitimate.

33. No alternative belief systems viewed as legitimate, good, or useful.

Interesting contribution, Spindoc. Which side are you on again?
Are you a climate scientist, or one of those trying to “socialise” science, i.e. a layman refuting the science simply because you don't find it appealing?
Let me reiterate my earlier point about deniers and libertarians. I would find the deniers' arguments more compelling if they were from the scientific community, and not overwhelmingly from the economic community; IOW, the deniers' first bone of contention is invariably “bugger the science, how much will it cost me?”
Thanks for the link, Poirot; I particularly enjoyed the Max Planck quote:
“a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up,”
I rather think the denialist argument will die when it inevitably becomes clear that burning ever diminishing resources will be far more expensive than using renewable or recyclable resources.

interesting that popnperish, poirot, and grim illustrate the points both Michael Kile and spindoc have made.

Am I a "climate scientist"? Of course not, I have never conspired to manipulate data; never conspired to supress contrary research findings; and never had my hand out for millions of dollars of government grants.

Thus I have no ulterior motive than to point out that every scare the climate industry has run has come to NOTHING, every "tipping point" has come and gone.

And the fact that "climate scientists" now rely on a pathetic teenage fascist with a messiah complex shows how utterly bereft of integrity they are.

Yes, Spindoc's contribution is expressed extraordinarily well.

In answer to Grim's question, I don't think it matters which side Spindoc is on, because the sentiment is universally applicable, however it is presented perfectly in this AGW context.

Well done Spindoc.

I love this bit - "I’m beginning to think that education and ego are no substitute for intelligence". Here I suspect Spindoc is being especially polite.

Let me assure you Spindoc that there is absolutely, beyond any shadow of a doubt, no direct positive relationship between education and intelligence in the modern western world. In fact currently I'm of the opinion that there could exist a proportionally inverse relationship between the two. Modern educational institutions, it seems to me, are intent on weeding out and rejecting anyone who dares to show spark and original thought, and won't comply with the dictated orthodoxy. AGW being a good example. Peer review I believe they call it. A way to quality control and provide assurance that the content is compliant with the accepted program, regime and dogma.

It's worth having a look at the Author's earlier contribution on climate change, to be found in "The Aztec Solution to Climate Change:

"Human sacrifice is clearly a potent forcing agent in climate equilibration. Furthermore, analysis of the climate record suggests its decline has been a key driver of rising global temperatures. The Aztec (and other) priests were right. Only sacrifice will ensure humankind’s survival.

Given this outcome, should there not be an independent review of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) perspective?"
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/6/the-aztec-solution

I hope the author has taken the time to mail copies of his Quadrant essay to all members of the IPCC. When everyone has heard the message, then will the old world end, and the new world begin.

Poirot, Grim
By repeating the fallacies I have identified in your argument - authority and circularity - you are only proving my case, not yours.

spindoc
"The instant science is politicized it is corrupted..."

Indeed. And how could it be not politicized when it is funded by government? Since the whole purpose of government funding is that it *not* be funded on the basis of profit and loss, on what basis could it be funded but arbitrary political opinion? It's no use asserting, as Poirot's astrophysicist reference asserts, that it's done on "merits". The question is, how to know it merits funding? The science doesn't supply the value judgment. The assertion is scientific illiteracy.

Without any rational means of knowing how to produce science as a good (rational in terms of the evaluations of consumers), government has no alternative than to produce it as a bad. The scientist becomes a government functionary. To ignore the question of knowledge and human interests, as the entire warmist movement does, to pretend that the production of knowledge in these circumstances is entirely unproblematic when that is precisely what's in issue, is distinctly *unscientific* on first principles of social science! It is either ludicrous credulity, or culpable dishonesty.

"Why have so many apparently well educated people been drawn into this mess?"
Indeed. You have to ask: are they so dumb that they believe what they're saying - for example, Poirot's and Grim's persistence in fallacies? Or are they being deliberately dishonest?

At base, the phenomenon requiring explanation is psychological. My own take is that we are seeing a resurgence of religious belief that parallels traditional Christian catastrophism on virtually every point.

The early conclusion of the Test Match has clearly provided the thinkers with a spare day to contemplate higher matters!

Michael, our children do seem to be both vulnerable and perhaps, unwilling participants in this whole AGW movement. What is of great concern is that the political elites, educators, academics and bureaucrats appear to be the very groups both setting the “dumbed down curriculum” and promoting the “socialization of science”.

If you are correct voxUnius and there is no correlation between education and intelligence, then our societies are in deep doodoo, as we appear to have the fox supervising the proverbial chicken coop (children’s education), unless of course someone could nominate any institution on the planet that actually teaches intelligence?

Is it not curious that it is predominantly the self declared “intelligencia” who appear to be the most committed and vocal in proselytizing this AGW phenomenon?

Perhaps this supports the view of voxUnius that there exists a proportionally inverse “gullibility” relationship between the educated and those claiming intelligence?

One thing appears certain; the advocacy block seems to have a formidable strangle hold on our societies. Fascinating, the King has no clothes but the show goes on.

It is beyond belief that you guys are casting doubt on the reality of climate change, or AGW if you want to call it that. We have about three years to turn the situation around and you guys are bickering about whether it's happening or not. When you next have 57 minutes (maybe today - the Test finished a day early) you should have a look at this presentation by Professor Kevin Anderson:
http://www.slideshare.net/DFID/professor-kevin-anderson-climate-change-going-beyond-dangerous
...and be scared, be very scared. I am.

Time to move on was four years ago. Sometimes common sense does not hit the spot for reasons of self interest. Just like Toni. All of this no, is doing nothing but hold the progress of change up. If we do not get off oil and coal, we will end up like the rest of the broke world. To deny any effects from burning fossil fuel, is to deny a future, as we know it. We are lucky to have a strong govt; in the face of a hung parliament, to put strong measures in place that will get the ball rolling. Other nations will pick up the ball when they get some spare cash. The object here is to move in that direction, while we can without , it becoming compulsory. Nuclear is not an option.

Kids or no Kids Mr Popnperish…
How often do the facts need to be printed: -
1. CO2 is not a pollutant. You drink it every day in your drink of Coco-Cola or carbonated drink.
2. This year is the coldest on record so far...?
3. The exaggeration of the truth is exampled by those photos of industry exhaust stacks...What you see is water vapour coming out of those exhaust stacks and that is not a pollutant.
4. As has been stated CO2 is necessary for life itself and makes up a microscopic part of the atmosphere. Nature produces almost all of it. Even if we increase it –
pollution will be unaffected as it is a harmless, odourless, tasteless trace gas.
5. The augment is about how to justify the funding of the new climate managing departments of the public sector when justification does not exist.
6. The impact of the fraudulent Carbon Tax will make industry uncompetitive against developing countries; increase the cost to business, the taxpayer and the consumer.
7. The Kyoto Protocol is dead in 2012.
8. In the EU the price of Carbon has fallen to a third of its original value and continues to be set downwards to encourage trading. It is now so valueless that it is cheaper for manufacturers to pay for “polluting” as opposed to trading a Carbon Credit.
How does an Aussie say it, “All the bulldust is coming down round your ears cobber…!”

"It's an ugly business, Watson. The more I see of it, the less I like it."

Popnperish

A propos Professor Anderson, he is a marine engineer, not a climate scientist.

Does his involvement with a company - Greenstone Carbon Management - with a commercial interest in carbon (dioxide) emissions advisory activities/trading constitute a conflict of interest? If not, why not?

http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/users/kevin-anderson

Role at Tyndall

Professor Kevin Anderson holds a Chair in Energy and Climate Change at the School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering at the University of Manchester from where he leads the Tyndall Centre's energy and emissions-related research. He is former Acting Director of the Tyndall Centre.

In addition to Kevin’s academic work, he is regularly called on to give advice to Government and Industry stakeholders, as well as to contribute to wider public and policy fora on climate change.

Kevin is a qualified marine engineer and has 12 years industrial experience, principally in the petrochemical industry.

He is currently a non-executive director of Greenstone Carbon Management – a London based company advising leading firms and public bodies on how to manage their carbon emissions and is commissioner on the Welsh Assembly Government’s ‘Climate Change Committee’.

