As the CAGW debate hots up, driven no doubt by the push for a CO2 tax, we are seeing the “reaction” from those who remain skeptical. Two out of three Australians now oppose the CO2 tax.

The opposition majority has now invited those who have a contrary view to speak publicly on their behalf. But one of the key unanswered questions in this debate is why on earth a contrary view or interpretation of any science should be so divisive or anti-democratic? It really doesn’t make sense.

We are told that 90% of scientists agree. But 90% of which scientists we ask? They say 90% of “credible scientists”.

So are the scientists that worked on the IPCC report “credible”? We are told yes, of course they are.

So what about the scientists, who worked on the IPCC reports and now disagree with the IPCC? Are they “credible”?

No of course not, because they have changed their minds to a contrary view.

At every opportunity, the advocacy block is seeking to shut down any contrary view.

But why? If their case is so strong and compelling, why can’t it withstand public interrogation from those of much lower intelligence, flat earthers, denialists and criminals?

Skeptics are reminded by the commentariat, government politicians, academics, celebrities, commercial opportunists, NGO’s and advocacy scientists that we are evil or discredited. So why should such well educated, well informed and intellectually superior opinions be so afraid of feeble and inadequate scrutiny?

The only constant in this debate is that there won’t be a debate; any opposition will be denied access to the democratic principles of free speech.

Perhaps the answer is that there is really no case for CAGW other than ideology. In which case we would have to ask what ideology is it that seeks to deny some of the fundamental principles of our democracy, those of freedom of speech.
Why does the MSM bleat on about freedom of the press whilst at the same time seek to suppress those same rights in the public domain?

I find it quaintly Amusing that some one with views such as yourself.
And such a forceful way of expressing them,rebutting others, starts such a thread.
All views have value, a right to be heard, including a thread I think you took part in.
One of many lets say unkind to my party me and those who follow it, we, all the above, it was said should be exiled.
Well of shore camps once used by John Howard was one suggestion.
Alcatraz another.
Other offers of punishment, for thinking differently , included taxing ALP voters out of existence.
One,well maybe 4 contributors constantly inform me by voting ALP I betray my country!
Am responsible for every bad action.
Well having told it as I see it, been kicked in the ribs for my views of late,yes spindoc I agree.
With the fact freedom of speech has been fought and died for, no man, no woman, has any right to say you can not say what you wish to.
Finally, my ace on yours,check how many say man made climate change is real.
Supplementary question Mr speaker.
Is leave granted?
As Mr Tony Abbott and his team has been driving a fear campaign,and as much of what they have been saying has been proven untrue = 6 and a half cents fuel rise.
As further information is to be released on Sunday, the full ,and more IMPORTANTLY true impacts of this tax.
Will the Honorable spin master agree to wait until the public has time to understand the real tax vs the Abbott spin.

I'm really happy you posted this comment. I feel so damn frustrated by the way media subtly promotes the man-made climate change / pro-carbon tax message without ever giving one 'credible' scientist with an alternative view a chance to be heard in a prime time slot.

For example, carbon pollution is now the only words you will here come out of the 7PM Project panel; CO2 is rapidly being reinvented as 'carbon pollution' because the masses don't believe CO2 gas is a problem or a pollutant.

Bob Carter is an excellent presenter of the alternative reasons for climate change and he would stand his own in any debate forum on the subject. Why haven't we seen him invited onto the 7PM Project or George Negus? It's because the crackpot deniers not are allowed the same level freedom of speech. Those in control don't want the masses to hear a logical alternative viewpoint from someone with respectable qualifications. Without true and equal freedom of speech democracy is weakened.

Democracy in this country and for that matter most western countries has eroded into a meaningless lip service for a system thatpretends to be 'of the peolple' whilst constantly goeing against the people's will.

sbr108, it seems recent events are overtaking this thread. There have been persistent efforts by the advocates to vilify, denigrate and abuse any that do not support this orthodoxy, particularly since Climategate.

The current situation has gone way beyond anything we have seen to date. The news that 40 academics signed a petition to prevent a skeptic from a public speaking engagement, the withdrawal of venues by some Clubs for similar events, the threatening letters sent by GetUp to companies opposed to the CO2 tax and the disgusting personal attacks upon the international guest speaker, Lord Monkton by the likes of the ABC’s Andrew Spencer.

This has now progressed from vilification to outright censorship and the erosion of Australia’s democratic values.

The good news is that this is all entirely predictable. It’s also interesting to try to determine what on earth could strike so much fear into advocates that it is worth trashing democratic values to silence it?

We have discussed the advocacy block on OLO previously, we have also speculated on its organic nature and what might make it even more reactive. It is clearly being “questioned” that upsets it the most.

If we look at the composition of advocacy it would seem that most elements have an exit plan. Political advocacy is like Teflon, it will simply do a “yes minister” to save face.

Commercial opportunists will simply go off and make money out of something other than renewables and green credits.

Celebrity advocates will do an “aid concert”, start a new religion, adopt another baby or just earn $M’s from their next movie.

Public advocacy is in decline as evidenced by the Lowey Institutes’ recent research. In fact it has been in decline for the last seven years in Australia and the developed world.

Of the previous 26 public alarm analogies recorded by Armstrong and Green, there is no record of any such phenomena ever recovering public support. The obvious reason for this is that the predicted catastrophe never occurred, most inconvenient.

Con’d

Cont’d

NGO advocates will find another alarm by which to extract public money. This leaves two very exposed groups that have no escape and it is these two groups that are driving the current censorship.

The two groups with “night horrors” are high profile professional media commentators and academic advocates.

