Andrew Bolt: the globe-trotting weather presenter

This was posted today over at The AIMN and is reproduced here.

Believe in climate change or not, there is no denying that the most vociferous and fanatical arguments come from those kitchen table scientists who do not believe we are on the eve of a catastrophic event. Their media bosses let them loose on anybody who even merely says “it’s hotter today than last week”.

Somebody must have said such a thing recently; enough to inspire Andrew Bolt to dedicate five of his last eight blog articles to attacking proponents of climate change.

His latest piece, Almost too cold to type this message to a warmist does nothing for his argument. Or his credibility for that matter.

Absent from his blog for a few days, we learn from Andrew that:

As it happens, I am in Los Angeles, freezing my backside off in an unusually cold spell.

He’d better prepare himself for some fairly nasty weather: I’ve just checked the forecast for Los Angeles for the rest of the week and they are expecting Arctic-lke temperatures of 25, 26, 27, 27 and 27 over the next five days. Those temperatures are in Celcius, mind you. Don’t go outside, Andrew. You’ll be snap frozen.

Andrew also tells us that Los Angeles has been experiencing record low temperatures yet assures us that:

I wouldn’t be so stupid or dishonest as to claim that weather in one part of the world says anything about the climate everywhere.

Before coming out with this gem:

Fact: to measure what we call “global warming” we need global records, not anecdotes about temperatures in Australia or California. And what those global records tell us is that the rise in temperature paused 16 years ago . . . The world is not warming as was predicted. And gloating over some bushfires in Australia does not changed that central truth. Indeed, it strikes me as dishonest.

(Now might be a good time to read Bolt’s short article in its entirety before continuing here).

While Andrew is sitting in front of the open fire while Los Angeles shivers he might want to pick up the local Los Angeles Times and read this article: 2012 was among the 10 hottest years on record globally. Here’s what it says:

The average global temperature in 2012 was among the 10 hottest since official record keeping began in 1880, with most of the world — from North America to far northeastern Asia — experiencing higher-than-usual temperatures, according to related reports issued Tuesday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Last year’s average global temperature was about 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 1.0 degree Fahrenheit warmer than the mid-20th century baseline, NASA said, making it the ninth-warmest year on record. NOAA’s evaluation showed that 2012 was the 10th-warmest. The agencies’ reports are based on slightly different methodologies and data.

Still, the two agencies concurred that the data point to a planet that has grown warmer swiftly and looks to get even hotter in the near future. The reports noted that except for 1988, the nine warmest years in the 132-year record all have occurred since 2000. And 2012 was the 36th year in a row that the global average temperature was above the 20th century mean of 57 degrees Fahrenheit.

Now, Andrew, who is being dishonest?

Andrew Bolt

520 comments on “Andrew Bolt: the globe-trotting weather presenter

  1. Globe-trotting liar & idiot I’d say. Seems he learned nothing from copping a guilty verdict for lying about people’s Aboriginal Heritage. Still, the ability to never let facts get in the way of a good story is a key requirement for employees at Limited News. Indeed, I suspect some of the trolls who darken our door would make “good” Limited News employees ;-).

  2. In all honesty Mig the Climate scientists are their own worst enemy. The cliques of global scientists that have sprung up in the last 30 years come out with the most outlandish claims. When cornered they come back with “… the science is settled.”
    It really is a case of
    1- Create the conclusion of choice.
    2 – Hunt around for modeling that might fit your conclusion.
    3- If this fails adapt the modeling to achieve 1.
    The dumb photos of Ice melting in the two arctics. Just to humor us who like to question “the science”, for every sunny picture of ice melting in one of the arctics, then take a picture at the same time in the other arctic. I suspect there is no sunny pic opportunity with melting ice. It is DARK and bloody freezing.
    IPCC and the British Met as well as sections of the Oz Met and CSIRO have been infiltrated by the career climate scientists riding on the overall good names of these iconic institutions, It happens in our iconic Universities.
    What we need, is when Hedley Thomas has finished with his expose of the Gillard/AWU saga, he should commence a pragmatic and wide eyed investigation of claims made by these climate loons.

  3. Tweed, there is something about science in that you have to prove a hypothesis, then you have a bevy of equally qualified scientists ready, willing and able to pick holes in your findings – ideas plus methods. To say that all scientists are somehow in cahoots and somehow greedily grabbing the meagre funds provided for research is just plain ignorance.

  4. Oh dear, Tweed, is that tin-foil hat of yours cutting off circulation to your brain….*again*? So your mate Dolt gets caught out lying through his teeth-*again*-& the best you can come up with is another of these stupid conspiracy theories that come out of organizations funded by people like Reinhart & the Koch Brothers (the people who help fund the like of Dolt btw). If you actually bothered to *read*, you’d know that the science of global warming goes back more than 60-80 years, & follows very strict scientific procedures. Meanwhile, your denialist mates haven’t got a single scientific leg to stand on, & leaked documents have shown that several Denialist Organizations don’t even believe their own bull-crap! Back to primary school, Tweed, & hopefully this time you might actually LEARN something.

  5. Mig. I like Bolt. He is irreverent, he puts people on the spot and he is politically incorrect. Love it.
    Min. You must have been reading under the influence.
    Later……go read my words again.

  6. “What we need, is when Hedley Thomas has finished with his expose of the Gillard/AWU saga, he should commence a pragmatic and wide eyed investigation of claims made by these climate loons.”

    No, Tweed, I’d rather Hedley Thomas stop wasting his time chasing shadows & look into *real* issues-like the funding of key denialist figures (like Carter, Plimer, Kinninmonth etc) by the fossil fuel industry-via several front “institutions” (like Heartland & the IPA). I’d also like to see Hedley Thomas investigate the very *serious* accusations that several key Coalition Figures were involved in a conspiracy to bring down a sitting MP, with the hopes of bringing down an elected government.

  7. “Mig. I like Bolt. He is irreverent”. No, Tweed, Bolt is a LIAR, pure & simple. He uses a combination of dog-whistling, hyperbole & outright lies to gain & keep his audience. He attracts morons, like you, who have an inflated sense of their own knowledge and importance!

  8. No, Tweed, Min didn’t read your crap contribution under the influence-though I wonder if you *wrote* it under the influence. Probably under the Influence of the Kool Aid the Denialist Cult gives you.

  9. “I suspect there is no sunny pic opportunity with melting ice. It is DARK and bloody freezing”.

    Hey, stupid person. The data we have shows both winter & summer ice extent, & Summer & Winter Extent gets smaller & smaller every year-something that won’t change whether you’re looking at the ice during the night or during the day. So please do stop displaying your bone ignorance, Tweed, as it’s getting a bit embarrassing for you.

  10. Funny how the Lunar Right like convicted criminals & proven liars such as Bolt, yet seek to slander the names of the thousands of scientists around the world who diligently work towards improving our understanding of the natural world-just because it doesn’t agree with what their criminally dishonest heroes are telling them.

  11. Marcus. You know she is done….
    Two days interviewing Gillard’s settlement clerk a “highly respected” employee at SG?
    WA coppers are ready to co operate with the Victorian police.
    The Greeks who did the renos on her house are coming back to Oz the be interviewed by Victorian police?
    And worst of all for Gillard the MSM is totally silent……..
    Hedley is the only journo who is quietly plodding through the evidence.
    Walkely for him I suggest.

  12. “Marcus. You know she is done”

    What a complete load of bull-crap. I’ve been hearing that for the past 3 years &-guess what-still no evidence has been forthcoming. It’ll be just like the Thomson matter-all smoke & no fire (thousands of Subpoenas sent out & not a single piece of evidence will eventuate from it). Meanwhile, though, the matter of Ashby-gate remains utterly unreported by the MSM (which, by your twisted logic, means that its only a matter of time before several key Coalition members-including at least 3 MP’s-lose their jobs). In fact, the MSM has been anything *but* silent on the matter of Gillard, driven as they are by their desperate desire to bring down a “mere” woman who dared to defeat a man to become Prime Minister. Anyway, don’t you have a Denialist Cult meeting to attend?

  13. “http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
    I was wrong. It is catastrophic.” You’re a very boring person, Tweed, even for a Lunar Right member of the Denialist Cult…did you know that? Why don’t you do us all a favour & exit via stage Right-permanently-as you’ve proven time & again that you’ve got nothing *interesting* to say.