Alice

Oh come on, Frederick Van Dorestien, how much is the fossil fuel lobby paying you to write such rubbish? But given that the Test has finished, I'll take the time to answer each point:
1)CO2 is not a pollutant in small amounts but it does trap heat - please google Arrhenius
2)In some parts of the world, it has been a cold year thanks to it being a La Nina year, but, on the other hand, it has been a very warm La Nina year
3)There are things coming out of the stacks other than water vapour, like carbon dioxide, which along with water vapour, trap heat in the stmosphere
4) Yes, without some cvarbon dioxide it would be too cold to support life - but that's the point isn't it? It traps heat. Too much of it makes the earth too hot
5) The amount of money going to climate departments is miniscule compared to the costs of climate warming if left unchecked. If we go to four degrees of warming over pre-industrial levels then sea-levels will rise by a metre every 20 years. Goodbye Docklands in Melbourne for starters. How much will that cost?
6) Now that we have the Durban agreement in which the developing world has come on board, the argument that we will be uncompetitive with such countries as China and India no longer holds water
7) The Kyoto Protocol has been extended until 2014 and will be replaced by the Durban agreement.
8) Yes, the EU carbon trading is flawed (lessons learnt from it however!) but countries are loathe to lift the price with some countries like Greece close to bankruptcy, events which have little to do with the trading scheme

The bulldust is all on your head, mate...

Alice Thermopolis

Sounds like Kevin Anderson is eminently qualified. Clearly if he is Chair in Energy and Climate Change at the School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering at the University of Manchester then the University does not mind that he is a marine engineer. The oceans have a lot to do with climate science. As for his involvement in Greenstone Carbon Management, doesn't sound like conflict of interest to me - sounds like he's simply trying to save the world by getting corporations to manage their carbon emissions better.

WAS GALILEO A SCIENTIST OR AN ACTIVIST?

An interesting question, Grim.

Activism, n. a policy of taking direct and often miltant action to achieve an end, esp. a political or social one.

When Kepler sent Galileo a copy of his Cosmic Mysteries, his reply included this paragraph:

"Many years ago I aceppted Copernicus's theory, and from that point of view I discovered the reason for numerous natural phenomena which unquesitonably cannot be explained by the conventional (Ptolemaic) cosmology. I have written down many arguments as well as refutations of objections. These, however, I have not dared to publish up to now. For I am thoroughly frightened by what happened to our master, Copernicus. Although he won immortal fame among some persons, nevertheless among countless (for so large is the number of fools) he became a target of ridicule and derision. I would of course have the courage to make my thoughts public, if there were more people like you. But since there aren't, I shall avoid this kind of activity."

Galileo arguably wasn't an "activist" until 1632, when he published his most famous work, The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, and was tried for it in early 1633.

As for Copernicus, he wasn't an activist at all. While he started his great book, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, early in the sixteenth century with a summary, Commentariolus, the first edition wasn't published until just before he passed away, aged 70, on 24 May, 1543.

He had this advice for the philosopher-scientist in his preface to Pope Paul III: It is his "loving duty to seek the truth in all things, in so far as God has granted that to human reason; nevertheless I think we should avoid opinions utterly foreign to rightness."

Alice

The use of children in AGW propaganda has been relentless as this review shows:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2011/09/kids.html

Any idea which resorts to and depends on such methods should be scorned.

Then again, children are at the forefront, helpless children, they rely on adults to make decisions for them. Why should they not have a voice.
Australia is lagging badly in the progress toward alt; energy at the forefront is USA. Nuclear is not as safe as some would like you to believe. There could be uranium on that train in the NT. Someone must know, and yet it takes a week for it to come out.
Co2 is life saving, in the required dosage. Co2 is at its highest level for 650,000 years. Carbon is worse, it is measurable particles, and the jury is still out whether it is a carnogene or not. There is no need for fossil fuel burning, so wrap your ed around it and make progress.

"Carbon is worse, it is measurable particles, and the jury is still out whether it is a carnogene or not."

From wikipedia:

"Carbon (from Latin: carbo "coal") is the chemical element with symbol C and atomic number 6... It is present in all known life forms, and in the human body carbon is the second most abundant element by mass (about 18.5%) after oxygen. This abundance, together with the unique diversity of organic compounds and their unusual polymer-forming ability at the temperatures commonly encountered on Earth, make this element the chemical basis of all known life."

The core of a 'lead' pencil is made of carbon (graphite), and I'm in the habit of chewing the ends of my writing implements (except my keyboard) - amazingly, I haven't died of carbon poisoning. Not only am I in rude good health, so are all those women (and some men) wearing bits of carbon (diamond) on their jewelry - bits of carbon often given to them as a sign of affection. And this, you would have us believe, is a dangerous pollutant (lol). I must say, that's entirely typical of the level of scientific literacy displayed by most of the warmists you'll meet.

Perhaps you were thinking of soot, which contains carbon.

What is a carnogene?

"There is no need for fossil fuel burning, so wrap your ed around it and make progress."

Quite right, mankind got by alright for thousands of years without electricity and internal combustion engines. Which is exactly what we'll have to do without fossil fuels or nuclear power as options. Though I suspect you'll have your cut out for you convincing most people that they don't need electricity or automobiles.

Hi Alice, thanks for an interesting post.
I think the word in your quoted definition of “activist” which hasn't been given enough notice is “social”. Should an activist be judged by his personal demeanour, or his results?
All this is really a red herring anyway. The real question is, should the study of science deny the scientist the fundamental right to freedom of speech?
Is it in any way morally reprehensible for a doctor (or group thereof) to speak out against smoking?

“In answer to Grim's question, I don't think it matters which side Spindoc is on...”
Of course it does. In so carefully constructing a very cogent argument against “socialising” science, Spindoc remarkably failed to notice all his arguments applied as much to himself as to the warmists he was criticising.
IOW, he shot himself in the foot.
And now to Peter Hume.
Only someone suffering from egregious narcissistic personality disorder could possibly use the word 'irrefutable' in the context of the softest of all the social sciences.
Indeed far from disproving my points, economics proves it. I strongly suggest you go back to reading Mises, or better yet his predecessor Bastiet.
One of the core principles of economics is TANSTAAFL; “there ain't no such thing as a free lunch”;
or by implication, “something” must always cost more than “nothing”.
Yet we are asked to believe (and denialists gleefully buy into) the idea that burning something is actually cheaper than burning nothing.
How is this miraculous sleight of hand achieved? Basically, by comparing apples to oranges. In comparing the relative costs of fossil fuels and renewable energy, we are asked to accept the accounting (historical or out of pocket) cost of fossil fuels, and the economic (total) cost of renewables.
To make a true comparison, we must either compare the out of pocket costs of both (eg $1.49 for a litre of petrol, compared to $0 for a litre of wind) which is clearly ridiculous, or compare the full economic cost of both. -cont.

popnperish, grim, Poirot, 579.

Michael Kile’s article is about frightening children with doom stories and indoctrination by the warmertariat. Sadly you seem to have diverted this thread by doing what you do best, proselytize the warmertariat mantra and not going anywhere near the real issues presented.

You seem oblivious to the fact that the debate has moved on, you are still fighting the link wars and trotting out your favorite adopted opinions. We know what, we know who and we know when. This debate is now about how and the victims. This is what Michael is addressing.

That you are also victims is clear, but you have no excuse as adults. Children are a captive audience and quite frankly any adult complicit or supportive of what I would class as child abuse, should be held to account.

You could start by understanding what it is you don’t understand. You might begin with getting your heads around the difference between your version of science, “forecasts by scientists” and the real world which is “scientific forecasts”. The former is socialized or pseudo-science, the latter is real science subjected to scientific processes and rigor.

Self indoctrination is a cult attribute and one of the most difficult social phenomena to escape. The best we can offer is a “Walk Away” package. This, it seems is the only escape from cults and it primarily requires courage. Unless society is able to provide a “Walk Away Package” for warmers there is little hope for them. Especially since research shows that people vulnerable to cults are typically those confused, fearful, guilt ridden or suffer self doubt, there seems little opportunity for them to find the “courage to walk away”.