Having nailed their “warming credentials” to the mast in such a public manner, their personal credibility, professionalism and perhaps careers are on the line. This is probably the reason for their attempts to suppress dissent and censor opposition views. These are the people with the most to lose.

It’s called the “Martin Luther” effect. Having failed to prevent dissent becoming public and ruining their reputations, they try to censor that dissent, which nicely draws public attention to the fact that there is indeed dissent and that “consensus” is self evidently a fabrication. Censorship is contrary to self interest.

So full of their own importance and panic are these advocates, that have not yet identified the seeds of their own destruction. They bring contradiction to their own orthodoxy.

Happily we can report that censorship is the last throw of the dice for these advocates, not the end of the story but the beginning of the end of them. They must facilitate a slow decline in order to save face; a collapse precipitated by public exposure is utterly unacceptable.

As with every preceding public alarm phenomena, this will most likely wither on the vine
To be replaced by the next, peak population, peak food production, peak refugees and so on.

Each will manifest as politically contaminated pseudo-science and will gather advocates as it progresses and will have strong support from those who wish to direct public attention to their own biased perspectives.

Censorship is a very ugly element in any democracy and perhaps the electorates will have been sufficiently sensitized by its emergence to avoid it in the future. In the meantime we can all sit back and watch as the advocacy block bites off its own limbs

It was never about science - it's all about politics.
Governments (not just the Australian) consider the idea of climate-change as a golden egg in their quest to obtain a monopoly on goodness. Understandably governments don't like their bone snatched from their mouth, so whether the science is correct or otherwise, is irrelevant.

For all the fuss, initially we were scared off by being told that the sea would rise by 300 meters, then by 60, but now they talk about the sea rising just ONE meter by the end of this century.

There are good reasons for reducing energy consumption, CO2 being the least of them. In the not-so-distant past, people cared for the world's environment and resources, we happily tried to reduce our energy consumption and take up green options sheerly out of wanting to do good. However, since this has become a government-business, we no longer have an incentive to help the world: it's no longer OUR world, now its THEIR world, so let them sink with it.

Sadly, I have had to place the "CAGW debate" on my list of taboo topics, for exactly the reasons that are presented here. We have gone far, far beyond the stage of open and honest debate and discussion, and are now well into the realm of belief or non-belief.

Which is of course the turf where religious wars are fought.

But in this case, atheism is not allowed. If you are not a "true believer", then you are deemed to be a "denier". It is not permissible even to say "surely, the jury is still out", without being branded as an evil person whose happiness is derived from seeing entire populations swallowed up by rising sea levels.

So I'm pleading ignorance.

But there's one thing of which I'm reasonably certain.

The minute - no, the very millisecond - that there are no political points to be scored, or careers to be made, the "problem" will disappear as abruptly as it appeared.

im not picking on you..belly
but mate...quote..""my ace on yours,
check how many say..man made climate/change..is real.""

your clearly talking about the % age[percentage]
who responded to their loaded questions

of the converted scientists...alone
who were surveyed..they got their number's

it turns out the 90%...is made up of less than 1000
of the 100's of thousands of scientists..[who responded]

ie the number
is pure spin*

but think how many carbon/experts..there were
just a few years ago...

[i recall al gore was 'training'
global warming 'experts'..in some area...that isnt even a science

[i just heard..one..on the abc
couldnt even say how much c02..in a ton of coal...lol]

so belly
if YOU DONT KNOW EITHER
what makes you trust experts..WHO DONT KNOW?

its purely because of alp connections

alp good..liberal bad..
[well guess who thunk of this sceme

john howard...]

Supplementary question Mr speaker.
leave is granted

""Mr Tony Abbott...proven untrue
petrol= 6 and a half cents fuel rise.""

when juliar was saying 1000..!

today
she says ONLY 500..!

just so you can score a cheap point*

listen to your next proof
""As further information is to be released""

lol

that they makeup...as they go

policy on the run..[just like the 1000..became lol 500]
and the refugees went from country to country...
as juliar made policy..*on the run

""on Sunday,
the full,and more IMPORTANTLY
true impacts of this tax.""

well lets just wait and see

BUT MATE SEE..how they been playing games
how 1000 became 500..

how only 1000..[or 500?]..will pay...lol

HAD PETROL STILL BEEN IN THE NUMBER
then we would be paying more..to one thousand

not the same to 500...alone to pay it all

""Will the Honorable spin/master agree
to wait..until the public has time to understand"""

no juliar
is saying her pap
to the converted on sunday

no doudt claiming the high ground
by policy on the run

""the real tax vs the Abbott spin.""

OH SO ITS A TAX?

funny bout that
juliar says it isnt..!

then that it is..!
then that it isnt..!

"the real tax"
[lol]

is that your opinion/words

*or hers?

@spindoc: We are told that 90% of scientists agree.

And so spindoc justifies his nick again.

So you claim we are told that? But spindoc, you don't tell us who is making the claim. Perhaps you could supply a link? I am hoping so because maybe the person making the claim supplied a little more context.

As it stands the statement is almost meaningless. Who gets to nominate who is a credible scientist and who isn't? Who gets to say whether a scientist studying studying the sex life of deep sea corals is credible when it comes to climate? It all gets rather subjective; the argument devolving into a yelling match over who is credible. Oddly enough each side pushes hard to get people who agree their point of view to be considered very credible. Preferably the only credible ones.

How, utterly, infantile. And yet spindoc, who has been an eager participant in these all arguments on the numerous times it has been raised on OLO seeks to have the debate all over again. It's like some tiresome broken record playing in the background.