  14. The most likely outcome of the current “investigation”, Tweed, will be the issuing of an extradition order to bring Blewitt back to Australia to face fraud charges. It’s also possible that several key figures in the WA Construction Industry (probably with links to the WA Liberal Party) will face charges for aiding & abetting the fraud. I do hope that Bishop will be questioned by the police for her decision to consort with a known criminal.

  15. “The Greeks who did the renos on her house are coming back to Oz the be interviewed by Victorian police?”

    LOL, the Greeks who did the Renovations have already said that they were paid out of Gillard’s own money. This sounds like *reaching* to me-which is typical of Thomas. He’s just a useless hack (no pun intended) who works for Murdoch because no respectable newspaper will give him a job-kind of like Dolt.

  16. Marcus. Ashley is appealing the Judges decision. I tend to agree he was hard done by, by the Judge. I don’t think the Judge gave him his day in court. Surely Marcus you would not be against a person having their claims of sexual harassment heard by the court?
    I think Thompson and Williams have a serious problem in that the investigation surrounds AMEX cards that were funded by a supplier to HSU. These were allegedly not reported as they should have under Corporate Governance legislation. Secret Commission is the term commonly used when an employee of director of an organisation received a benefit from a supplier to that organisation.
    I don’t know I just read the press.
    And if one believes the press, the supplier of the card(s) has been working with the police …… since the start of the investigation. Hmmmm……..
    You are not defending these union people Marcus?? It is ok to defraud union members of their money??
    Can you clarify which side of the fence you are barking from?

  17. Hey Marcus. It is a funny link though don’t you think? Alphabetical as well. There must be some committed skeptic out there with a lot of time on their hands.

  18. “Ashley is appealing the Judges decision. I tend to agree he was hard done by, by the Judge” Well, you would believe that, wouldn’t you? I wonder if you would feel that way if, say, a judge threw the defamation case against Abbott out of court? I bet you’d be cheering the judges decision The fact is that there was no *evidence* of sexual harassment, but very strong evidence of a conspiracy to defame Peter Slipper. The whole thing stunk to high heaven from day one-especially the passing on of Slipper’s diary to Mal Brough.

    “You are not defending these union people Marcus?? It is ok to defraud union members of their money??”
    Again, show evidence of actual *fraud*, & maybe you’d be onto something. Instead we have a lot of claims which, every-time they get investigated-are shown to have no substance…..at least in the case of Thompson. I wonder how much tax-payers money FWA (at the behest of an ally of Abbott & partner of Kathy Jackson-Lawler) has wasted with all those Subpoenas that have turned up sweet-FA? Now that is something I’d like to see punished in a court of law. Just as I hope Kathy Jackson faces the courts of her alleged defrauding of the HSU over the last few years. That won’t look good for Abbott, given how closely he has aligned himself to her in the Thompson matter. Equally, I’d like to see Abbott face court over lying to the AEC back in 2003 about “Australians for Honest Politics”, or for his apparent misuse of tax-payers funds back in 2009 when he was promoting his book, “Battlelines”, & now I’d like to see him properly quizzed by the media regarding when he knew about Ashby-gate. I bet you don’t want *any* of these matters looked into though, do you Tweed? So please stop pretending like you actually *care* about either sexual harassment matters or fraud-because your past comments suggest you only care about these matters when they might achieve *your* political ends-much like the Liberal Party whose interests you so slavishly serve.

  19. Marcus, the troll just showed his hand…….”I don’t know I just read the press” and ….. “And if one believes the press,” 🙄 , and therein lies the problem.

    You are trying to have a sensible conversation with an idiot, and there’s time you’ll never get back. 😀

    Scroll the troll, and engage with people who have a brain. 😀

    Cheers 🙂 😀 😆

  20. “I don’t know I just read the press”

    Well, there’s your problem right there. 70% of Australian Media is controlled by Murdoch, who has a vendetta against the current government, & will lie, cheat & steal to achieve their objectives!

  21. Was’nt it reported that the credit charge dockets had Thom(p)son with a p, were as Craig Thomson MP dosn’t have a (P) in his name…..and hasn’t it also has been reported that there were several cards together and that staff had access when needed for duties. Not a huge leap that someone on staff can’t spell Mr Thomsons name….. and I’m guessing that Craig Thomson knows how to spell his own name.

  22. LOVO, the misspelt name was on the imprint of the card which was obviously a forged card, as the slip had a reject code, and was never accepted by the bank, so the payment was never made. 😯

    But the trolls won’t let the facts get in the way of a good story 😛

    Cheers 🙂 😀

  23. JULIA, LANCE… ON YOUR BIKES!

    LARRY PICKERING 2 HOURS AGO
    It was difficult listening to Paul Murray interview the Prime Minister this morning. Murray makes no secret of his support for Gillard, as do most in the Fairfax stable, but it appeared akin to interviewing his mother with carefully screened callers causing no embarrassment to either of them.

    (The precondition for attaining an interview with the Prime Minister is that the interviewer must not have shown any prior antagonism toward her.)

    It was quite sickening really until Murray, obviously feeling a little overly sycophantic, asked this question of Gillard: “Would you agree to be interviewed by the police?” (regarding this current investigation).

    Now that’s a pretty simple question. I mean, why not reply, “yes” unless of course you really mean, “no”?

    The answer from Gillard was, “That question doesn’t really arise, Paul…”, and it was delivered in flawless Gillardspeak.

    Of course Gillard could, and would, refuse to be interviewed by the police, but she couldn’t say that, could she? That would imply she had something to hide. The lady can think on her feet.

    Make no mistake this police investigation is resolute, thorough and will result in prosecutions.

    The first thing that police do before embarking on an investigation like this is determine the seriousness of the alleged crime. Then they determine the veracity of the initial evidence and likelihood of future successful prosecutions. They are not in the habit of wasting their time.

    The last persons of interest they will ask for an interview are those targeted for prosecution. There are many but at the top of the list are Wilson and his accomplice Gillard.

    What Blewitt has said, the police have agreed not to use against him in evidence. It is significant that the whole thrust of Blewitt’s and others’ evidence was Gillard’s involvement.

    So, if a CEO of a listed Company was under police investigation for fraud, he/she would immediately step aside until the matter was resolved one way or the other.

    Shareholders would demand that so as not to embroil the Company itself.

    Not in Gillard’s case, although she is the CEO of the “Company” and we are the shareholders.

    Anyway the Murray/Gillard interview was unedifying for both and I was more interested in the Oprah/Lance Armstrong interview.

    The correlation that emerged between Gillard and Armstrong was striking.

    For years Armstrong had denied he did anything wrong. That’s what crims do. There is an arrogance in, “I did nothing wrong” because I am me and I’m above all this and anyway it will all go away one day.

    Until one day it becomes a pointless plea, then they ask for forgiveness or claim mitigating circumstances. “Now I will be honest with you all. See, I do have a redeeming feature.”

    Armstrong, still in denial, would lead his team in this year’s Tour de France if he hadn’t been finally cornered. He is not sorry about what he did, he is sorry he finally had to admit it.

    Gillard, still in denial, will lead her team in this year’s election. She is not sorry about what she did, just sorry when she finally has to admit it.

    It’s like reading a book… only you know the ending.

  24. “Yer on the road to winning the 2015 Blogg Awards.”

    Not with rubbish like this…”Absent from his blog for a few days”

    The great man is on holidays and has been so since before Christmas!

  25. Dolt hasn’t figured out that the seasons are different in other parts of the world and it’s now mid winter in Los Angeles, but he’s an expert on climate change? 🙂 What a Dickhead!

  26. ‘Still, the two agencies concurred that the data point to a planet that has grown warmer swiftly and looks to get even hotter in the near future.’

    When they connect fact with fiction in one sentence, you can be sure its propaganda.

  27. “Mig. I like Bolt. He is irreverent, he puts people on the spot and he is politically incorrect. Love it.
    Min. You must have been reading under the influence.”

    Tweed, agreed! Most here are under the influence of something. Personally Bolt has a much better case than Behrendt et al, Flannery et al and Miglo et al. You just have to look at the hits!

  28. “When they connect fact with fiction in one sentence, you can be sure its propaganda.”

    there’s a shit load of that here to be sure, to be sure!

  29. ‘…but he’s an expert on climate change? What a Dickhead!’

    No, he’s a commentator and on his own admission not an expert on CC.

    On the other hand, we can all have opinions on the weather.

  30. Treeman, I can’t say that I share your sentiments about Bolt. His bleating about “unfair” when convicted of racism shows a lack of character. Bolt stated that he was going to contest the ruling in the High Court..an empty threat of course.