Warmers are like the “eunuch at the orgy who was always first with the gossip, but being forced to realize that he doesn’t really know what’s going on, his knowledge is not real and that far from being the centre of things, he is forever on the margin”.
(The Eunuch at the Orgy, Raymond Tallis)

-cont.
Peter Hume (and the other denialists) is incensed at government intervention which will result in higher costs, and quite rightly so. I fully agree.
But what about the decades and decades of past government intervention, distorting market prices so egregiously that it does indeed appear that burning something is actually cheaper than burning nothing?
If you really want to make an honest cost analysis and fair comparison, kindly have the integrity to include not only those costs you consider unfavourable, but also all the subsidies you currently enjoy.
Consider the trillions spent on the violent acquisition (sorry, 'liberation') of foreign oil fields, the hundreds of billions spent on naval policing of trade routes, the egregious subsidies given to multi national oil companies, the dollar for dollar 'investments' governments have made in mineral exploration resulting in windfall profits for the companies and zero returns for the tax payers, massive payouts to oil sheiks and speculators, thinktanks and politicians...
Then multiply it by as many years as you see fit.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone always has to pay.
The costs can either be met, or they can be hidden (indirect taxation, subsidies) or they can be passed on to our children.
And their children.
Please, note; I haven't yet even mentioned that rapidly diminishing resources must increase in price, and not one mention of climate change.
As sceptical as Laplace, I had no need of that hypothesis.

No one is suggesting going without power or fuel, that is your unwilling imagination running away again.
Carbon is the result of burning fossil fuel, nothing to do with a lead pencil, which you get lead poisoning from. It's called carbon but it is lead dust.
It is not progressive to drag the subject back to day one over and over again. Our atmosphere is changing, even if it is cold. Somewhere else it is hot. Chaotic weather is becoming the norm. NASA has all the info, and scientists with the equipment to measure and see. So the skeptic notion is just that.

SpinDoc, you say:

"Michael Kile’s article is about frightening children with doom stories and indoctrination by the warmertariat. Sadly you seem to have diverted this thread by doing what you do best, proselytize the warmertariat mantra and not going anywhere near the real issues presented.

You seem oblivious to the fact that the debate has moved on, you are still fighting the link wars and trotting out your favorite adopted opinions. We know what, we know who and we know when. This debate is now about how and the victims. This is what Michael is addressing."

Spindoc, do have a read of Mr Kile's article in Quadrant, where he says:

"Human sacrifice is clearly a potent forcing agent in climate equilibration. Furthermore, analysis of the climate record suggests its decline has been a key driver of rising global temperatures. The Aztec (and other) priests were right. Only sacrifice will ensure humankind’s survival."

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/6/the-aztec-solution

Mr Kile's article describes the mechanics of climate control, as practiced (intentionally or not) by the Aztecs at the time of the Conquistador invasion of Mexico.

Now there's something to frighten the kiddies with:
Shaddup or we'll cut out your heart and throw you down the temple stairs, to cool the climate a bit.

SpinDoc, I guess that's no reason you shouldn't defend Mr Kile, strictly on principle. After all, why shouldn't each and every one of us deserve the best defence available, no matter what our ideas? Good on you for fighting the good fight.

But I do wonder: Is Mr Kile barking mad, or just another clever satirist?

To stop black carbon is going to be a task, all by itself. That is what is speeding up ice sheet melt, and gaining pace. Convert diesel to gas, maybe, or come up with a synthetic fuel oil that does not create soot. What ever it is steps are going to happen, or sea level rise will create more expenditure.
Parts of Africa is again in the desperation of drought, without infrastructure, the scene is not going to be good. They are in need and half the world is broke. Can we go on feeding people in impoverished countries, or put an end to the miseries. With out internal help, like birth control, the situation is reoccurring. The world has big decisions to make.

579; your doomsday utterances typify the way AGW is promoted; hysterically; carbon, soot or aerosols and their effect on the atmosphere and climate are simply not known; the planned satellite to measure the forcing from aerosols was lost in take-off and currently all we are left with are articles such as this which argue that aerosols COOL not warm the atmosphere:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=stratospheric-pollution-helps-slow-global-warming

Here's a thought: things have never been better and those who worry about the end of the world are perceiving things through their personal disposition rather than dealing with reality.

Have a drink and stop worrying.

579,

The so called 'lead pencils' contain no lead at all and never have. Do not accept my word for it, simply google for lead pencil and read a few of the articles.
A pencil 'lead' is made up of a mixture of finely ground clay and finely ground graphite (which is a form of carbon just as diamond is). The difference between a 'Hard'(H) and a 'soft' (B) pencil is that soft pencils have a greater percentage of graphite; hard have more clay.
You seem to think that carbon is a result of burning fossil fuels. That is essentially wrong though in a badly adjusted motor there is some black emmission due to the fact that the fuel is not being completely burnt. The result of burning fossil fuels is the production of carbon dioxide and water because fuels are hydrocarbons.

Cheers,

Grim
“And now to Peter Hume. Only someone suffering from egregious narcissistic personality disorder…”

Wow, we are amazed at this latest warmist proof that the globe faces man-made global warming.

* * *

Now Grim, I have many times accused you of circular argument, so I hope you won’t think it narcissistic of me to congratulate you on not having indulged that dreadful vice even once in your last post. For the first time I can remember you doing, your logic is valid, you have addressed relevant facts, and you have truly joined issue on my actual argument, instead of our usual method of just endlessly assuming you are right, and misrepresenting me. You have actually and validly tried to prove your case. Bravo, and keep up the good work.

However your logic, though valid, is unsound and you have only proved my case, not yours, for the following reasons.

“Yet …. we are asked to believe … that burning something is actually cheaper than burning nothing. How …? Basically, by comparing apples to oranges. …we are asked to accept the accounting (historical or out of pocket) cost of fossil fuels, and the economic (total) cost of renewables…
To make a true comparison, we must either compare the out of pocket costs of both … or compare the full economic cost of both.”

Completely agree.

“But what about the decades and decades of past government intervention, distorting market prices so egregiously that it does indeed appear that burning something is actually cheaper than burning nothing?”

Bad. They should never have been done and should be abolished immediately. For example, where I live, it’s cheaper to buy coal-fired electricity only because of the historical subsidies in the absence of which, probably solar or other alternative energies would have been installed decades ago.

Without the past century’s embezzlement of trillions in compulsory support for power stations, alternative energy sources would now be much more economical, widespread and mainstream, precisely because they are more economical when *all* relevant factors are taken into account.

(cont.)

“Consider the trillions spent on the violent acquisition (sorry, 'liberation') of foreign oil fields…”

Good point. Making petrol cheaper by blowing up Iraqis falsifies economic calculation as a guide to which form of energy is better, falsely making petrol seem more economical than wind, solar etc.

But that doesn’t prove that we face man-made global warming. Nor does it reduce the usefulness of economic calculation to figure out which energy source is more efficient, so far as the relevant goods are exchanged against money (e.g. fossil fuels versus wind turbines).

And where economic calculation is impossible because the relevant goods are not exchanged against money (eg killing the owners of oil instead of buying it; or wind energy available for free; or public ownership of power stations), that doesn’t prove that coercive interventions are ethically better, nor technically better at identifying efficient energy sources, than people identifying them by voluntary choice and/or economic calculation.

You cannot allege the killing of innocent Iraqis as a benefit trumping economic calculation. The social injustice, and economic and environmental chaos, of past coercive interventions does not justify massive more coercive interventions, but a lot less!

All warmists contradict themselves in arguing that policy action on AGW is necessary or desirable, because the premise of that argument is that governments’ attempt last century to merely supply electricity was the worst mistake in the history of the world.

How could you possibly argue on the basis of that gross government failure, that government is now qualified for the larger challenge of managing the whole world’s energy, climate and economy hundreds of years into the future? It’s absurd; laughable; criminal.

The allegation that government was necessary to produce electricity on public goods grounds was false; AND EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS FALSIFY ALL PUBLIC GOODS ARGUMENTS WHATSOEVER.