I have only ever seen one sane answer on who is a credible scientist in any given field, and that oddly enough is: the ones that work in it. All the other scientists who work in other fields are about as credible or otherwise as the local butcher. These scientists who work in the field aren't hard to pick out. They are the ones whose names appear on papers published in peer reviewed journals on the topic.

It's not rocket science. Any moron can see the logic behind it, and anyone who has spent some time pondering it comes to the same answer. Yet spindoc asks the question yet again.

By this definition the overwhelming majority of credible scientists do indeed thing their models are accurate. Which is hardly surprising, since they created them. It leads to another debate which no doubt spindoc will merely try to lead us into. Unfortunately it is not so easily resolved.

rstuart, I think you will find the subject of this thread is freedom of speech. But I’m confident you don’t wish to go there and will settle for another diversion.

Your post has nicely encapsulated the criticisms I’ve just made of the warmertariat, many thanks for providing so many examples.

My post has clearly driven you to more excesses and the cause of this is as stated, you cannot handle having your orthodoxy questioned.

You now know what you are, why you are there, how you got there and more importantly, where you are going. Nowhere!

Congratulations.

I am bemused by the comparison between religion and science.
Religion is set in concrete. [As some would have you believe ]
Science is evolutionary. [ As some would say is rubbish ]

@spindoc: I think you will find the subject of this thread is freedom of speech.

OK, and you raise this becuase ...

@spindoc: any opposition will be denied access to the democratic principles of free speech.

Right. So no one is talking about this right now. We hardly hear it mentioned, because the debate has been shut down. Silly me.

@spindoc: You now know what you are, why you are there, how you got there and more importantly, where you are going. Nowhere!

You're right about that. I knew where this would go, yet apparently I need you to point it out. It seems we are two peas in a pod spindoc. It's a depressing thought.

@ rstuart:

Thanks for your observations. I'd been spending more time at this site than usual and was beginning to despair. The strategy of broken record out, brick wall in is crude but effective.

I've noticed that the latest meme being deployed by the denialists is to claim that their freedom of speech is threatened when people disagree with them. As in the act of disagreement itself constituting a restriction of another's freedom of speech. I'm not kidding.

I've come to the conclusion that those who are still pushing the various AGW denialist apologetics at this stage of the debate are impervious to evidence and reason. They're beginning to remind me of those odd cases of Japanese soldiers from WW2 who'd turn up every now and again on some Philippine island, refusing adamantly to believe that the war was over and the Emperor had lost.

@ spindoc:

What's with this 'C'AGW acronym I've seen popping up on the redneck and denialist sites of late? Is it some devastating new disinformation strategy, like 'Carbon DIOXIDE Tax'? Personally, I don't think it has quite the dumb appeal as 'great big new tax on everything' for sheer, unambiguous ignorance.

Two out of three Australians now oppose the CO2 tax.
Spindoc,
I don't think people are against a tax towards curbing pollution. But, like myself, they are against paying for something pointless like this proposed tax. I'd be one of the first to put up my hand & have done so on many occasions when I felt it worthwhile. This new tax is not worthwile. We'd be better off using the money to help low income people find a home.

Not going to hang around spindoc.
You and I are opposites.
But just once.
Just this time.
Tell me this,are the charges you lay against me, and those who believe.
About trying to Negate the other sides view not ones that could be made about every one in this debate?
As I gently close the door behind me, bid you all enjoy,I offer this.
*One side of this debate, there can only be one truth, is wrong,has fallen for self interest and lies fear and manipulation in support of that self interest I AM READY TO BE JUDGED*
Enjoy.

Spindoc, you talk of freedom of speech.

You are invited to have a say here:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/06/24/clearing-up-the-climate-debate/

You could even join the "Conversation":

http://theconversation.edu.au/

Will you use your freedom of speech to add your name to the comments spindoc, or will you just spout nonsense here?

Still at it ?
Still worrying about the wrong problem ?

Here you are chewing your fingernails over AGW in fifty years time
and we are five years past peak oil.
The economy is teetering on the edge of a cliff, and people are
worrying about CO2 !

THIS IS SO INCREDIBLY WELL PUT AND I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE IT'S BY A YOUNG PERSON, A STUDENT!
WHATEVER HE RUNS FOR, I'LL VOTE FOR HIM.

Dear Australian Laborites, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Gillard, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.

Our two ideological sides of Australia cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way

Here is a model separation agreement:
Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the ACTU, the Fabian Society and every member of Emily?s List. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops and the military. We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel. You can keep the ABC left wingers (particularly Kerry O'Brien) and Bob Brown. You are, however, responsible for finding an electric vehicle big enough to move all of them.

We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Woolworths and the Stock Exchange. You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, dole bludgers, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies and boat people. We'll keep the budgie smuggling, bike riding, volunteer firemen and lifesavers, greedy CEOs and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and the churches and give you SBS and the Greens.
tbc.

You can make peace with Iran, Palestine and the Taliban and we'll retain the right to stand up and fight when threatened. You can have the greenies and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Penny Wong. You can also have the U.N. But we will no longer be paying the bill.

We'll keep the 4WDs, utes and V8s. You can take every hybrid hatchback you can find.

We'll keep "Waltzing Matilda" and our National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to keep in tune with Peter Garrett as he sings "Imagine", "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing", "Kum Ba Ya", "We Are The World" and his recent big solo hit ?Beds and Batts are Burning?.

We'll practice trickle down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it so often offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded conservative Australians and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,
John Wall
Australian Law Student

P.S. Also, please take Lindsey Tanner, Wayne Swan, Alan Griffin, John Faulkner, Kevin Rudd and Jenny Macklin with you.