  31. On the media bias, an estimate (apologies, no link) was that 80% of Murdock media articles on climate change were for the negative.

  32. “That’s what crims do. There is an arrogance in, “I did nothing wrong” because I am me and I’m above all this and anyway it will all go away one day.
    Until one day it becomes a pointless plea, then they ask for forgiveness or claim mitigating circumstances. “Now I will be honest with you all. See, I do have a redeeming feature.”

    I read this out of context and thought it was about the Dolt and climate change!

  33. ‘To say that all scientists are somehow in cahoots and somehow greedily grabbing the meagre funds provided for research is just plain ignorance.’

    The money is on the table, you have a team of 10 to support (some young families) and the research is in your field of expertise, so you happily pick up the money.

    The corruption of the peer review system stems from the need to make government grants politically relevant in a catastrophically warming world.

  34. El gordo, I am absolutely positive that I’ve mentioned this before but a PhD scholarship is the princely sum of $300.00pw..at least that’s what it is at UQ. Every 6 months faculty heads have to go cap in hand to industry hoping that their research can continue. There’s not much money to be had in the alternative energy field.

    ps..at least the $300 is classed as non-taxable income.

  35. recalitrantrick, I thought that I’d just throw it in for good measure as an indication as to the calibre of the person, Bolt.

  36. ‘There’s not much money to be had in the alternative energy field.’

    No, it doesn’t have much of a future.

  37. Plenty of a future eg, one has to think of just that..the future, rather than clinging onto wishful thinking that the world is just going to putter along in spite of the damage which we do.

  38. Bolt is trying to bring balance to the climate change debate, by presenting a view opposed to the status quo.

  39. The corruption of the peer review system stems from the need to make government grants politically relevant in a catastrophically warming world.

    Prove it? Show us your irrefutable evidence this is the case or shut up.

    This is not the first time you have made egregious statements like this based on nothing or on fraudulence.

    And to complete your total hypocrisy on the subject, and thus you lack of credibility, you not only overlook the huge sums paid by vested interests and the proof they are deliberately making false accusations against climate scientists and organisations, but also publishing fallacious information that you often quote.

    Furthermore though it’s been shown and pointed out to you that most of these scientists would be getting paid and receiving grants no matter what theory or climate trend they were studying, and many are doing it for far less than they would get paid if they were to become an opponent of the theory, you still often put put up this bogus claim.

    Sometimes I’m lost for words on just how dishonourable you are on this subject.

  40. Science needs to be audited, Mo.

    Good question Roswell, the northern monsoon is late and its not a rare occurrence.

    The dampening of the top end cools things down, but its no show means a scorcher.

  41. I see that trollman & el dickhead, like all the usual Denialist Cult members, worship at the altar of criminals, liars & frauds (Pickering, Monckton, Dolt), whilst casting aspersions-with no evidence-against thousands of scientists ,across dozens of fields, & over several decades of painstaking research. For the record, doing public sector science is *not* the road to fame & fortune, whereas the Plimers, Moncktons & Carters have proven that the real money is in climate change denial (Carter earns about $3000 a month from Heartland just for spreading lies). Just as well most scientists have more integrity than these frauds.

  42. Science *is* audited, el trollo, by a system that has worked extraordinarily well for about 100 years. The crap spouted by Nova, Plimer, Carter & Bolt definitely needs to be audited-in particular which vested interests are paying their way.

  43. ‘Science *is* audited, el trollo, by a system that has worked extraordinarily well for about 100 years.’

    Could you be a little more precise?

  44. “Science needs to be audited, Mo.”

    That’s not an answer el gordo. You made what can be a libellous statement, it’s not the first time you have made that accusation and now you must back it up with proof.

    Also that throw away line illustrates either your ignorance of science or your deliberate distortion of it. It’s so belittling typical of you, not that being deprecative or the clown has every bothered you, you seem to proudly wear them as a badge.

    As long as it gets you attention though el gordo 😉

  45. Could you be a little more precise?

    No you don’t get to divert and throw it back. You made the calumniatory statement, one you’ve made several times before, so now prove it.

  46. Yes, Peer Review. It has worked incredibly successfully, across all fields of science for over 100 years. The only people who have a problem with the system are frauds like Carter, Plimer & Monckton. It’s just a pity that our Right-Wing MSM wasn’t subject to similar standards of review. Still, I do love how people like you-el trollo-will cite *any* claim made relating to science, by any moron with access to an internet account-irrespective of their qualifications or any external review process-yet will cast doubt upon scientific data gained by *years* of painstaking research-& subject to intense scrutiny-just because it runs contrary to the claims made by your HIGH PRIESTS. Sounds an awful lot like you belong to a CULT, el trollo. Just be careful they don’t offer you any Kool Aid, OK?

  47. Oh, & I’m still waiting for one of your beloved High Priests to come up with an alternative model to explain the increase in global temperatures over the last 30-50 years. It can’t be the sun, because that’s been on a slightly downward trend since the 1980’s (after a plateau in the 1950’s to 1970’s). The last decade was dominated by an extended Deep Solar Minimum, yet still temperatures rose.

  48. btw, el trollo, you are aware that there was already a very strong (if not complete) consensus towards global warming amongst scientists as far back as the 1930’s. So, even if your claims about some kind of “gravy train” were true (which they’re not, & merely prove your ignorance of the whole scientific establishment), then this consensus predates that “gravy train” by at least 50 years. By contrast, denial of Climate Change only really started around the 1990’s, about the time that governments started to seriously talk about combating CO2 emissions. I’m pretty sure that’s no coincidence.
    Also not a coincidence is that the same forces spreading disinformation about global warming are almost identical to those who spread disinformation about smoking, the ozone layer & asbestos.

  49. To my knowledge it can’t be a ‘libellous statement’ if its a generality. For example, I could say all politicians are corrupt and nobody would blink.

    Peer review has become slanted and I demand an audit to prove it…. billions of dollars are at stake.

  50. “Peer review has become slanted” only in the opinion of Denialists like yourself-& only because its generating an outcome contrary to what your RELIGIOUS BELIEFS are telling you. As I said, I’d rather we had an audit into our mainstream media, because there is strong, independent evidence of how slanted that is.

  51. Marcus they get around that little conundrum by saying that the globe didn’t warm over the last decade. No evidence and just a couple of discredited scams and false reports behind them but they still contend it.

  52. “Peer review has become slanted and I demand an audit to prove it”. That’s not how it works, el trollo. You need to cite SPECIFIC EXAMPLES that lend credence to your claim before an expensive audit can be justified. Given how little money is put aside for research, I’d hate to see any of it wasted on a pointless audit to satisfy the deluded members of the Denialist Cult-a cult who would simply refuse to accept the outcome of the audit if it didn’t tell them what they wanted to hear.

  53. It was warm in the 1930s, that’s true, but nobody thought it might be caused by humans. So there was nothing for the natural sciences to do but record it without preconceived bias.

  54. I’ll tell you again, climate scientists-like most other scientists, are not getting rich as a result of research that shows global warming is occurring. A scientist gets paid a salary for their work-regardless of outcome, the rest of any grant money they get goes into other costs associated with doing research. This is true whether you’re talking climate science, physics, biology, chemistry etc. If you want to earn really great money, then you do what Carter (well known Australian Denialist) did, & sign up for an additional sum of money from the Heartland Institute, just for spreading anti-global warming propaganda. Personally, I think Carter should be drummed out of the profession for prostituting himself in that way, but the fact that he hasn’t proves that the scientific establishment is *not* skewed as el trollo claims!

    Oh, & Plimer too has prostituted himself by getting most of his money from the mining industry-a powerful vested interest-but he too retains his job & the right to be heard in public forums….even if all he does is spout crap!

  55. “It was warm in the 1930s, that’s true, but nobody thought it might be caused by humans.”

    Really, got any evidence to back that up, or are you just doing a “Dolt” & making more unsubstantiated claims?

  56. In truth, there were plenty of papers around in the 1930’s already predicting that human factors-namely the release of greenhouse gases-could lead to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Much of the work back then was theoretical, building on the work of Fourier, Arrhenius, Tyndall & Pouillet in the 19th Century (or do you think *they* were in on this so-called “scam” too?) Of course, as more evidence relating to CO2 emission trends & long-term temperature trends came to light (from the 1950’s to today), the picture of an enhanced Greenhouse Effect came into focus. That is what makes your claims of “fraud” so ludicrous, el trollo, as all the people that lay the groundwork for AGW are either dead or retired, & were so long before there was any public/government support for the theory of AGW (which didn’t eventuate until around the late 80’s & early 90’s). So please, el trollo, either provide PROOF to back up your ridiculous assertions, or bog off back to your troll hole.