“…should the study of science deny the scientist the fundamental right to freedom of speech?”

Hurray! Grim discovers the value of freedom. *Before* that, ask, should the study of science deny to others the fundamental right to freedom not to be forced to fund it if they don’t want to?

Lead pencils, that is one way of knowing someone reads this stuff. Doomsday utterances, in other words you are not sure. No doubt the people who get paid to think have come up with some beauties. You can't burn oil without getting soot. Stick your finger up a exhaust pipe on a diesel and you will see soot. Get on the solar and do away with power bills. Concentrate some sunshine to boil water and use it in a heating coil in the winter , and save a stack on gas. That is not a doomsday utterance, that is common sense.

What a facile contribution to the climate debate.

Donna Lambroise's contribution did nothing to assess the scientific basis for AGW. Al Gore used biblical references as a metaphor for change not as a indication of his belief structure.
There are no valid scientific studies that dispute the physical reality of the greenhouse effect. There are no valid scientific studies that dispute the physical reality that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Relevant studies of climate sensitivity predict a variation in temperature of over 2 degrees C for a doubling of CO2.

Facts people, the scientific facts, not some psoedo-scientific claptrap proselytised by the denialist lobbies.

AGW is a religion; it's almost identical nature with the Eden myth has been noted; its other religious qualities are manifest and have been recognised judicially:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dismissed-employee-agrees-settlement-in-green-case-1949594.html

Gore is a leading priest of this religion and it is his belief structure not a metaphor that he talks about. Like all religions it is based on faith not science but is prepared to mix and match its beliefs and science in a confusing and dishonest way; so when sillyfilly says:

"There are no valid scientific studies that dispute the physical reality of the greenhouse effect. There are no valid scientific studies that dispute the physical reality that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Relevant studies of climate sensitivity predict a variation in temperature of over 2 degrees C for a doubling of CO2."

There is a little bit of truth but much untruth here; there is a Greenhouse and CO2 is a Greenhouse gas; BUT there is no knowledge of the extent the Greenhouse effect has had on climate in the last century and the role of CO2 is increasingly seen as a minor player if one at all.

As for statements and predictions about climate sensitivity, how much the climate and in particular the temperature will increase in response to human CO2 emissions, none of the official IPCC predictions have been verified and increasingly resemble the worst of religious predictions of apocalypse. Perhaps the most succinct expose of the scientific failure of climate sensitivity from ACO2 is by that heroic layman Lord Monckton;

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/the-ipcc-exaggerate-monckton-calculates-how-much

CLIMATE ASTROLOGY

AGW alarmists and astrologers have much in common. The similarities between their divinatory systems are striking. Both (i) exploit public anxiety about weather and climate; (ii) have their high priests and sacred texts; (iii) derive authority from models that few understand (and even fewer audit); (iv) claim these models have genuine predictive power, despite the lack of any empirically verifiable laws of climate change; (v) make ominous predictions; (vi) urge governments and individuals to take immediate action to avoid destruction, generally on date more than two parliamentary terms away; (vii) confuse consequence with cause and causation with correlation; (vi) gain financially from their prognostications; and (vii) sometimes crown kings and disrupt kingdoms.

Most astrologers knew they walked a tightrope between success and failure. Hence they tended to claim their predictions, while ‘likely’, were not inevitable. If wrong, they could concede there had been a mistake in the calculations. Perhaps Mars moved house while the astrologer was taking snuff or at the alehouse?

They also explained away the terrifying prospect that humankind was hostage to random natural events that defied rational explanation or prediction. “There is no such thing as chance in Nature”, declared Elizabethan astrologer John Butler in his 1680 treatise, The Most Sacred and Divine Science of Astrology". Astrological hypotheses, like global warming ‘story-lines’, seemed to explain everything, at least for a while.

Like the exceedingly religious, climate alarmists have been - and continue to be - less eager to admit any uncertainties. Perhaps the risk of puncturing their carefully cultivated mystique of infallibility is too high? The best ‘predictions’ are always those in the distant future. Any apparent ‘cooling’ somewhere on the planet, is invariably deemed ‘consistent with a long-term warming trend’. Weather can become ‘climate’ too, if it confirms an alarmist trajectory. Some “see patterns” in EWE frequency and link them to climate change; others see only randomness and natural variability.

Alice (in Warmerland)

Sillyfilly, whilst you're talking about "some psuedo-scientific claptrap", try some of these scientific facts.

Svante Arrhenius in 1896 first came up with this interesting phenomena of hot-house theory and the CO2 relationship. In 1906 he figured that a doubling of CO2 would cause a 5 to 6 degree C increase in earth surface temperature. There was some dispute about his number-crunching at the time and although dismissing the criticism he later revised his figures (for a doubling of CO2) downwards to 1.6 degrees C. All a bit rubbery really, but we can forgive him for being new to the concept.

The IPCC in their 2007 report, over a century later, declare climate sensitivity, as it is now called, for a doubling of CO2, is "likely" to be in the order of about 2 to 4.5 degrees C. That's a pretty big variation. I wouldn't call that a scientific fact. More like a non-scientific wild stab in the dark. It's definitely not scientific certainty, that's for sure. So much for your scientific facts. And we can't forgive them for being new to the concept.

Now, I see that you've decided to settle on 2 degrees C as your opinion of climate sensitivity, quoting a not specified source as "relevant studies". I guess the science is settled for you then. Better send a peer reviewed paper to the IPCC and advise them of your opinion.

But, don't you think that there might be some room for reasonable doubt here, that these scientists don't really know what the facts are yet? Don't you think there's a good reason not to be turning the entire world's power/economy structures upside-down for something that seems like a very big guess?

Anyway, I'm pleased that you're happy with your quoted 2 degrees. But for me, I'd like to see some real facts, the scientific facts, not some pseudo-scientific claptrap proselytised by the warmist/alarmist lobby flying under the flag of the UN/EU.

The main fact warmers fail to report about Arrhenius was that he thought warming of the planet, if it did occur, would only be a good thing because it would lead to an increase in crop production.

Arrhenius then would disagree with the AGW movement on a fundamental issue. AGW proponents unsurpisingly fail to report the whole story,yet again.

It probably will leed to crop production, in the Antarctic. There are places now starving to death. The odds are against you lot, all the way.

If people are starving to death its because of policies based on the lies of AGW. In Australia productive farms are already being closed down for carbon credits; see:

http://www.beefcentral.com/news/article/391

Henbury Station would feed 100,000 people per annum; now gone because of the lie of AGW.

And google biofuels, one of the stupid 'solutions' to AGW, which mean even more farmland closed to food production:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/10/AR2011021006323.html?referrer=emailarticle

If proper management of arable land was allowed and not sacrificed to preservation of 'nature', as demanded by AGW, Australia alone could feed the world.

AGW is a lie and its 'solutions' have already cost many lives and will cost more.

All those 17000 cattle combined would weigh 5 kg. That sort of land has been bought back for years as they become available. There is no ariable involved. If it was looked after , there would not be any feral camels.
Those cattle live a life of misery, Two thirds of AU for $300 m / yr The land could be put to better use.

To those who still choose to parade their ignorance.

This study was oft cited by many very well known “sceptical sites”:

Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum
Science 9 December 2011:
Vol. 334 no. 6061 pp. 1385-1388
DOI: 10.1126/science.1203513
Andreas Schmittner et al

The equilibrium climate sensitivity for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations (ECS2xC) from preindustrial times has been established as a well-defined standard measure
Best-fitting model simulation (ECS2xC = 2.4 K)
And as reported in Science Daily: “models with low climate sensitivity — less than 1.3 degrees — underestimate the cooling almost everywhere at the Last Glacial Maximum, the researchers say. The closest match, with a much lower degree of uncertainty than most other studies, suggests climate sensitivity is about 2.4 degrees”.

Of course noting that this study is at the lower end of climate sensitivity estimates.

Moreover, it severely questions and, if fact, refutes the low climate sensitivity arguments of Plimer, McLean, Carter, Monckton, Lindzen and maybe even Roy Spencer, all of whom have spruiked much less than 1.3DC. As a consequence, that probably puts paid to all the climate sensitivity studies done by the Galileo Movement, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the SPPI, the Heartland Institute or any of the oxymoronic Climate Science Coalitions.

