Cont’d

One of the greatest challenges the warmers face is that increasingly they are seen to be just a part of the Sustainable Development mantra. This is due to the increased scrutiny to which the whole phenomenon is being exposed. The more the skeptics learn and demonstrate, the more you are seen to be the “useful idiots” of the movement.

Let me demonstrate my point.

Let’s be absolutely clear: this “sustainable development” is not the wholesome, cozily innocuous thing a succession of glossy magazine life style articles have persuaded us it is. It is born of the pessimistic Weltanschauung (“worldview”) the Club of Rome, UNEP and Agenda 21 where we humans are described as “parasites”, a “disease” and “swarming masses”.

Sustainable Development depends entirely upon Steady State Economics, Degrowth and Managed Recession. All of which I might add are totally dependent upon the definition, upper limits and rationing of all the physical resources upon which humans depend for growth and development, “Peak anything and everything”.

You and people like you, are convinced that the game is all about CAGW. When in fact according to those who created it and drive it;
Statement from IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer before Cancun :
“… we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore...”

So you and the warmers are left to cuddle the empty shell of an ideology that has been sold to you by greater intellects. The skeptics on the other hand have the intelligence to see it for what it really is; a monumental political scam.

So you end up just like the Gordon Tallis “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.

Hi Foyle, I was having a bit of trouble easily finding the dataset on the BOM website, but I found this instead http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/sea-level-rises-are-slowing-tidal-gauge-records-show/story-fn59niix-1226099350056 which suggests sea level increases of around 1.5 mm p.a.

You'll find that the difference between the east and west coasts is because the continent is tipping to the north-west, which means it is rising in the south-east. You'll also find that the increase in volume of the oceans due to heat is the largest contributor to ocean height as there is not much water melting off glaciers that doesn't get precipitated back again. I saw reference to ground water the other day, but suspect that is a furphy. I'm not sure that anyone really knows how much ground water is being used and not replenished. Our hydrological models of that part of the cycle aren't too complete at the moment.

Air temperature is driven by sea temperature, so if the sea is storing energy but not getting appreciably hotter, then the global warming catastrophists have a problem as they have to explain why the air temperature was increasing up until 1998.

Professor Plimer, could you please clarify your statement -

"... when scientific fraud by those claiming to be climate scientists was repeatedly exposed..."

Who are the people you imply have falsely claimed to be climate scientists?

What scientific fraud did they commit?

@Elaine McKewon,

<<What scientific fraud did they commit?>>

Far be it for me to talk on behalf of Professor Pilmer, but perhaps he is referring to things like this:

Here are the predictions/conclusions:

1) “Tropical storm and hurricane frequencies vary considerably from year to year, but evidence suggests substantial increases in intensity and duration since the 1970s”.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-3-3.html

2) Al Gore states in his book and movie – An Inconvenient Truth – “major storms (hurricanes) spinning in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans since the 1970s have increased in duration and intensity by about 50 percent.”

And here is what is actually happening:

"More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/15/hatton_on_hurricanes/

"Equally clear is that those who continue to talk in certain terms of a future blighted by more severe tornadoes as a result of climate change are failing to heed all the available evidence"
[The Truth About Twisters --NewScientist 5 May 2012]

Ian Plimer is a very welcome voice to this debate.Just the other day I was reading Dr Rima Laidbow's rendition of Agenda 21 put out by the UD in 1992.They said then that logic would be determined by consensus.This is exactly what we have now.Climate science was and is being determined by consensus.2+2 does not = 4 anymore.By consensus it can equal 5.

<< Ludwig, if oil & coal become too expensive for us, we will have to change our usage. There is no reason for the ratbag fringe to force us to change before we reach this point >>

Hasbeen, you have beautifully encapsulated the nub of the issue here. Those on your side of this debate hold the ‘she’ll-be-right-mate’ mantra as sacred while those on my side believe that forward planning is essential.

I couldn’t disagree more strongly with your basic premise.