  57. one last thing, el trollo. The peer review process that you’re so dismissive of has also given rise to a number of curatives-like antibiotics & vaccines. So I hope you’ll refuse all tetanus shots & antibiotics until *after* your precious audit. Better still, could you be so kind as to prove to us that gravity isn’t also a scam? Preferably by jumping off the nearest building.

  58. Wow! I am astonished at Dolt’s perspicacity. Los Angeles is cold in the winter!!!!! Who knew? That’ll show that climate change mob.

    I don’t know, I just read the press.

    Well the truth finally emerges. Tweed hasn’t got a clue, so just regurgitates what he reads in Rupert’s rags.

    The same Rupert, btw whose media company isn’t allowed to operate in Canada because it doesn’t meet the truth in news requirements under Canadian law.

    So good on yer, Tweed, keep on swallowing Rupert’s lies whole, but don’t expect anyone with an ounce of integrity or wit to do the same.

    The truth is as Marcus says, for all Hedley Thomas’s rock turning, he hasn’t found any compelling and convincing evidence that Julia Gillard acted improperly, illegally or accepted bribes from anyone.

    Like Dad said in The Castle “Tell ’em they’re dreaming!”

  59. “I’ll tell you again, climate scientists-like most other scientists, are not getting rich as a result of research that shows global warming is occurring.”

    Umm dude, you don’t know what you’re talking about here, with all due respect. No, they don’t get rich but they live very, very well. Tenured at close to 6 figures if not more on top of their grants. Grant money (tax payer funds) that can be spent in a whole host of ways. However, Al Gore using their “findings” seems to be doing ok, wouldn’t you say? Having worked in this area I can assure you they are very comfortable and heavily dependent on grants for the “extras”; spending it any way they wish in the name of science. The Ph.d I was under did so lavishly and without reservation. They publish where the money is and right now, that is anything to do with AGW; thanks to vested government interests.

    For example, did atomic energy come from the search for nuclear energy or because the powers that be (Germany and America) needed a bomb?

    “The peer review process that you’re so dismissive of has also given rise to a number of curatives-like antibiotics & vaccines.”

    Wrong again big guy; antibiotics came from the OBSERVATIONS of a guy called Flemming when he discovered penicillin. Peer-Review had nothing to do with it. In fact, most of our greatest breakthroughs in science MOST have not come from peer-review but the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, something the AGW mimes like to disregard and subvert by the use of something called “climate modeling” which is highly flawed in principle if nothing else. Peer-Reviewed wasn’t even really utilized as a “process” until the mid 20th Century. Again, prior to that it was the scientific method which worked pretty damn well. Again, with all due respect you’re like many of the ignorant AGW lemmings out there purporting things you know very little about and dismissing or belittling people with whom you disagree. Did you also know that the whole peer-review process actually comes from the discipline of MEDICINE not SCIENCE although some might argue they are one in the same? You have a right to disagree with el Gordo, this is a blog but if you’re going to try to cast yourself as having a semblance of expertise then know what the hell you’re talking about because clearly you don’t; like most of the “flock”.

  60. “Canada because it doesn’t meet the truth in news requirements under Canadian law”

    Yes, and who makes or sets said requirements or interpruts what is and isn’t truth? The government you mean? Oh, that’s smart for a “free” people…Let the government tell them what is truth and isn’t…My wife and I have gone back and fourth on this one more than once, she being a very proud Canadian! LOL

    I think anybody, regardless of ideology can see a bit of “stupidity” in that approach…

  61. Sparta, I don’t know how ya got to be like you are…. and I don’t want to know 😕 I think your a conspiracy…….. Why don’t ‘you’ make like a sheep…….. flock off !

  62. Lovo,

    The “Method” as you folks understand it vs. how it has always been understood.

    LOL……

  63. Marcus,

    My apologies by the way, I forgot to mention Jenner (later Louis P.) and his first use of vaccines, or at least the term; back in the late 1700’s! Before that they crudely used pure inoculation to derive the same effect (reminds me of the farcical medical consensus of using blood-letting in order to rid the body of disease/ or imbalance of humors!). So you see old boy, peer-review had nothing to do with either of your assertions; falling back on “peer-review or consensus” is the tool of the truly naive; yourself included apparently….

  64. Marcus on peer review..precisely. Who else has the expertise to evaluate research except those with similar expertise..ie one’s peers? Andrew Bolt?

  65. Sparta, actually inoculation had been introduced to Europe in the 17th Century via the Turkish Empire. However, although successful there was a fairly high mortality rate as they would use injections derived from smallpox survivors (perhaps that’s what you mean when you say “crudely used..”). It was Jenner who discovered that the cowpox virus provided immunity from smallpox.

    “Strictly speaking, he did not discover vaccination but was the first person to confer scientific status on the procedure and to pursue its scientific investigation.” It was Jenner’s efforts in having his procedure peer reviewed that brought about a program of mass inoculation, the first in history.

  66. ‘So you see old boy, peer-review had nothing to do with either of your assertions; falling back on “peer-review or consensus” is the tool of the truly naive; yourself included apparently….’

    Those who believe in the AGW consensus are naive in the extreme.

  67. “It was Jenner’s efforts in having his procedure peer reviewed that brought about a program of mass inoculation, the first in history.”

    If you mean by having colleagues study his method and “replicate” it themselves then yes but THERE WAS NO PEER-REVIEW process as we know it today Min, as you very well know; but nice try.

  68. Min,

    Also, doesn’t inoculation actually have its origins in Indian culture; not Turkish? Not that you were suggesting otherwise. Anyhow, its a shame they weren’t able to advance the concept any further; religious fanatics kind of put an end to the “scientific movement” there…

  69. No peer review process?

    The first recorded editorial prepublication peer-review process was at The Royal Society in 1665 by the founding editor of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Henry Oldenburg.

  70. ‘The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing.’

    Dr James Hansen

  71. Hang on el gordo you don’t get to do another change of direction just like that and another out of context quote with no source.

    First it was no warming for the last 16 years, then none for the last decade and now it’s a five-year mean.

    How often are the deniers going to keep shifting their goal posts and memes?

    It’s becoming as ridiculous as you are.

    Also where’s your proof to the potentially libellous statement you made of the vast majority of scientists being on the take?

  72. ‘..vast majority of scientists being on the take?’

    Only climate science has found itself in this awkward situation.

  73. Oh is that so el gordo?

    Again you make that libellous accusation, Prove that the climate scientists who are proponents for AGW are on the take?

    I also note you don’t make the factual statement that there are scientists and non-scientists against the AGW science who have been proven to be on the take from vested interests.

    Why the hypocrisy?

    And I note you didn’t address the change in position of the deniers.

  74. http://abs.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/12/25/0002764212469800

    Did you know that was a link to a Behavioural Science site that examines the elements behind the “echo chamber” of climate science denial and the conservative media’s role in that?

    The conservative “echo chamber” is a crucial element of the climate change denial machine. Although social scientists have begun to examine the role of conservative media in the denial campaign, this article reports the first examination of conservative newspaper columnists. Syndicated columnists are very influential because they reach a large audience. We analyze 203 opinion editorials (“op-eds”) written by 80 different columnists published from 2007 to 2010, a period that saw a number of crucial events and policy proposals regarding climate change. We focus on the key topics the columnists address and the skeptical arguments they employ. The overall results reveal a highly dismissive view of climate change and critical stance toward climate science among these influential conservative pundits. They play a crucial role in amplifying the denial machine’s messages to a broad segment of the American public.

  75. el gordo @ 11:02 am

    What the fuck does that prove, it’s just a link to grants.

    And your stupidity in this is astounding. You do know that many of climate scientists and organisations who are studying climate change are not going out to find warming, nor cooling for that matter. They are gathering the data and facts and coming to a conclusion on that information.

    If the globe were in a cooling trend then the data they gather, including the empirical data, would show that and they would report it.

    Then there’s the constant contradictions in your statements that you keep saying the globe is cooling but the contention is that warming has stopped or slowed over the last 16 or 10 years depending on what years they cherry pick, not that the globe is cooling.

    And where’s your proof on the repeated libellous accusation that most climate scientists are on the take and only find for AGW because of that?

  76. Möbius, that is indeed how it works..scientists gather facts and draw conclusions based on those facts. El gordo seems to have it all arse-about.