Sillyfilly continues her untruths and insults. And the Schmittner paper continues a trend of decreasing climate sensitivity [CS] estimates from the AGW church; Arhennius gave 5.9C, Hansen in 1988 gave 4.7C, the 1995 IPCC gave 4.25C, 2001 IPCC 3.92C, 2007 IPCC 3.26C, Hansen in 2008 2.5C and now Schmittner with 2.3C.

A couple of things about this which an alarmist like SF would never admit. Firstly, even though official estimates of CS have been dropping as the AGW scientists realise their modelling is wrong it doesn't stop the official AGW science from accepting wildly exaggerated estimates of CS of up to 12C [see: Steven C. Sherwood and
Matthew Huber]. This temperature increase would exceed the highest Global Average Temperatures {GAT] ever recorded over 600 million years!

Secondly, even the Schittner paper may have grossly exggerated CS; it has done so firstly because it has averaged land and sea temperatures and CS's despite there being profound differences between the CS response of either.

Secondly Schmittner uses his model to develope a climate reconstruction of the Last Glacial Maximum [LGM], the coldest period of recent geological time; his reconstrcution shows the Arctic being WARMER during this period! This along with the fact that over the 20,000 years since the LGM, there has been NO correlation between temperature and CO2 [ see: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf ] suggests that whatever CS is produced by CO2 has already occurred at levels below 100PPM.

AGW is a failed theory and a scam.

Sillyfilly
The problem is that what the scientific institutions are claiming is not backed up by the actual science. There is a recurrent pattern in the models of assuming warming from the outset, which is what is to be proved, thus indulging a fallacy right from the get-go. Furthermore, other people don't hold their lives and liberties subject to a condition that an empire of government functionary boffins manipulating *models* think they know better than everyone else in the world put together.

But even if everything you claim about the climate science were conceded, please admit that it is scientific illiteracy to claim or imply that climate science provides any justification for any policy whatsoever, on the ground that science does not supply value judgments.

To justify policy, you need two further steps.

Please prove that:
- the result of any warming would be negative, rather than positive, when all relevant human valuations, now and in the future, are taken into account. Show your workings including your data set.
- policy action could necessarily make the situation better rather than worse, compared with non-policy action, by reference to all the relevant human valuations, now and in the future. Show your workings including your data set.

Perhaps Cohenite would like to assure us of his expertise, by citing his formal and/or informal qualifications for expressing public opinions on the topic of anthropogenic global warming.

I am also interested in Cohenite's opinion on Mr Kile's opinions about the causes of global warming. See my previous posts, including a quote pasted here.

"Human sacrifice is clearly a potent forcing agent in climate equilibration. Furthermore, analysis of the climate record suggests its decline has been a key driver of rising global temperatures. The Aztec (and other) priests were right. Only sacrifice will ensure humankind’s survival."

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/6/the-aztec-solution

Mr Kile's [Quadrant] article describes the mechanics of climate control, as practiced (intentionally or not) by the Aztecs at the time of the Conquistador invasion of Mexico.

- - - - - -

Mr Kile has certainly provided us with stimulus material. As yet, I have no reason to take either Mr Kile or Cohenite very seriously, but then, I am not sure Mr Kile intends to be taken seriously.

Cohenite - do you have an opinion on these matters, and what sort of credentials are they based upon?

How interesting and original survivor, to ask me about my qualifications; your original and interesting questions certainly deserve a frank and forthright response; however, Graham runs a tight ship here and given this I don't think I can do justice to your interesting and original enquiries.

Why don't you repost your interesting and original questions here where I can assure you I will respond fully to them:

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2012/01/03/guest-post-dover-beach-consent-and-perversion/comment-page-2/#comment-374393

So, go ahead and make yourself known; I look forward to our tete-a-tete.

Cohenite, thank you for the opportunity. And the coy answer. But I cannot imagine what it may have to do with your opinion that
"Graham runs a tight ship here ... ".

Can you pardon a modest correction? With all due respect I doubt that I am the original survivor. Someone is bound to have survived longer and grimmer circumstances than I. Maybe you. Who knows?

Regarding identity and qualifications, briefly but generally put, these vital statistics of mine can be put in two short lines.

Thing is, I asked you first, So, you show me yours, then I'll show you mine, but let's do it here.

Anticipating another coy reply, I'll ask you simply whether you think Mr Kile is an accomplished satirist (who gulled Quadrant's editors with his pseudoscience, and and is enjoying the evidence that you are either taking him seriously or else overlooking the bleeding obvious) or just barking mad? Surely this is a reasonable fallback to which you may respond?

I'm confused survivor; are you asking me out with Mr Kile to be the chaperone, or what? I'm really impressed with your pick-up line:

"Thing is, I asked you first, So, you show me yours, then I'll show you mine, but let's do it here."

And if we don't work out I'm going to try it on my next 'special friend'.

Don't read too much into things, Cohenite. Enjoy yourself, but don't read too much into things.

What I'm interested in picking up is your reply to the questions I asked on January third:

"Mr Kile has certainly provided us with stimulus material. As yet, I have no reason to take either Mr Kile or Cohenite very seriously, but then, I am not sure Mr Kile intends to be taken seriously.

Cohenite - do you have an opinion on these matters, and what sort of credentials are they based upon?"

Happy N.Y. to all on OLO.

Quite surprised that this thread is still going, I’ve been away for NY and have clearly missed some of the action.

It seems to have escaped the attention of most that this thread is about the indoctrination of our children in relation to AGW. With all due respect to this author’s previous article(s), it is about THIS thread not other threads or articles. Nor is it about attacks on the author’s credibility or trading scientific links. It is about identifying and discussing yet another modus operandi of the pro AGW lobby.

So why is it so difficult for the warmers to go there? We have everything on this thread except any analysis of the issue of involving children in this debate.

The domestic violence laws in Australia are clear. If one of the parents uses their children as a weapon against their partner, it is an offence. Yet curiously, our children can be used (abused) by the warmertariat, to promote their ideological case against skeptics.

So is anyone game to address this issue? Or are we to conclude that the warmers don’t have a case, are not interested in a debate, are quite happy with public discussion on complex science and are willing to accept that the Boeing 747 was built on “consensus”.

Sooner or later the warmers will have to face reality. We can watch in amusement as they go down with the ship, we can shout at them that there is a hole in their hull, we can point to the increased list in their logic and we can draw their attention to the reef upon which they are about impale themselves. Unless they are prepared to ask what list? What reef? and what hole? There is nothing we can do for them.

The issue is the indoctrination of children in a highly contentious and divisive public debate. Is anyone going there?

Thanks spindoc. Welcome back.

BTW our CSIRO was quick to jump on this bandwagon. It launched a CarbonKids schools pilot program in August 2009 and a Climate Change kit (retail price $31.50) - designed for “ages 10 and up”. Students from 26 schools (ACT, WA, NSW)) were involved in activities for “tackling climate change”, reducing carbon footprints and “instilling behavioural changes in their families, friends and the broader community.” Three quarters (2,826) were from primary schools.

An evaluation report was released last year. CarbonKids, it concluded, was a “pedagogically relevant” program that “successfully enhances teaching and learning that contributes to the core business of schools in achieving quality student outcomes.”

http://www.csiro.au/en/Portals/Education/Teachers/Classroom-activities/CarbonKids/~/media/CSIROau/Corporate%20Units/Education/CK_EvalFinalReport_EE_pdf%20Standard.pdf

But how did teachers make sure the kids “valued evidence”, were able “to draw evidence-based conclusions and make informed decisions in discussing strategies for addressing carbon reduction and climate change” (outcome 4), when they presumably had little choice but to promote the CSIRO’s alarmist narrative?

Eg: “Savas” is a Forrest Primary School Year 4 student. According to the report, he knows “what it means to be a CarbonKid” and understands “how carbon is related to energy and the implications of energy use for climate change.”

There's an Authentic Student Statement (my words)from him in it, with a border design motif of black human footprints. He is, he writes, “a carbon kid, witch (sic) means I try to reduce my carbon footprint.”