P. S. S. And you won't have to press 1 for English when you call our country.

I really don't see how anybody from the Right can claim that their freedom of speech is in any way curtailed, when polemical rubbish unmitigated by facts, of the kind cut and pasted here by individual above, are published daily in the MSM and on blog sites like this.

What do you want to say that is being supposedly suppressed? Given the depths to which the level of political discourse regularly descend on these pages, I shudder to imagine.

Where have you been 'individual'? That chain letter has been going around a while:

http://www.teapartyrangers.com/?p=287

Such a coincidence that your Australian 'Law student' has the same name as the American 'Law student'?

Methinks you simply have things in common with these grumpy old rednecks - nothing new.

Hey, hey, bonmot - good one!

Trickle-down neo-conservatism, no less.

Morganzola,

<< I’ve noticed that the latest meme being deployed by the denialists is to claim that their freedom of speech is threatened when people disagree with them. As in the act of disagreement itself constituting a restriction of another's freedom of speech. I'm not kidding.>>

No, you really MUST be kidding, Morganzola.

If all you see is the opposition to AGW getting upset because someone disagrees with them, then, I can only conclude that you must be viewing the world through one (squinting) eye.

Does this sound like mere a disagreement, or something a little stronger?

“Take Alan Jones. Though it pains me to say it, he is forcing me to change my mind. Not on climate change, or cycling, or the right to public protest, all of which he opposes, but on censorship”
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/cane-toads-of-the-air-thrive-on-stupidity-20110608-1fsuj.html#ixzz1RYrtjRqs

What was this, if not an attempt at censorship:

“MORE than 50 Australian academics have signed a letter urging Western Australia's Notre Dame University to cancel a speech by British climate change sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/academics-call-for-lord-monckton-ban-at-uni/story-e6frg6nf-1226084792062

Does this sound like a group open and unafraid of debate—or, a group eager to wage a McCarthyist style witch hunt?

"There is not a robust scientific basis for drawing definitive and objective conclusions about the effect of human influence on future climate,"
“I would be grateful if you could let me know which organisations in the UK and other European countries have been receiving funding so that I can work out which of these have been similarly providing inaccurate and misleading information to the public."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business

and, here’s a little overview of state of play:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8621

PS: those who doubt some aspects of AGW are usually a pretty mild mannered bunch ---why, we don’t even get upset when old Bonmot calls us rednecks’ and neocons’

rstuart,

I raise this because,

“The opposition majority has now invited those who have a contrary view to speak publicly on their behalf.” And there are clear attempts to censor.

I evidenced this censorship response by the warmertariat as;

“40 academics signed a petition to prevent a skeptic from a public speaking engagement, the withdrawal of venues by some Clubs for similar events, the threatening letters sent by GetUp to companies opposed to the CO2 tax and the disgusting personal attacks upon the international guest speaker, Lord Monkton by the likes of the ABC’s Alan Spencer”

I can’t make the censorship issue any clearer and have provided the evidence; all you have to do is address the issue without more diversions?

Bonmot,

I’m specifically not addressing my personal freedom of speech (see above), but thank you for the offer.

morganzola,

CAGW refers to Catastrophic Anthropological Global Warming. It is not new in the debate and some might ask the question how you have come to such strong views on this topic without knowing what the debate has been about?

The two fundament and specific issues in this thread are censorship and vilification. The censorship issues are clear and in the public domain, as eveidenced above.

The issues of abuse are curious.

From rstuart we have; “utterly infantile”, “credible as a local butcher”, “moronic”

From morganzola we have; “denialist apologetics”, “impervious to evidence and reason”, “rednecks”, “dumb appeal” and “unambiguous ignorance”.

We have to wonder why the warmertariat are “not happy Marge”? We are about to pass a CO2 tax through both Houses of Parliament, for good, bad or indifferent. Why has this made you all so belligerent? What more can you possibly wish for?

You have a result that exceeds you wildest dreams, you have all been “vindicated” and yet, the abuse vilification and censorship has actually increased. Now that is curious.

Not one of the pro-CAGW lobby has been willing, or possible able, to address the issue of abuse and censorship.

Are any of you going to?

Bazz:>> The economy is teetering on the edge of a cliff, and people are worrying about CO2<<

Not just the "people" but now it seems our children are being frightened to distraction about climate change.

The headline banner in today’s Sydney Telegraph reads" SCHOOL KIDS BEING TERRIFIED BY DOOMSDAY LESSONS" this of course comes from the Fabian/Communist doctrine of politicizing the children in Fabian ideology.

Australia over the past 40 years has been under constant attack from the Fabians, even when they did not control the government their sixth column of academics bludgers and public service bludgers aided by UN mandates allowed them to control the system and change the social landscape of Australia. My bride is in the secondary school system and she even commented a few years ago about the global warming/ climate change rubbish being force fed to our primary kids. The neighbor’s primary aged kids from next door who are in and out of here constantly were talking about getting a canoe so when the water comes they could escape…Why are “they” frightening our children with this bile? And we let them do it, gutless load of bastards we are, absolutely gutless, we won’t even defend our children.

TBC

This is my summation of the self serving lie of manmade climate change:

The earth’s temperature has risen by -05_-07 degrees in the past century, a fact.
The earth has COOLED in the last decade, a fact.

And this about the imbecile puppet Al Gore whose lie filled spin movie is being force fed to our children.

"In an 11/12/09 interview on NBC’s tonight Show with Conan O’Brien, speaking on "geothermal energy", the champion of slide show science displayed his complete ignorance of his subject of choice by claiming the temperature is “several million degrees at 2 kilometers or so down”. And adding “Oh the crust of the earth is hot” too.