  77. So tweed considers Bolt is more credabile than science itself, Treeman worships the the ground he walks on and qoutes prickering. Seems bolt is profiting from his brand of poor mandy Bill oriely wannabee. Being the poster child for skeptics OS making him famous amongst the gullible. Bolt is essentially an attention whore self obsessed with popularity. He denounces scientists as rockstars whilst promoting his own cult of personality. This guy has less credability as a jouno than he has as as the self appointed poser boy for skeptics. Bolt models himself on Oriely and has built a carrer on character assassination is a fake. Anyone who is brainwashed by the fraud is of lazy intellect. Anyone who qoutes Prickering is a moron.

  78. Min please don’t call Christopher monkton a lord, he is a viscount and not a member of the house of lords. that title like all things monkton is a fraud. Bolt and Monkton battle for the mantle of non scientossts trying to profit from the gullible. They have created an industry as poster boys for the factless.

  79. Did you know that was a link to a Behavioural Science site that examines the elements behind the “echo chamber” of climate science denial and the conservative media’s role in that?

    Yes, its on topic.

  80. ‘If the globe were in a cooling trend then the data they gather, including the empirical data, would show that and they would report it.’

    In peer review?

  81. They are a set of specific grants el gordo and you know it.

    You are being deliberately deceptive and blackguardly and it doesn’t reflect well on you at all.

    That link though on topic did not answer what I canvassed on your previous post, again you are being deceptive and diversionary.

    It all points to an attempt to avoid answering on the calumnious accusation you made against most climate scientists.

  82. El gordo and your problem with “a clean energy future is”? It’s a question, not that we expect to receive an answer which contains reasons.

  83. el gordo @ 12:43 pm

    Misdirection again el gordo, you really are scraping the bottom at the moment and flailing badly. Those Australia only grants don’t go to the climate scientists, they are for programs acting on the findings of the science and implementing clean energy, which is laudable no matter what the global climate is doing.

    Not that you had an iota of credibility in the past but any modicum of respect is now well and truly shot.

  84. ‘…and your problem with “a clean energy future is”?’

    CO2 is not a pollutant, but if it worries you so much we could do some serious frakking and eliminate most CO2 emissions. As the Americans have shown.

  85. Oh no..here we go again, yet another look over there moment that CO2 is not a pollutant. I think that it was Tom R who said eons ago, why don’t you go and live on Venus..

  86. ‘…the calumnious accusation you made against most climate scientists.’

    Not sure how many, I’ll leave that to the auditors after the election.

  87. CO2 is not a pollutant

    Ha, I bet el trollo wouldn’t say that after spending a few minutes with a paper bag tied over his head.

  88. Min,

    If you must, please copy and paste all of the historical context…Try paying special attention to the last paragraph, kind of the point I was making…Again, nice try…heheheheh

    History

    The first recorded editorial prepublication peer-review process was at The Royal Society in 1665 by the founding editor of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Henry Oldenburg.[50][51][52] In the 20th century, peer review became common for science funding allocations. This process appears to have developed independently from the editorial peer review.[53]

    The first peer-reviewed publication may have been the Medical Essays and Observations published by the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1731. The present-day peer-review system evolved from this 18th-century process.[54]

    A professional peer-review process is found in the Ethics of the Physician written by Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi (854–931). His work states that a visiting physician must make duplicate notes of a patient’s condition on every visit. When the patient was cured or had died, the notes of the physician were examined by a local medical council of other physicians, who would decide whether the treatment had met the required standards of medical care.[55]

    Peer review has been a touchstone of modern scientific method only since the middle of the 20th century, the only exception being medicine. Before then, its application was lax in other scientific fields. For example, Albert Einstein’s revolutionary “Annus Mirabilis” papers in the 1905 issue of Annalen der Physik were not peer-reviewed by anyone other than the journal’s editor-in-chief, Max Planck, and its co-editor, Wilhelm Wien. A formal panel of reviewers was not sought, as is done for many scientific journals today. Established authors and editors were given more latitude in their journalistic discretion, back then. In a recent editorial in Nature, it was stated that “in journals in those days, the burden of proof was generally on the opponents rather than the proponents of new ideas.”[56]

  89. Now what the hell has an election got to do with your false claim that climate scientists are on the take?

    Your feet might be firmly planted on the earth but from the garbled and discombobulated nonsense you have been posting recently your mind is certainly in lala land.

    I expecting your evidence that climate scientists who are proponents of the AGW theory are on the take any time now.

    No diversions this time, you have gotten away with them too often.

  90. ‘Now what the hell has an election got to do with your false claim that climate scientists are on the take?’

    I’m waiting for Abbott’s Audit to weed out the zealots.

  91. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and the physical principle behind this is well understood. It is the basis for the CO2 laser. If any denier doubts this, then there is a simple test. Have them put their hand in front of a CO2 laser. Since the greenhouse effect is a hoax, then nothing will happen, right?

    Such a test would be very easy to arrange. Personally I’d like to be there just to throw the switch, and watch as they scream in pain. Of course, it would have to be filmed, and posted on youtube.

  92. The Greenhouse Effect has a net positive feedback and the biggest greenhouse gas (water vapour) is found to be negative feedback.

    So in the absence of any global warming for a decade I’m inclined to think CO2 is also negative feedback.

    This is bad news for the warmista.

  93. What Abbott’s audit?

    And what has Abbott to do with your statement that climate scientists are on the take, he has no influence whatsoever on the thousands of climate scientists from around the world and how they are funded?

    I’m beginning to think that not even your feet are on the ground any more.

    So I guess we can expect your proof of AGW proponent climate scientists being on the take any moment now?

  94. Don’t take it to heart Migs.

    You have your global warming meme and I agree the past decade has been outstanding, but it has nothing to do with carbon dioxide.

    Our atmospheric blanket is self-regulating. It contains as much heat as it can contain, and any excess is lost in space.

    ‘The earth’s climate (in contrast to the climate in current climate GCMs) is dominated by a strong net negative feedback. Climate sensitivity is on the order of 0.3°C, and such warming as may arise from increasing greenhouse gases will be indistinguishable from the fluctuations in climate that occur naturally from processes internal to the climate system itself. …

    ‘Alarming climate predictions depend critically on the fact that models have large positive feedbacks. The crucial question is whether nature actually behaves this way? The answer, as we have just seen, is unambiguously no.’

    Richard Lindzen

  95. Our atmospheric blanket is self-regulating. It contains as much heat as it can contain, and any excess is lost in space.

    El gordo, you’re the one lost in space. :mrgreen:

  96. And el gordo you have accused reputable climate scientists for being on the take but you quote a meteorologist in Lindzen who has been paid by Exxon and has given keynote speeches to the Heartland Institute.

  97. Lindzen is a Sceptic and as long as his science is sound I’ll quote him, no matter whose paying.

    Tabit will need to do an audit before dismantling the Klimatariat. Any high priests found to have deliberately invoked the need for urgent action on climate change…. will need to be admonished.
    ———-
    Our blue planet is unique in this neck of the woods, a jewel in the habitable zone. All systems appear to be working normally.

  98. Re an ice age..And it certainly felt like it yesterday in Canberra.

    Canberra sets new record for January temperature

    Ps if eg can quote weather, so can I. 🙂

  99. That link was from last winter, but this one is just as interesting. Croatia has received more snow this season than in recorded history, but the exciting aspect is watching the temperatures fall closer to the tropics, throughout Asia and northern sub continent.

    It hasn’t been this cold in Mexico for 42 years…. all of which gives me confidence that nothing is wrong with the system.

  100. “Lindzen is a Sceptic and as long as his science is sound I’ll quote him, no matter whose paying.”

    Well that is utterly disingenuous of you, but nobody here expects anything less from you.

    You dis and falsely accuse reputable scientists of being on the take, always rejecting their credited work and data but blindly accept paid for vested interests scientists and quacks for no other reason than than their against the main stream science.

    It can’t be because of the science as you wouldn’t have the slightest clue if it’s sound or not. You solely base your support for a science article so as to be contrary and if it comes from a very limited number of denier sources, not because you understand it in any way or if it has validity.

    It was hard to believe you could get any more absurd or contradictory on this topic, but in the last day or two, but especially today, you definitely have reached a new record low in climate denier idiocy.

  101. I accept that it has been hot, just like it was in 1790 at Port Jackson, while at the same time Europe was experiencing freezing winters like now.

    We have been here before, natural variability rules.

  102. El gordo, if any PhD candidate can collate sufficient evidence to put forward a proposal on any theory, then why would you consider that a thesis would be unacceptable..strange..