He sounds eco-smart; does not leave water running while cleaning teeth, plants trees, buys energy efficient appliances, and so on.

Despite all the misinfo thrown at him, his last sentence refers to carbon dioxide (not "carbon"): “If we had no carbon dioxide, we wouldn’t exist!” BRAVO!

Perhaps we have a genuinely curious kid, a free thinker here? But will he and all the other young minds emerge unscathed from an Orwellian program the CSIRO seems determined to roll-out on a national scale at some stage?

Alice

"The issue is the indoctrination of children in a highly contentious and divisive public debate. Is anyone going there?"

Yes, this mob ...

http://tinyurl.com/galileo-wannabes

who just last month bought 300 copies of Ian Plimer's "How To Get Expelled From School" and offered them to Australian schools for free.

One of your mates said you had some science bonmot, but all I've seen from you is half-baked links to the usual suspects, Skeptical Science and Tamino, plus the standard ad homs.

Say something sciency please, if for no other reason then to please your supporters.

As for dealing with children, as I have posted before, the pro-AGW side have no shame:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2011/09/kids.html

You're clutching at straws, bonmot. Donating books to school libraries is a long way from indoctrination, because school libraries are generally not well utilised for the purpose for which they were intended: the provision of reading material. Aside from nerds seeking the librarian's watchful protection from playground bullies, the only way to get a kid inside one is to force him in there. The chances of actually getting them to read a book once inside are so infitesimally tiny that winning the lottery seems highly probable by comparison.

The Climate Sceptics Blog - the 'look at me' (spam) site.

"Say something sciency please..."

Anthony Cox wouldn't understand.

Ok, thanks Anton - I understand now. Plimer and the Galileo Movement were/are just playing games for the media.

Hoodathunkthat?

Alice, many thanks for the link, distressing though it may be to read the report it does match precisely with earlier posts on the “dumbing down of the curriculum” and the “corruption of the curriculum”.

In his analysis of modern education “Geography Used to be About Maps”, Alex Standish refers to the politicization and moral relativism of post 1980 UK curriculums.

The “body of evidence” on any education subject is no longer of primary relevance. It is the prism of the political agenda through which these subjects must now be viewed. Post-national citizenship (post modernism) is the process by which this is achieved in our schools. It is”an anti-democratic trend and amounts to a highly intrusive level of control by professionals and the state over individuals”.

This is resulting in children being treated as political subjects long before they have acquired the knowledge and life experience of adults. In the case of the AGW phenomena, there is only one acceptable “interpretation” of the “body of science” which is that driven by the UNFCCC and the IPCC.

Increasingly adults are becoming aware that there is a substantial “body of evidence” to the contrary of this single orthodoxy. This is directly analogous with the single orthodoxy offered by the Church of Rome in relation to the scriptures. Martin Luther on the other hand was of the view that all the scriptures must be presented and not just those supporting the Catholic doctrine. History it seems is repeating itself.

More importantly, Australia has a chance, albeit a slim one, to avoid the real legacy our children and grandchildren will face. In the UK the unemployment figures for 15 to 25 y o’s is 25%. Now that is an ugly legacy.

We might look at the “GetUp” generation as one of the first batches to face a future on the dole? What can we possibly do for a generation that goes on the streets to shout “Tax me, tax me”?

Will these young minds emerge unscathed from an Orwellian program the CSIRO seems determined to roll-out on a national scale at some stage? No.

There is no doubt that Plimer's book will meet resistance in the schools; this is regrettable when the BOM 2011 annual report will get pride of place despite it having some questionable information:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2012/01/analysis-of-bom-annual-report.html

...

I hear the trolls a-singing, each to each.

I do not think that they will sing to me - - -

(apologies to T.S. Eliot)

The music you hear is in your head survivor;

"Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a [suitor] scorned,"

[apologies to William Congreve]

http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes

Apologies to Anthony Cox, Barry Spinks and professor Roberts (sic)

Sorry bonmot, in your case it's too late, the damage is already done. Don't you ever have anything sensible to say?

No need to apologise bonmot; what your graph showing the BEST results from the Muller team demonstrates is end-point fallacy, a particularly insidious form of cherry-picking. It is common in the AGW science as Figure 4.2 from the IPCC shows:

http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/image102.jpg

How is this cherry-picking? Look at this graph of a slightly asymmetrical sinusoidal oscillation;

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/cal2.jpg

The overall trend shows a slight increase as the red trend line shows; you can increase the trend by simply moving the start points nearer to the end of the wave pattern as the purple, brown and yellow trend lines show. Dr Glassman really does a number on this phony statistical method at Figures 15 and 16 here:

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/sgw.html

The purpose of end-point fallacy is to create an inappropriate impression of an increase in something, in AGW’s case that temperature is increasing at an increasing rate. A correct way of viewing Global Average Temperature [GAT] is this:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:1910/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:1976/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1976/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:2012/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:1880/trend

The changes in trend direction are correlated with reversal of the PDO sign.

You should also bear in mind the Muller/BEST results were land temperatures only and incorrectly discounted UHI. But thanks for coming bonmot

bonmot,

Re your post.

“Apologies to Anthony Cox, Barry Spinks and professor Roberts (sic)
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 6 January 2012 3:26:08 PM”

I have no problem with my loss of anonymity thanks to you, but I do regard it as a hostile act from a person who is now clearly angry, has lost self confidence and is unsure of how to handle the collapse of their AGW comfort zone. We did predict this outcome for you last year.

For “context” and to help you reconcile your angst, the following from earlier on this thread followed by some “relevance” to your position.

<<Warmers are like the “eunuch at the orgy who was always first with the gossip, but being forced to realize that he doesn’t really know what’s going on, his knowledge is not real and that far from being the centre of things, he is forever on the margin”.
(The Eunuch at the Orgy, Raymond Tallis)>>

<< You need to get your head around the difference between your version of science, “forecasts by scientists” and the real world which is “scientific forecasts”. The former is socialized or pseudo-science, the latter is real science subjected to scientific processes and rigor.>>

For you this means you are stuck with “forecasts by scientists”. These must be regurgitated endlessly with links because they cannot renew, they are political constructs and you are stuck holding them as they rapidly and publicly erode.

“Scientific forecasts” on the other hand, are immune from political influence, are subject to scientific rigor and can evolve with new information.

This leaves you and your like as the “Eunuchs at the Orgy”. You now realize that everything you “believed” was knowledge is not real and that far from being the centre of things, you are destined to be forever on the margin.

Now we all understand why you are so bitter and angry. Unfortunately we have no sympathy. You are a mature adult (?) and responsible for your own decisions.

Educated? Sure. Sadly not intelligent enough to avoid being gullible, which has got you here you are today. Hostile

Thanks for that Raymond Tallis quote spindoc, it led me to his very interesting chapter in his book "Newton's sleep: the two cultures and the two kingdoms". I find it interesting you would use it to try and label the scientists (or 'warmists' if you like) who work on climate the "eunuchs at the orgy". If you have read the whole chapter you would probably realise that he is talking more about he likes of Donna Laframboise or Alan Jones or even the multitude of scientifically illiterate bloggers who think that their opinion matters. He wasn't talking about the overturning of scientific hypotheses. In fact, the context in which you used it seems completely inappropriate and the original material does no credit to the anti-climate scientist ('skeptic') position.

Bugsy, a sense of irony is one of the human qualities missing from AGW exponents, inasmuch as qualities alarmists see in 'denialists' really better apply to themselves.

Judith Curry has an interesting take on the "error cascade" of AGW 'science' and the herd mentality that sustains such errors and prevents rectification here:

http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/05/error-cascade/#more-5780

Curry says:

"IMO the error cascade in the IPCC argument starts here: multidecadal and longer modes of natural internal variability are dismissed in the attribution arguments, based upon a flawed ‘detection’ of unusual warming (relative to natural variability) using climate model simulations that produce natural internal variability on time scales longer than ~20 years that is substantially lower (factor of 2-3) than observed variability (which is itself uncertain). Dangerous climate related impacts are then attributed to AGW, which leads to a policy prescription of CO2 mitigation. When people say the hockey stick and millennial climate reconstructions don’t really matter, I strongly disagree, since these data are crucial for empirical support of detection arguments."