Here are the real numbers:
Temperature of the sun’s photosphere: 6,000 kelvin
Temperature of the Earth’s mantle, more than “2 kilometers or so down”: between 500 °C to 900 °C (773 to 1173 kelvin)

This imbecile gives an answer of MILLIONS of degrees and the factual answer struggles to hit 2000 degrees, do we have to get him to have a go at spelling POTATO like his mate to show the globe what a slippery imbecile this moral bankrupt is.

Any cretins who espouse truth to the global warming/ climate change/ global warming warming /climate climate change/ climate horror climate/ or whatever tag they put on this self serving lie woven to assert control of the masses deserves what is coming, but I and my children do not. Also could all those who are diametrically oppose my views please supply the word POTATO for adjudication, thank you.

Where have you been 'individual'?
bonmot,
out working, trying to make ends meet, unlike you on some bandwagon.

btw. bonmot,
this student may or may not be australian or american, it doesn't actually matter. All redneck stuff aside what does matter is he wrong or is he right ?
Give us your side of the status of this country..

sonofgloin

You forgot spindoc's CAGW - Catastrophic Anthropogenic Gplobal Warming.

What you (and he) continue to fail to understand - it won't be catastrophic - that's just spindoctoring.

Sure, a globally averaged increase of 2 degrees C by 2100 will have an impact (not all bad) - but it won't be as catastrophic as the 'alarmists' on BOTH sides make out. It will be bad enough.

.

Individual

>> out working, trying to make ends meet <<

Me too (you know nothing about me or my work)

>> unlike you on some bandwagon <<

Oh please. You mean you are not on some bandwagon (mis)quoting or plagiarising some American Tea Party doctrine?

>> Give us your side of the status of this country. <<

I have, but it's a global problem - you must have missed it:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12290#212349

It's better to work together rather than be negative and divisive.
Our Liberal-National Party is very much like the American Tea Party, imho

@sonofagun: The earth has COOLED in the last decade, a fact.

I don't get this. It hasn't. The rise isn't a pronounced in the last decade. Maybe it's even flatted out. You can look at the graphs here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

So here you are, saying demanding we accept your claim that black is white as fact. And you presumably expect us to take whatever you say next seriously. That is what I don't get.

@spindoc: 40 academics signed a petition to prevent a skeptic from a public speaking engagement

You didn't post a link backing up the claim spindoc, and given you have posted the most bizarre claims and figures in the past, posting wildly distorted claims and literally making errors in the figures you quote of a factor of 1000, why would anyone believe you?

@spindoc: I can’t make the censorship issue any clearer and have provided the evidence;

No spindoc you haven't provided evidence. You have provided a lot of hot air, but without a single reference to back up it. Not one link. Given that no one has been prevented from have their say you are going to need some pretty extraordinary evidence to support your claim of what has happened has had any effect on the debate whatsoever.

Clearly what you have written is enough for your cheer squad here, but frankly their standards are pretty low. In fact from what I can tell their standards don't relate to facts, accuracy, or the real world at all. It seems to be more a case of a guttural, tribal roar in support for one of their own.

@ spindoc:

I asked about the 'C' in the acronym in the CAGW acronym, precisely because I'd noted its insertion into the mainstream debate recently. Most people I know and read refer to the phenomenon as simply 'AGW', for Anthropogenic Global Warming. Now that you've clarified the matter, I can well imagine that it's a term that is in use by the denialist camp, presumably to emphasise the more extreme claims made by a minority of proponents of AGW. Spindoc by name, spin doctor by nature, eh?

As I see it, those who predict the catastrophic global warming upon which you'd like to focus are the equivalent of AGW deniers who not only reject global warming, but claim that the Earth is actually cooling. There's extremists on both sides of any argument that becomes political, and I've learnt to disregard them as a matter of course. Of course, most of us who accept the vast weight of evidence for AGW don't think that the world is going to end tomorrow, while undoubtedly most of you who reject it don't think we're about to be beset by an Ice Age.

With respect to Monckton, the cancellation of several of his performances doesn't constitute political censorship - rather, it's a recognition that it's unacceptable to more discerning venues to host rallies by hateful buffoons who like to falsely accuse others of Nazism, and display Nazi regalia at those venues. As someone who accepts generally the weight of scientific evidence for AGW, I'd personally rather that Monckton get as much exposure as possible for his idiotic ideas on climate change, essentially because I think he does more harm to the denialist cause than can any amount of hard evidence could.

Lastly, in terms of the abusive language in which the 'debate' is framed, I would have thought that a cursory glance at any of the innumerable threads about AGW at this site would show that the deniers are winning the abuse stakes hands down. I think that spindoc is being a tad precious here, but then again that's his self-described job, isn't it?

@Morganzola,

<< With respect to Monckton, the cancellation of several of his performances doesn't constitute political censorship - rather, it's a recognition that it's unacceptable to more discerning venues to host rallies by hateful buffoons who like to falsely accuse others of Nazism, and display Nazi regalia at those venues>>

Nice try Morgan –but the petition specifically mentions that it was his views that they found *threatening*-- not any Nazi jibes!

And if you are consistent --which I seriously doubt-- then I expect you (and those petitioners) will be calling on the IPCC chairman,
Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri to be similarly boycotted for likening Bjrn Lomborg to Hitler:
http://www.globalwarming.org/2004/04/27/ipcc-chair-trots-out-hitler/

rstuart

This is what spindoctor is referring to:

http://tinyurl.com/tis-here

Monckton did attend the privately sponsored (by mining billionaires) event.