  103. Me thinks, remembering back to my uni days, those who had the guts to put up a contrary view to the lecturer, generally got good marks.

    Of course, they had to put forward an argument that was backed by fact and data.

  104. And cut…

    Lise Meitner, ForMemRS (7 November 1878 – 27 October 1968) was an Austrian, later Swedish, physicist who worked on radioactivity and nuclear physics. Meitner was part of the team that discovered nuclear fission, an achievement for which her colleague Otto Hahn was awarded the Nobel Prize. Meitner is often mentioned as one of the most glaring examples of women’s scientific achievement overlooked by the Nobel committee.

  105. I hear the yapping today that in Sydney the record temp in Sydney, set in 1939 at 45.3C was beaten by the new record in Sydney of 46C. It must be true. Global Warming is back and we are all roooned.
    Fair dinkum. What clap trap.
    A temperature record, made somewhere in Sydney in 1939 using an analogue measurement device to record 45.3C. Yesterday somewhere in Sydney, now with extra millions of people, a CBD that never existed in 1939 and using a different measuring device in a different part of Sydney and it is all due to Global Warming (…and Gillard’s deceitful Carbon Dioxide Tax is going to fix it).
    It is no wonder thinking voters have turned off from listening to this clap trap.
    FYI, 1,000 km to the North we have had a cool summer. I wonder what the 1939 measurement was up here?
    It is nice to know the bullshit has to end this year. Thank God for the constitution. Gillard has to face the electorate.
    Rumour has it the coppers are making an announcement early next week re the AWU/Gillard scandal…… and person(s) of interest.

  106. Tweed, nice to know there is still one sensible person that knows better than others, left standing.

    We are sure lucky to have the likes of you looking out for us idiots,

  107. Tweed, when did Gillard or Turnbull or even John Howard say that a price on the big carbon polluters was going to fix climate change.

    John Howard quote:

    I’ve always accepted that greenhouse gas emissions, carbon emissions, were potentially damaging. I think the scale of it has become more apparent as a result of the research and so on and I think we have to respond in a realistic way…The issue is, how can we, maintaining our economic strength, reduce the amount of carbon we’re putting into the atmosphere?

  108. Howard also said there shouldn’t be a ‘knee jerk’ reaction to climate change and added that if CO2 emissions become a real problem we could go nuclear.

  109. Howard said the stimulus was “knee-jerk” in February 2009
    Howard said interest in indigenous welfare was “knee-jerk” in June 2007
    Howard said that pharmaceutical companies reaction to his policy was “knee-jerk” in Aug 2004
    Howard said reaction to polls was “knee-jerk” in 2003 and 2007

    …and if I look harder I will find other times Howard used the term knee-jerk to get out of or delay confronting tough policy or situations that he needed to address.

  110. Howard’s knee-jerk statement on climate control in context.

    On 4 June 2007, Howard announced a new Carbon Trading Scheme to be in place in Australia by 2012. Only four months earlier, Howard rejected such a scheme by the states, claiming “knee-jerk reactions that are going to destroy the jobs of coalminers”.

  111. el gordo
    January 19, 2013 @ 6:01 pm
    And all of these characters should consider their future.
    http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/staff/academic.html

    Yes we are big on scientific research at UNSW, maybe I could arrange a tour any time you would like. Don’t see Bolt, Monkton or yourself lining up to debate any of our fine scientific academics who cover just about every aspect of climate science.
    Such comments from you and other sceptic’s Gordo are beyond laughable. Your disrespect is highly noted and plunge’s your credibility into the depths of Halls sandpit.

  112. Tweed
    January 19, 2013 @ 6:59 pm
    I hear the yapping today

    Loud and clear from you 😦

    It is nice to know the bullshit has to end this year. Thank God for the constitution. Gillard
    Abbott has to face the electorate.

    Absolutely; it’s time for the lies and negativity to stop, Tony Abbott is a fraud and will be judged so by the electorate

    Rumor has it

    That Abbott and his band of incompetent frauds will actually release a costed policy as the smear and fear is wearing thin with Australians,

  113. Ricky, and clearly Abbott and Hockey are going to have some big explaining to do as to how they are going to find the umpteen billion dollars worth of savings while implementing policies such subsidising the wealthy for the hire of au pairs and nannies.

  114. ‘Such comments from you and other sceptic’s Gordo are beyond laughable. Your disrespect is highly noted …’

    Much appreciated.

  115. … so after laboriously reading all the 157 posts, it is true.
    The science is settled.
    No one has a fucking clue what Mother Nature is going to do next.

  116. But Tweed you can control what man does and thus their influence on Mother Nature, and you certainly can predict what right wingers are going to do, that is lie, deceive and obfuscate. That’s always been predicable as it’s what they’ve always done and will always do.

  117. As a newcomer to this thread..I have to ask ..: Are “Tweed”, “Elgordo” and “Treeman” all out on day-release?….or are they this stupid as a matter of course?

  118. ‘But Tweed you can control what man does and thus their influence on Mother Nature…’

    Mo’s right.

    ‘From 1940 through 1980 the concern was global cooling as temperatures declined. The CIA pursued its role of preparing contingency plans and produced a few Reports.

    ‘Prevailing wisdom said cooling would continue so alarmists demanded action. Some advocated stopping the cooling with a variety of schemes called geo-engineering.

    ‘These included building a dam across the Bering Straits to prevent cold water outflow from the Arctic, and putting giant reflectors in space to direct more sunlight down, especially in to high latitude cities. CO2 was not a concern at the time…’

    Dr Tim Ball

  119. ‘…or are they this stupid as a matter of course?’

    This not a fkn chat room, you’ll find that on some of the other threads.

  120. Ahh!..of course..they’re all right-wingers….strange, isn’t it, that it is always the right-wingers that are the crawlers, the suckoles, the dobbers…the boss’s boy…Bolt is all of the above, he wouldn’t have got the gig if he wasn’t…how many lefties are sponsored with their own commercial media slot….you just gotta know how to suck….and they learn that when they first become the boss’s boy!
    And do you know why they are so good at crawling?….It’s because they have only recently themselves crawled out of the primordal slime!

  121. Yes jaycee and they libel a group of hard working scientists who are attempting to help the planet then refuse to retract their libellous statement nor provide proof of the egregious statement they made, instead running one nonsensical idiotic diversionary post on weather after another in the forlorn hope of having their rotten core forgotten.

    Yep despicable and dishonest barely begins to describe them.

  122. Oh dear, elgordo!…I didn’t come here to “fkn chat” to you…I didn’t even come here to insult you…lord no!, you have a spell-check and a personal mirror to do both to you….though I suspect the mirror is the more insulting!
    No, I originally just asked a fair question….: Are you on day-release or are you that stupid as a matter of course?
    You have answered the latter and I will presume the former.

  123. Thanks for the info, Migs….I wasn’t going to get into a debate with him or the other deniers as it’s a complete waste of time…for them…I have come to the conclusion that it is their destiny to be “lost” in the chaos of climate-change disasters….sort of like “inevitable fodder” for fate.
    I know that sounds a bit “determinist” but you think of it…Those who take climate change science seriously and concede there is a more than evens chance we will be part of a dangerous weather event, are or have already taken steps toward securing our food, energy, water and general saftey supplies for us and ours. Those who are in denial have and probably will not and will therefore succumb to whatever extreme weather event comes their way.
    I look upon the precautions like one reads the myths and metaphors of antiquity…take the story of Noah’s Ark, Now you’d think that say fifteen or certainly twenty days into the continuous raining, you’d put the beer down and casually mention to your family there that ..”Perhaps we better tie a tinny up to the back porch and chuck in a couple of slabs of tinned dog-food just in case this goes on for another twenty days”….But Nah!…they won’t do it…they can’t now, after blowharding to all and sundry that it was never going to happen…Andy told us so!
    And that’s it..the dumb are culled, the cautious inherit the world and all nature returns to balance.

  124. Jaycee, of all the links to NASA that have been put up confirming climate change, el gordo then goes and finds an outdated NASA link disputing climate change and expects us to believe it.

    Odd.

  125. Cherry picking is el gordo’s (sex undetermined jaycee) number one pass time followed close behind misinformation, misdirection, constant posting about local cold weather events from the other side of the world and libelling climate scientists, for which no evidence for the smear made is produced though asked for many times.

    A very disingenuous person indeed.

  126. ‘…outdated NASA link disputing climate change and expects us to believe it.’

    NASA scientists change their mind as new information comes to hand.