The hockeystick, of course, is now discredited and subject to litigation.

Laframboise has an even better and funnier, and more alarming take on this 'herd mentality' of the alarmists here:

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/01/05/what-financial-meltdowns-teach-us-about-the-ipcc/

That's very funny cohenite, I was thinking just the same about you several days ago. Irony irony everywhere and not a drop to laugh at.

BTW, how is that publication record coming along? I see you linked to a couple PDF's apparently submitted for publication at least a couple of years ago but I can't find them in the literature. One even looked liked a proof and even had some sort of DOI attached, but I can't find that anywhere either. Why is that? I am genuinely curious.

"I am genuinely curious."

No you're not.

You should read this bugsy:

http://pressthink.org/2010/11/the-view-from-nowhere-questions-and-answers/

Some time ago Lambert quoted it with favour in maligning Monckton. Do you think a "View from Nowhere" is appropriate in reporting, discussing and even doing AGW 'science'?

Yes, I am.

I have some experience with the peer review system, and I can recognise that if a publisher has gone to the trouble of putting something into a proper pdf format and assigning a DOI number, then you have made it past peer review and it's nearly ready to publish. I am curious as to why the pdf that was put into journal format was not published after being prepared.

If I cannot get a straight answer from you, then who can I ask?

As to the 'view from nowhere', I have no views on that. I would have to think about it.

Mmmm there's Cohenite, yet again either unable or unwilling to answer a simple question with a simple answer.

And yet, despite his exacting critique of the extensive evidence supporting AGW, despite his very high standards in this regard, he is happy to offer a psychological motivation for someone he does not know and has never met penning two lines of parody of TS Eliot (and the trolls, of course).

Methinks it is a case of straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

Just one question, for you, then, Cohenite - do you think Michael Kile's Quadrant article,
"The Aztec Solution to Climate Change"
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/6/the-aztec-solution

is a hoax?

What damage spindoc barry? The link says it all – quite sensibly too.

Nevertheless, like Tweedledee and Tweedledum responding in unison, you both ignore the long-term trend.

And like Tweedledee and Tweedledum, neither of you see the flaws in your ideological reasoning.

.

Cohenite Anthony, it really would help if you read the whole WFT link – it’s not about BEST.

Tell you what, just look at the graphs, they all show the same long-term trend, even Roy's UAH.

As for your Judith Curry link – I agree with her; that “particular article goes over the top in essentially dismissing all of AGW as junk science”.

As you point out, she also says “multi-decadal and longer modes of natural internal variability are dismissed in the attribution arguments …”

No, they are not.

In fact, Judith then goes on to exhibit a "cascade of errors" (opinions) which are in and of themselves, self-defeating.

bonmot, like I said, the dabate has left you where you were years ago, more of the same won't cut it. You need something NEW.

"For you this means you are stuck with “forecasts by scientists”. These must be regurgitated endlessly with links because they cannot renew, they are political constructs and you are stuck holding them as they rapidly and publicly erode".

"This leaves you and your like as the “Eunuchs at the Orgy”. You now realize that everything you “believed” was knowledge is not real and that far from being the centre of things, you are destined to be forever on the margin".

Enjoy being marginalised.

bugsy, contact the authors of the papers.

survivor, I don't know if Mr Kile is serious or not; why don't you ask him.

bonmot, your faith in AGW science is touching, just as your dismissal of Judith Curry, one of the authors of the various BEST reports, is bizarre; you seem to accept everything which is said by pro-AGW 'scientists'; I'd wager you accept everything which is contained in the BOM 2011 Report; I have already linked to an analysis of some of the defects of that report but since you obviously haven't read it I'll link to it again:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2012/01/analysis-of-bom-annual-report.html#comment-form

My apologies cohenite, I thought you were one of the authors of those papers.

I may actually contact the journal directly, I'm sure they can explain it.

Cohenite,

Finally, a succinct answer.

Thank you

Comprehension never been your strongest point, eh Barry?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13063#226290

.

Cohenite: science is not a faith based belief system, notwithstanding your assertions to the contrary.

"you seem to accept everything which is said by pro-AGW scientists".

No I don't, but that's real scepticism at work - unlike political ideological zealots - followers of 'Lord Monckton' anyone?

You wouldn't have a clue what I have read, Anthony.

Bugsy

He did say he was one of the authors, and you contacted him.

I have no idea why he is now running away from it.

Cohenite/Anthony Cox

Someone who keeps linking to their own blog says volumes about themself, and their blog.

bugsy can contact David Stockwell who was the lead author and dealt with admin issues; if bugsy, or anyone, wants to discuss the contents of the papers I am happy to respond.

Bonmot, you are such a pest; you don't discuss the science, you continually ad hom; my initial estimation of you was entirely correct.

Thanks for the advice cohenite, I did as you suggested.

Since they were rejected, are you planning on resubmitting them to any other journals?

I don't think it's appropriate for me to discuss the content of rejected draft manuscripts.

2 of the papers are up at arXiv.org for public comment; they've gone through that process and have been published regardless of not yet being in the major journals.

So, as for not commenting on "rejected draft manuscripts", that's pretty weak especially since Professor Trevor Breusch has had a pot-shot at the 'break' paper. That is why they are up at arXiv.org [and incidentally bugsy, you try and get a paper up there], for public comment.

By way of clarification only the 'break' and McLean Comment papers are there; David is still working on the 3rd paper, a draft of which is here:

http://landshape.org/enm/files/2011/01/walkerarticle.pdf

I am sure the good professor has a much greater interest in climate science and statistics than myself. I don't think that it is necessarily inappropriate for anybody to comment, just myself. Also it would be a complete waste of time for both of us.

I guess web publishing of unreviewed or rejected material is the way of the future.

Blog on.

Children of the world, listen up … you are being enlisted here as the advance guard of the anti-climate crusade by some self-proclaimed “climatologist” that straddles from Nova to Marohassy, from Watts’ to his own blog. And he wants to “discuss science” with you – or at least, his version of it. Yes, it does matter that this ‘climatologist extraordinaire’ keeps changing the playing field, often back to his favourite blog site, or his favourite off-topic rant, because attention is always drawn to what he wants to “discuss” – not your opinion. Be careful though, when challenged, he resorts to the old ad-hom canard – accusing you of exactly the thing he engages in himself. Sure, meandering off-topic on an opinion site happens, quite regularly in fact. But, not usually in the form of deliberate hijacking of the thread, or the topic itself, to promote one’s own attention deficit disorder.

Of course, it is imperative that you, dear Klimate Kids, understand the stated estimates (with error bars and measures of confidence of course) of the variability of ocean heat content, or the periodicity (or lack thereof) of natural variation in climate forcings, or whatever else the “published climatologist” wants to “discuss”. Why, let it even be known that the warming trend in ocean heat content has subjugated earth’s heat balance this last half century and this trend has been attributed to the increase in GHG’s - again with a stately degree of confidence, and again despite the shrills to the contrary, by the contrary. It is also required reading by the children of the world that this imperious buffoon wants this particular opinion site to be the place to “discuss” systemic errors in bathythermograph measurements, the 3-sigma variance in regional extreme weather events, and the divergence of Hadley cells and the confluence of the cells of the Walker Circulation.

Yeah, right – bye for now boys and girls.

bonmot, as usual gets all upset when things don't work out for him, and they never do. We've taled about your anger management before have we not?

So the attempted intimidation by discovering a poster's identity didn't work, did you think it would.

I remember some time ago you responded to someone who demanded you expose your identity, as this is not the first time you have pursued the identity of posters you disagree with, and your response was that you had been "terrorized" as had your family, when your identity had been exposed in the past - so you didn't want to.

So keeping in mind you're clearly a professional activist .. why is it OK for you to use these tactics and not others? So who do you work for now? Who's paying you for these online forays? Big Green clearly, but which groups?

The responses you complain about from various posters, particularly your last post, you actually chased and pursued .. why now are you all sarcastic about it, it's what YOU wanted.