You may also want to look at this?

http://theconversation.edu.au/monckton-and-notre-dame-a-case-for-free-speech-2104

It addresses spindoctor's post. He thinks it's personal, he is wrong.

He can comment and engage there, he chooses to spout nonsense here.

You may also find this engaging:

http://theconversation.edu.au/pages/clearing-up-the-climate-debate

It's better to work together rather than be negative and divisive.
bonmot,
yeah, right. As long as as the worker continues to foot the bill.

rstuart, giving me spatial analysis on climate change is worthless, did you look at the parameters set for the graphed input?

This is the cooling I referred to that even the ardent but intelligent warming advocate cannot dispute, the unintelligent of course will dispute it as that is what they have been programmed to do.
“July 6, 2011: The Associated Press is reporting today that scientists believe one explanation as to why the earth’s heating trend stopped in the last decade is due to China’s excessive use of coal-burning power plants. As reported by the Associated Press:
Read more: http://www.prisonplanet.com/scientists-admit-climate-cooled-in-the-last-decade-cite-sulfur-pollution-from-china.html

“This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998. But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. So what on Earth is going on?”
Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm

WASHINGTON — Has Earth's fever broken?
Official government measurements show that the world's temperature has cooled a bit since reaching its most recent peak in 1998. That's given global warming skeptics new ammunition to attack the prevailing theory of climate change.
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/08/19/74019/drop-in-world-temperatures-fuels.html#ixzz1RZTP43Om

Monchton is not taken seriously in the UK and British journalists are surprised that he would be - here in Australia.

As for "Freedom of Speech," if one wants to raise this issue on a public forum - then one should expect that there will be opinions that differ from one's own. "Freedom of Speech," does not only apply to those who agree with you.

The pollution problem is an exceedingly difficult one to solve, for several reasons. First, some people and governments see pollution as a regrettable but inevitable by-product of desired economic development - "Where's there's smoke, there's jobs."

Second, control of pollutions sometimes requires international co-ordination, for one country's emissions or pesticides can end up in other countries' air or food.

Third, the effects of pollution may not show up for many years, so severe environmental damage can occur with little public awareness that it is taking place.

Fourth, preventing or correcting pollution can be costly, technically comples, and sometimes - when the damage is irreversible - impossible.

In general, the most industrialised nations are now actively trying to limit the effects of pollution. It's the populous less developed societies that are more concerned with economic growth, and tend to see pollution as part of the price they have to pay for it.

As we've seen in this country control of pollution is politically difficult, for the economic interests behind polluting industries are a powerful political lobby and are reluctant to commit the necessary resources to the task. The only way is to force them to do so - which is what our current government has decided to do. Sunday will give us the details on how this will be done.

rstuart,

If you are genuine when you claim there is “no evidence” of recent acts of censorship then I have no idea why you are trying to debate this on OLO? Is debating something of which you have no knowledge genetic or acquired?

Go and read any newspapers from the last 72 hrs then come back and talk to us about it.

morganzola, likewise, you really do need to get a grip on current affairs. When you’ve done that you can perhaps stay on thread topic instead of subjecting us to “gobbledygook”.

I repeat my assertion “Not one of the pro-CAGW lobby has been willing, or possibly able, to address the issue of abuse and censorship” There is something in this question that has you stumped but I don’t know what it is?

Lexi:>> Monchton is not taken seriously in the UK and British journalists are surprised that he would be - here in Australia.<<

Lexi the British press were neutered in the 1970's in regard to making social comment away from the party line, and the party line from left and right was be politically correct. So your acknowledgement of their response to Monchton is certainly no validation as to the credibility of the man, rather Lexi you should consider any one who the establishment wants to muzzle as a truth sayer rather than a crack pot.

SoG

Need to clarify your argument.

Are you saying because the British press has been discredited, therefore Monckton is not an ignorant, unqualified nutter muddying the waters of intelligent informed discourse?

@SPQR:

Yeah, but he was allowed to speak at Notre Dame despite the petition, wasn't he? As I said, I don't agree with attempts to muzzle the clown. However, the 40 academics have every right to express their point of view via a petition if they wish, which is also an aspect of their 'freedom of speech'. Since they are concerned about the academic integrity of their university being diminished by its hosting of this anti-science stunt, it's fair enough they should have their say too, I think. However, if Monckton's performance went ahead, then he can't claim to have been censored by the University.

The case I was referring to was a German club where he was prevented from speaking because of sensitivities surrounding the Nazi allusions. I understand that at least one football club has cancelled him too - maybe they figure they get enough bad media anyway without being associated with this idiot.

@ spindoc:

What "gobbedlygook"? You really don't like have your deliberate spin highlighted, do you - both I and bonmot have identified the "Catastrophic" propaganda, and your response is to try and stonewall, which again is standard operating procedure for spin doctors, isn't it?

The reason that nobody bothers to address purported censorship and abuse of AGW deniers is quite simply that it doesn't exist at any significant level in this country. If anything, it goes the other way.

Spindoc I know I said I would not be back but you force me.
In a thread determined to show believers try to stop debate.
Sooooo, Funnyy! you have become purely abusive.
A day will come, a great day, that every one will know Man Made Climate change is REAL.
That day, someone with the time, now for that matter, some one could put comments like yours in a book that would make them very rich and the world bust a gut laughing.
Yes I go,see you in an other thread.

sonofgloin: do you ever read/understand the links you comment on?

1998 was an extraordinarily hot El Nino year.
2010 going into 2011 an extraordinarily cold La Nina year.

Guess what? Not much difference between the two.

Ever wondered what might be driving a very cold La Nina cycle to be as hot as an El Nino one?

It ain't the Sun, it was in a cooling phase too.