  127. el gordo should be many things, most I won’t state here, but at the least el gordo should apologise for saying that reputable climate scientists are on the take, more than once.

  128. ‘….reputable climate scientists are on the take, more than once.’

    Then I’ve been misquoted, all I said was that the klimatariat is composed of people who have made global warming their career.

  129. My forecast for the weather to 2100 is a combination of
    Very Hot summers, very cold winters, cool summers, warm winters, heavy rainfall, droughts, mild winters, mild summers, dry spring, wet springs, bush fires, drought, no bush fires, warm wet summers, cold dry summers etc etc etc.
    Some one commented about about us helping mother nature … how delusional. Mother Nature just chuggs along making water, dumping it back on earth, reacting to the sun, spinning on her axis. you whisperers live in a tea cup. Such a sheltered existence, tucked in your little rooms huddled over your laptops reading every bit of bullshit …. and believing it.
    Sad.

  130. El Gordo. It is fashionable to be a climate scientist. Plenty of state funding to build a fat career on. It will eventually dawn on the taxpayers that is was BS and the climate comentariats at the Universities will close the scientists will be recycled into serious scientific research.
    Just fashionable El Gordo… flavour of the decade.

  131. There’s an inevitability about it, isn’t there?…You can “hear” it in their words…like when someone says ;”I’ll see you there!..drive carefully, we will!”…and it sends a sudden shiver diown your spine……I’m no fatalist nor in any way religious..I’ve studied too much ancient history for both, but I do have an inkling of the “laws of chance” and these deniers are tinkering with and betting on something that has absolutely no certainty…It’s a bit scary the chances they will take with the future as if it is all done and dusted…when even the slightest deviation from point or percentage A to B can lead to disaster!
    el gordo….I think it must be you who is lusting after a god!
    Or perhaps you already have one…: Andrew?

  132. ‘…flavour of the decade.’

    It has indeed, but your projection to 2100 may just be wishful thinking. Natural climate change can be chaotic and catastrophic, particularly now at the end of the Holocene.

  133. Swan ripe for plucking…on track to lose seat, poll shows

    “Wayne Swan is on track to lose his seat at the next federal election, a poll indicates.
    The ReachTEL telephone poll was commissioned by the union United Voice and surveyed 511 residents in the Treasurer’s north Brisbane electorate of Lilley on Thursday.
    According to ReachTEL, 45.2 per cent of respondents said they would vote for the Liberal-National Party candidate, Rod McGarvie, while 38 per cent said they would vote for Labor and Mr Swan. Just over 45 per cent of respondents (45.1 per cent) said their opinion of the Treasurer was unfavourable, compared with 34.1 per cent who said they had a favourable view of him.
    Almost 20 per cent (19.1 per cent) were neutral and 1.8 per cent had not heard of the federal Treasurer.
    Advertisement
    In 2010, Mr Swan narrowly scraped home ahead of Mr McGarvie on preferences, weathering a 4.77 per cent swing against him.
    The Treasurer was more popular with respondents than the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who was judged unfavourably by 53.2 per cent of respondents and favourably by just 28.7 per cent.
    The Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, was slightly more popular than the Prime Minister, with 51.5 per cent saying they had an unfavourable opinion of him compared with 29.2 per cent who said they liked him.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/swan-on-track-to-lose-seat-poll-shows-20130119-2d0og.html#ixzz2IUumGx8o

  134. I suspect two share the el gordo site. ;. I must admit, that it has not been so notiable lately. Maybe one has become bored with the game.

  135. tree, see you are having another go. Did not have much success on the other post. Where does it fit in with climate change?

  136. No you didn’t el gordo. Damn you’re a liar.

    You directly inferred that climate scientists who are proponents of AGW do so for the grants.. And that wasn’t the first time you’ve made that accusation.

    Right wingers liars through and through.

    I also note that right wingers love quoting negative polls for the government but never quote Abbott’s personal or PPM polling. Tweed was forever bringing up the polls when the opposition were well ahead and is now mute on the polls except for the odd negative one for the ALP.

    Right wingers proving they are not only liars but hypocrites.

  137. tell you what, Tree’…you come over all cock-a-hoop confident that the Libs’ have it in the bag…What say we do a swap..: I don’t know your electorate, I presume you don’t know mine..if you are so sure of a win..I’ll vote Liberal in my electorate, you vote Labor in yours….deal?

  138. “I also note that right wingers love quoting negative polls for the government but never quote Abbott’s personal or PPM polling.”

    I just did…”The Treasurer was more popular with respondents than the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who was judged unfavourably by 53.2 per cent of respondents and favourably by just 28.7 per cent.
    The Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, was slightly more popular than the Prime Minister, with 51.5 per cent saying they had an unfavourable opinion of him compared with 29.2 per cent who said they liked him”

    Left whiners are hypocrites in spades.

  139. “What say we do a swap..: I don’t know your electorate, I presume you don’t know mine..if you are so sure of a win..I’ll vote Liberal in my electorate, you vote Labor in yours….deal?

    Come now jc, I couldn’t ask you to compromise your ideals like that…

  140. El gordo, I very much doubt whether anyone will be “red faced” if they make an attempt to tackle the issue of pollution and the development of alternative energies. As has been said here many many, many, many, many, many times before, that irrespective of one’s belief or otherwise in climate change, surely it will stand the planet in good stead if we decide to tackle the twin issues of heavily polluting industries and non-renewable energies.

  141. “No you didn’t el gordo. Damn you’re a liar.

    You directly inferred that climate scientists who are proponents of AGW do so for the grants.. And that wasn’t the first time you’ve made that accusation”

    Problem is egregious echo, eg is correct. If the link between CO2 and global warming were disproved tomorrow, the alarmists would all be out of a job,

  142. Absolute bs on scientists. If scientists were raking it in, why then is there a skills shortage in the area? Why then do we have to import people from overseas to fill basic gaps, such as scientists required by industry? Why then are my daughters not millionaires.. 😉

  143. Talking about pollution Wheel 2Wheel today dealt with air pollution in Hong Kong. Plenty of mentions about particulates, sulphur, etc and nothing on CO2. Big point on ship and boat pollution from bunker fuel. The CO2 bandwagon is loosing its wheels!

  144. ‘…heavily polluting industries and non-renewable energies.’

    China and India need to clean up their acts, but there is no future for renewable energy in mega cities.

  145. Ha, ha, ha!…Knew you wouldn’t…not that certain in your electorate, eh.treeman?
    The right-wing..: Hopeless, gutless and useless!

  146. Tweed.
    “Mother Nature just chuggs along making water, dumping it back on earth, reacting to the sun, spinning on her axis. you whisperers live in a tea cup. Such a sheltered existence, tucked in your little rooms huddled over your laptops reading every bit of bullshit …. and believing it.
    Sad.”

    And human beings just chugg along spewing out more pollution, burning down rain forests, destroying species, tarring and cementing productive land and clearing the planet of anything and breeding at an ever increasing rate of knots. You live in a denialist world that humanity is not destroying our planet, huddled over your laptop reading every bit of bullshit and believing it without ever opening your eyes to reality. I don’t need a scientist to tell me we are killing the earth.
    Even Sadder.

  147. Min wrote:
    surely it will stand the planet in good stead if we decide to tackle the twin issues of heavily polluting industries and non-renewable energies

    That’s what I believes worries resource capital the most. Hence the public is treated to never-ending propaganda of climate change denial – via the MSM, “think” tanks, shock jocks, RW bloggers – and of course the astroturfers sent to ‘work’ Twitter, Letters to the Editor and online forums…. Isn’t that right, el trollo?

  148. ‘The spin matters. If Australians believe that the warming trend is over, and are suspicious of meteorological reports, they are likely to be less well prepared for extreme weather.’

    Tim Flannery

  149. Still waiting for the evidence that climate scientists are proponents of global warming for the grants,

    If no evidence then where’s the retraction and apology.

  150. This thread has degraded into a complete detachment from reality, not unlike Bolt himself….Alarmist capitalists? Please, its like a parade of stupidity. I think its a clear case of intelligence envy from the naysaying numbskull brigade

  151. The thing is, el gordo, Tweed, Treeman…you’re not going anywhere and along with Tweed’s predictions, I will predict something…Qld and WA. are going to be hit with another super-cell cyclone….How do I know?…because there is absolutely no reason why they will not….cyclone season is just starting, the temp is getting higher, the weather more erratic and like Yasi, they will get bigger, like the temps, badder like the bushfires and more severe like Yasi!….and you are not going anywhere, like the rest of us and no matter how you try to bluff yourself, the inevitable will come to a location near you!
    While we are not looking forward to it, you must be absolutely dreading it!