Unless, that's the current strategy of the activist movement, al la Obama, demand something and when you get it, complain it was not really what you wanted.

Thankfully you are not an educator and I cannot imagine what you would be "teaching" to our youth.

It is deplorable to consider it acceptable to brainwash kids, mind you, most of them are resilient and quietly question the BS they get from various sources, particularly when it is at odds with the world view of those around them.

>>Children of the world, listen up<<

Who are you talking to, bonmot? I'm pretty sure there aren't any kids reading these comments - even though the bickering around here can get very childish at times, kids would find this website somewhat less exciting than Kenneth Branagh's four hour Hamlet.

"imperious buffoon"?!

I thought poor old Lord Monckton had a monopoly on that diatribe.

bonmot has mentioned a few topics of interest, particularly Ocean Heat Content [OHC}, which is supposedly where Trenberth's "missing heat" is being stored.

I can't help it if this is an area of AGW which is fraught with measurement problems and which features continual 'official' 'adjustments', all of which increase OHC. For instance when the ARGO float regime was introduced in 2003, there was an immediate 'splicing' problem between the new and old OHC data, discussed here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/02/anomalous-spike-in-ocean-heat-content/

In 2008 there was another 'adjustment to OHC which also made it bigger, discussed here:

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/11/revised-ocean-heat-content.html

Then in 2011, another adjustment, making OHC very much bigger, discussed here [look at the 1st animation]:

http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/july-to-september-2011-nodc-ocean-heat-content-anomalies-0-700meters-update-and-comments/

All these adjustments, making OHC bigger, are at a time when SST is falling dramatically and where the professed standards of accuracy are of the ‘dance on the head of a pin' variety; or as Dr Eschenbach notes "claims that we can measure the temperature of the upper kilometer and a half of the ocean with an error (presumably one sigma) of only ± eight thousandths of a degree … " [see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/31/krige-the-argo-probe-data-mr-spock/ ]

These are all valid and vital critiques of AGW science, all of which should be part of the discussion. People like bonmot take this lack of discussion at official levels as evidence of the science being settled when in fact it is just more evidence that the 'science' is corrupted.

Um Amicus,

aide-mémoire; we should have nuclear power – if that makes me “Big Green”, so be it : )

.

Anton

>> Kids would find this website somewhat less exciting than Kenneth Branagh's four hour Hamlet. <<

Exquisite.

By the by, it helps around here not to take things too literally : )

.

Wonder of wonders, Anthony still can’t help himself.

.

Au plaisir de vous revoir

>>By the by, it helps around here not to take things too literally : )<<

Unfortunately, I have trouble taking them otherwise (except when I'm reading fiction, when I willingly and gladly suspend my disbelief). I'm a very 'left-brain', analytical and logical thinker. I find communication is much easier when everyone just calls a spade a spade, and bugger all this poetical crap. No doubt such mental rigidity comes at the expense of valuable faculties such as creativity, but I am what I am.

Here's another insidious warper of childrens' minds at work. fortunately, they are in Sandwich, New Hapshire USA, the Australian equivalent of Bushy Park, Tasmania. Nothing to fear, really.

But consider the consequences of subtly influencing these eager childrens' minds, as parents and teachers, uncles, aunties and older cousins and siblings have been doing for generations - - -

Mind Boggling!

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/01/no-maple-syrup-2100

"A few years ago, Martha Carlson, a veteran maple farmer, began noticing subtle changes in her 60-acre "sugar bush" in Sandwich, New Hampshire: Maple sap was unusually dark, and leaves were falling too early, never having reached postcard New England color. Her sugar maples, some of them nearly 300 years old, were sick.

At 65, Martha now leads the crusade to save the New Hampshire sugar maples—and the multimillion dollar local syrup and tourism industries they provide—from disastrous climate change. And in the process she's mobilizing a crack team of researchers: a group of elementary school kids."

Next thing you know, Martha will be cutting out kiddies' hearts and throwing their mortal coils down the temple stairs, Aztec-style. Fortunately, I expect most folks will believe she will have crossed the line at that point.

Maybe even Michael Kile would agree, despite his scholarly disinterest and implied proposal for the reintroduction of human sacrifice as a means of instigating Anthropogenic Global Cooling.

Michael K, are you watching the fun here? Cohenite has suggested I ask you whether your Quadrant artice is a hoax. Well, is it?

For the aficianados, another bone to growl over, an answer to the conundrum: If the world's getting warmer, then why are North American winters getting colder?

In case anyone wonders, I deny that I am an AGW denialist.

Global Warming May Trigger Winter Cooling
by Sid Perkins on 12 January 2012, 7:01 PM | 2 Comments
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/01/global-warming-may-trigger-winte.html

"First, the strong warming in the Arctic in recent decades, among other factors, has triggered widespread melting of sea ice. More open water in the Arctic Ocean has led to more evaporation, which moisturizes the overlying atmosphere, the researchers say. Previous studies have linked warmer-than-average summer months to increased cloudiness over the ocean during the following autumn. That, in turn, triggers increased snow coverage in Siberia as winter approaches. As it turns out, the researchers found, snow cover in October has the largest effect on climate in subsequent months.

That's because widespread autumn snow cover in Siberia strengthens a semipermanent high-pressure system called, appropriately enough, the Siberian high, which reinforces a climate phenomenon called the Arctic Oscillation and steers frigid air southward to midlatitude regions throughout the winter."

Further to the preceding comments and Mr Kile's stimulus material, Mr Kile, I offer the followink timely link: entirely on-topic and a potential source of wonder to all.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/01/education-advocates-enter-the.html?ref=em&elq=c4502a03744d4dab99afbecf15c56867

shortened:
http://bit.ly/zPlhdu

Education Advocates Enter the Climate Tempest
by Sara Reardon on 17 January 2012, 11:42 AM (US EST)

"Is climate change education the new evolution, threatened in U.S. school districts and state education standards by well-organized interest groups? A growing number of education advocates believe so, and yesterday, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) in Oakland, California, which fights the teaching of creationism, announced that it's going to take on climate change denial as well.

"It's not like we're bored," says NCSE Director Eugenie Scott: Five state bills that would allow teaching intelligent design in schools have already surfaced in 2012. But after hearing an increasing number of anecdotes about K-12 teachers being challenged about how they taught climate science to their students, she says she began to see "parallels" between the two debates --namely, an ideological drive from pressure groups to "teach the controversy" where no scientific controversy exists. To get expertise in this area, NCSE hired climate and environmental education expert Mark McCaffrey as its new climate coordinator and appointed Pacific Institute hydroclimatologist Peter Gleick to its board of directors.

"There's a climate of confusion in this country around climate science," says McCaffrey, and NCSE's goal will be to ensure that "teachers have the tools they need if they get pushback and feel intimidated."

As usual survivor you have things arse-up; it is climate change 'education' which is the new creationism.

Cohenite, read my previous text again, then read yours again, then decide what is "usual".

In the spirit of journalistic impartiality, I offered an interesting link and snippet without partisan comment. Is that "arse-about"?

Of course, if you have issues with the article, by all means deal directly with The American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Not "arse-about" at all Sir Vivor.

http://www.nestanet.org/cms/sites/default/files/documents/ExecutiveSummaryClimateChangeEducationSurveyDecember2011.pdf

"A more complete analysis of the survey results for this subset of the survey respondents will be made available on the NESTA website in early 2012."

If anything (and using cohenite's own words) - he is "arse-up", head stuck in the sand, and emits copius amounts of a particular GHG.

Bonmot, thanks for the link.

What is your point bonmot? The survey done by this National Earth Science Teachers Association mob apparently used a questionaire identical to that used by Leiserowitz, A., Smith, N. & Marlon, J.R. (2011) American Teens’ Knowledge of Climate Change which is here:

http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/American-Teens-Knowledge-of-Climate-Change.pdf

Question 4 is the money question:

Q4. Assuming global warming is happening, do you think it is…

Caused mostly by human activities
Caused by both human activities and natural changes
Caused mostly by natural changes in the environment
None of the above because global warming isn’t happening
Other
Don’t know

That is a reasonably framed question but again it will only reflect the belief of the recipient; so is your point a "consensus" argument?

No