Anyway, I'd much prefer you link to sites that actually measure the stuff, or sites that you can actually 'talk' to the scientists who measure the stuff.

Why? Because most:

Media sites (e.g. Prison Planet, The Australian)
Blog-sites (e.g. Watts Up With That, Jo Nova)
Shock-jocks (e.g. Andrew Bolt, James Dellingpole)

just don't cut it anymore.

How the media gets it wrong:

http://tinyurl.com/How-the-media-gets-it-wrong

Scroll down to "the malicious" if you can't be bothered reading the whole article.

With 'Freedom of Speech' comes a responsibility.

It doesn't mean deliberately distorting and misrepresenting the facts.

It doesn't mean making up your own facts to suit your own agenda.

The 'Lord' Christopher Monckton and other spindoctors do this very well.

Btw, your last two media links are 2 years old.

sonofgloin

I jumped ahead, scroll down to:

"The phony debate on climate change"

http://tinyurl.com/How-the-media-gets-it-wrong

Bonmot

Thanks for the links to "The Conversation" a much needed dose of sanity in a world of monkctons.

And a fine example of freedom of speech at work.

Well Sonofgloin, by the time we need to worry about AGW, we will be
using very little oil and coal will be too expensive to burn and make
electricity with it.

Watch the loss of interest in global warming when we are paying $8 a
litre for the stuff.
If the predictions about food shortages are anywhere near correct AGW
will be yesterdays fish and chips wrappers.

Let me make a prediction;
Christine Milne will be complaining that the government should be
threatening to sink the ships that are bringing thousands of illegal
immigrants. The environment cannot support all those people.

Bob Brown will speak on the doorstep of his nursing home that the
coal mines should be closed.

Kevin will be contesting Julia for the leadership of the Greens.

Wayne Swan will inject $2 Trillion into the economy.
Barnaby Joyce will interject "Meow !".

Green MPs will request that the government provide rickshaws instead
of tandem bicycles for the government drivers, err riders.

And you think I am joking ?

@Morgan
<< However, the 40 academics have every right to express their point of view via a petition if they wish, which is also an aspect of their 'freedom of speech'.>>

They were doing more than expressing their opinion. They were seeking to deny Monckton the wherewithal to express his in front of their students. Which says a lot about their confidence that the case for AGW is certain and settled.

@ Bonmot,

I did a quick reconnoitre of your latest link : http://tinyurl.com/How-the-media-gets-it-wrong
Reading some of the letters is better value than reading the contrived commentary.I particularly commend other readers to the postings of James Szabadics BSc & Toby James --most interesting, and not always favorable to Bonmot’s preferred narrative ( Never mind --- in perfect world they will be all edited out –so as not to mislead and confuse the plebs)

@Bazz

Absolutely hilarious. Bob Brown giving a press conference from the nursing home steps – ROFL

Bonmot, this from the spin psychologist and star gazer that penned your link (http://tinyurl.com/How-the-media-gets-it-wrong)

>>We know that atmospheric CO&#8322; is increasing due to humans. We know that this CO&#8322;, while being just a small fraction of the atmosphere, has an important influence on temperature.<<

Then this rubbish:

>> The consensus opinion of the world’s climate scientists is that climate change is occurring due to human CO&#8322; emissions. The changes are rapid and significant, and the implications for our civilisation may be dire. The chance of these statements being wrong is vanishingly small<<

Bonmot your psychologist and your star gazer said our emissions were relatively small, astoundingly small I would say. Other than a toxin I am struggling to find scenarios where 6 parts of anything has an effect against the existing tens of thousands of billions. I prefer to run with these facts.

>>Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
"The oceans contain 37,400 billion giga tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 billion giga tons. The atmosphere contains 720 billion giga tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 26 giga tons, not hundreds, not thousands, and certainly not tens of thousands of BILLIONS. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a much more severe rise than anything we could produce." <<

All I will say regarding Stephan Lewandowski is that he is an enterprizing little bugger, him a psychologist finding a way to make money from Climate Change/ Global Warming/ take your pick, by examining the psychology of denial, he and the star gazer are on the gravy train, give me facts not stooges.

Bazz I got a laugh from your post, thanks.

SPQR

>> They were doing more than expressing their opinion. They were seeking to deny Monckton the wherewithal to express his in front of their students. Which says a lot about their confidence that the case for AGW is certain and settled. <<

Professor Brian Martin (wrt to freedom of speech) has a valid point: David Irving is a well-known historian and is widely seen as a Holocaust denier. He twice visited Australia in the 1980s, receiving relatively little public attention.
Since the 1990s, the Australian government has denied Irving entry to the country, resulting in much more media comment than if he had been allowed to visit and speak.

Ergo, I think ‘Lord’ Christopher Monckton should be allowed to express his unqualified opinions.

[Btw, Gina Rinehart invited Monckton to speak at a mining conference not run by the University. The mining conference was not targeted to the students of academics (from all over) as you seem to think.]

Good that you read “how the media gets it wrong”, albeit if only for a quick reconnoitre.

As long as comments comply with The Conversation’s “community standards” they will not be “edited out”, despite the contrary views of your favourites, SPQR.

That’s what free speech is about in our democratic society - unlike Andrew Bolt blocking my URL so I can’t comment on his outrageous remarks in the Herald Sun.

sonofgloin’s definition of a “spin psychologist”;

- Stephan Lewandowsky, Australian Professorial Fellow, Cognitive Science whose research examines people’s memory and decision making, with particular emphasis on how people respond to corrections of misinformation.

He has published over 110 scholarly articles, chapters, and books on how people process information and the important role of scepticism in people’s ability to update their memories. Stephan is particularly interested in the difference between scepticism and denial when it comes to climate change.
.

sonofgloin’s definition of a “star gazer”;

- Nir Joseph Shaviv is carrying out research in the fields of astrophysics and climate science and is most well-known for his cosmic rays hypothesis of climate change.

Joseph hypothesised that passages through the Milky Way's spiral arms appear to have been the cause behind the major ice-ages over the past billion years.

Joseph’s best known contribution to the field of astrophysics was to demonstrate that the Eddington luminosity is not a strict limit and that astrophysical objects can be brighter than the Eddington luminosity without blowing themselves apart.

Joseph is noted as one of the global warming sceptics interviewed for The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary.

.

Oops, damn astrophysicists, what are they doing messing with climate change? Perhaps Professor Ashley should just keep his tin-foil hat on and let a real star gazer like Nir Shaviv have is way.

So sono, you would say our emissions were astoundingly small and you are “struggling to find scenarios where 6 parts of anything has an effect against the existing tens of thousands of billions.”

That “astoundingly small” amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (~ 400 ppm) is what keeps our planet turning into a snowball.

Over the last 200 years we have increased the amount of atmospheric CO2 by 30 %

Up until 200 years ago, atmospheric CO2 was stable at about 280 ppm for about 10,000 years.

cont'd

You know what makes me laugh, sono? ‘Experts’ thinking that carbon ‘locked’ up in a hunk of coal, or carbon dioxide dissolved in a ‘cold’ liquid, equates to a heat-trapping carbon dioxide molecule in the atmosphere - pop your bottle of coke.

What would be funny, if it wasn’t so sad, is that these same ‘experts’ can’t understand the basic physics and chemistry that happens when you burn a hunk of coal, or warm a liquid containing dissolved CO2.

Sono, atmospheric concentration of CO2 is increasing because the oceans, land and biosphere cannot adsorb all the amounts of CO2 being emitted – from any source - at the same rate it is being spewed into the atmosphere.

Prefer to run with facts sono? Try this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg

Going by what you have said, the graph is also a hoax.

@ Bonmot,

So we now have yours (and Morgan’s) admission that there was an attempt to censor Monckton.And, you can see from my earlier links that there were others on the AGW side of the “debate” who called for similar or worse! The fact that you & Morgan say you don’t go along with it doesn’t make it any less real.

I would say then, that Spindoc’s case, as stated in post one of this thread—is PROVEN!
(to borrow a slogan from the Warmists “the debate is settled ”).

And incidentally , for Gina Rhinhart (or some other business figure ) to sponsor Monckton is no more damning than Greenpeace or the World Wild Life Fund to sponsor an AGW proponent. Or, for the ABC to give too much airtime to David Karoly (actually , on second thoughts Rhinehardts endorsement is probably far less damning!)

@ spindoc &/or SPQR:

Did Monckton end up speaking at Notre Dame or not?

@bonmot: This is what spindoctor is referring to: http://tinyurl.com/tis-here Monckton did attend the ... event.

Thanks. Not a good look, was it? Nor was it smart. I wonder if they have heard of the Streisand Effect?

@morganzola: Did Monckton end up speaking at Notre Dame or not?

He did. Now that bonmot has given us some basic info, it is not hard to chase the rest down:

http://davec.org/tag/notre-dame-university/

@spindoc: The only constant in this debate is that there won’t be a debate; any opposition will be denied access to the democratic principles of free speech.

And surprise, surprise, when the facts are revealed this hyperbole from spindoc is exposed for what it is. Monckton's talk went ahead as planned, no one was censored, no one was denied access to free speech.

If you had of restricted yourself to going basaltic at the academics who tried shut down the event then fair enough. But no, they didn't make the point you wanted to make, so you had "adjust" them slightly, blowing it up into something bigger than it was. Every wonder why the skeptics are sometimes characterised as a pack of lying scoundrels, spindoc?

@spindoc: Go and read any newspapers from the last 72 hrs then come back and talk to us about it

I haven't picked up a newspaper outside of a barber shop in a decade. So last century. Newspapers rarely quote references, and don't have links when they do. Notice how they are shadow's of their former selves, spindoc? There is a lesson there for people who want to influence the debate.

Following SPQR's logic:

If 99% of immunologists think vaccination against a disease is important, yet;

Only 1% think vaccination against that disease stupid, a waste of time and money;

Then each should be given equal say;

and the so called 'sceptics' and "forget-about-fact-checking" MSM and 'shock-jocks' jump on it.

Anybody watching/listening to the 'debate' would think there is real doubt and not even the experts (real and imagined) can get it right.

No wonder joe/jane is confused.

No wonder the 'Lord' is so popular to his 'believers' - he tells them what they want to believe.

Following Bonmot’s logic:

If a doctor finds someone with a fever of : 37.6, 38.2, 39.1 and 37.1 on successive days.
The only rational prognosis ( using IPCC modelling ) would be that by the end of the week they’ll have a have temperate of around 45+ .
And (using extrapolation techniques perfected by the warmists ) will also likely at that time be suffering from all of the biblical plagues.

And the only rational treatment would be for them to try some experimental vaccine. While at the same undergoing traditional bleeding/bloodletting treatments with specially bred voracious leeches of the species Haemadipsa picta IPCC.

No SPQR, that is the logic of the 'Lord' Christopher Monckton.

You have just taken to his logic and regurgitated it above - you're freedom and you do it.

No SPQR & Bonmot, there is no point in discussing IPCC computer
projections. They are using faulty fossil fuel values.
GIGO (Garbage in Garbage Out) !