  152. Cuppa, “….propaganda of climate change denial – via the MSM, “think” tanks, shock jocks, RW bloggers – and of course the astroturfers sent to ‘work’ Twitter, Letters to the Editor and online forums…. Isn’t that right”……. mmm!!! SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT TO ME, ay….. 😀 😆

  153. Oh dear, el trollo, you’re clearly not very clued in to the facts. Snowfall has not been shown to be a very good predictor of climate change in either direction. So once again you bring out a non-sequitor to distract us from the fact that you’ve got nothing to prove your case. Oh & what “luminaries” would you have “auditing” the scientific community? Barnaby maybe? Or Truss? Or Fielding? Maybe the crowd from the anti-vaccination network? Or maybe Jo Nova, Bob Carter & Ian Plimer (all of whom rely on the fossil fuel industry for cash). You sound like a good little Stalinist there, el trollo, with all your threats of a purge of those who the Denialist Cult view as “ideologically impure”.

  154. JC the idea that Sandy and Yasi were caused by AGW is nonsense, considering the world has been cooling.

  155. ‘Snowfall has not been shown to be a very good predictor of climate change in either direction.’

    I would appreciate a link to that theory.

  156. LOl, the world has been cooling, el trollo? Please do provide a snifter of evidence, because what you’ve provided so far is just unsubstantiated bullshit. Still that is all the Denialist Cult has-repitition of certain mantras told to them by their high priests.

  157. We are only after the hides of the Klimatariat who have been spreading untruths and frightening the populace unnecessarily.

  158. Tell you what, el trollo, you provide some links that actually prove your many bogus claims, & so will I. You’ve not provided anything yet, so I doubt you will at this late stage.

  159. So what you are saying is that increasing snow cover in winter is unrelated to global warming or cooling?

  160. Again, el trollo, your words are scarily reminiscent of both Stalin & Mao-or even the Nazis-remove all those whose views differ from those of the self-appointed Denialist Cult. Again I ask-who will sit in judgement during these purges you recommend? Funny how the lunar Righy always resort to authoritarianism!

  161. I’m saying that snow cover is unreliant on colder temperatures-& in fact seems to drop off below a certain number of degrees below zero. Snowfall can, however, even occur in the low positive temperature territory. Some research suggests higher snowfall might be linked to warming climate, but I’d say the jury is still out. What is true, though, is that it does *not* prove your bogus “world is cooling” claims.

  162. CAO brings disruption to global warming….

    ‘Britain is currently in the grip of treacherous and icy roads, airport misery and delayed trains – and now there are flood warnings in place in large swathes of the country.

    ‘Train operators implemented reduced services which are set to continue tomorrow, and at Heathrow Airport – the world’s busiest two-runway airport – more flights were cancelled for a third successive day.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2265333/Blizzards-black-ice–FLOODS-Fresh-falls-hit-Britain-thaw-starts-south-theres-snow-come.html#ixzz2IYDMtyMJ
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  163. Yes, trollman, selling your soul to the fossil fuel industry is definitely the quickest way to become a millionare, but working in *real* science most certainly isn’t.

  164. Wow, el trollo, you really have shit hearing skills, don’t you? You’re like a kid with ADHD. Meanwhile, many traij services in Australia had to be cancelled because train lines had buckled in the heat.

  165. Exactly, nothing unusual is happening. Around the world we are experiencing freezing cold winters and baking hot summers all at the same time.

    CO2 does not cause global warming.

  166. Back on topic, though, Bolt is a proven liar, many times over yet the card-carrying members of the Denialist Cult swear by his every word. What does *that* say for his followers-gullible or culpable?

  167. Marcus it’s my opinion that el gordo doesn’t give a toss about climate one way or the other, nor politics for that matter.

    El gordo only posts to be contrary so as to provoke reactions and to keep alive responses to them. So as you can see any old bullshit and at times utter nonsense is posted, nearly all single paragraph provocations emphatically stated so as to elicit a response.

    The constant posting of unrelated cold weather events is an example but there are plenty more. As is the lapping up of denigrations against el gordo. Point out the nonsense and duplicity in the posts and a lot more idiocy ensues, sometimes one after another and often of increasing flakiness.

    Point out the disingenuous of posting isolated weather events from mostly one overseas country, then inevitably a flood of cold weather events are posted, again often one after another, deliberately railroading the conversation thread and also as a diversionary tactic when el gordo is asked to put up or shut up.

    Then there is the opposite where el gordo will make an outlandish statement like the verging on libellous one about climate scientists being on the take and then ignoring all requests to put up or retract, again often putting up diversions and a stream of nonsense posts on isolated cold weather event.

    An indication of a sad person trolling to have something to correspond to? I don’t know.

    The other sad thing is that el gordo will probably think this post is great as it’s about el gordo, and it doesn’t matter to them if it’s good or bad as long as it’s a response to and about el gordo.

    There is a way to stop the idiocy and waylaying of topics, especially climate, one that has been successful elsewhere. I’m fairly certain the good members here know what way that is.

  168. el gordo..I’m certainly no climate scientist, but I can work out that if I stand in front of my fridge on a hot day and open the door, all that cool air that pours out makes me say ;”oooooooo..luvly!”….but while I am getting cooler, I know the fridge is getting warmer…and pretty soon..: sure enough..the motor kicks in.
    Are you still with me el’?
    Now, with all this erratic cold weather snaps you write about, have you bothered to ask..: “Where is this cold air coming from?”….perhaps it is the moon!?
    But no….like my fridge door, the air is pouring down from the arctic circle, but unlike my fridge, which has only a skin-deep film of ice, the Arctic and Antarctic are klms’ thick so the “fridge” can be kept open for a longer time and the melt, hence the cold air can flow out longer…..but in the meantime all that cool air has to go somewhere and the “motor” of nature gets to working…that “motor” , el gordo is called : weather!
    Sorry to use such childish analogies, el’, but I feel that is about you and yours limits of comprehension.

  169. I understand now the educators use of those numerical and alphabetical wooden blocks in the pre-school environments….in educating the child, one has to start with the most uncomplicated structures.

  170. ‘An indication of a sad person trolling to have something to correspond to?’

    Completely erroneous.

    You believe in global warming and I believe in global cooling, we may both be wrong and the sceptics correct. Tweed and Treeman are sensible sceptics and I’m prepared to recant on serious global cooling if a mini ice age doesn’t begin next year.

  171. I’m still waiting for either a retraction on your statement(s) about climate scientists only being proponents of AGW because of the grants they get or proof of it.

  172. I’m prepared to recant on serious global cooling if a mini ice age doesn’t begin next year

    Don’t be ridiculous.

    By their nature as geologically long periods of time one is not going to to be able to pronounce at any definable point that there is a changing of the Ages occurring. These things can only be judged from centuries of hindsight.

  173. No cuppa, we’ll see signs of nasty weather reminiscent of past cooling.

    For example, as the world slipped into the LIA around 1220 AD there was a general change in the weather, we should be able to compare and contrast with your global warming meme.

  174. You can almost hear the echo-chamber inside El’s head saying something like ..: “Ahh!..but the Arctic and Antarctic ice isn’t melting!!…Gotcha!”
    But then you read about the shipping lanes through the Nth-West Passage being used for the first time in history and you realise the direction of the debate is moving into that “Alien abduction and probing” place…and it is a place that only the right-wing feel comfortable in!
    Best we don’t go there….

  175. “I’m waiting for a science audit.”

    and we’re still waiting for you to tell us which High Priests of the Denialist Cult you think should be heading up the Stalinist purge of the Scientific Community. After all, we can’t have ideology unless it is cleansed of all contrary ideas-right el trollo? At least that seems to be the approach of you & your fellow tin-foil hat wearers.

  176. “You believe in global warming and I believe in global cooling”. The difference being that global warming is backed up by all the available theoretical, empirical & observational evidence-whereas your global warming belief is just that-a belief unsupported by any hard data. You may as well believe the moon is made of green cheese or that the Earth is orbited by the sun. Truth is that we’ve had a full decade of well below average sunspot activity, & a full decade of above average sulfate levels. Yet almost all of the hottest global temperatures in the last 150 years have been in the last decade. That doesn’t do a great deal for your “global cooling” scenario, does it?

  177. BTW, el trollo, water vapor is the single largest forcing involved in the *natural* greenhouse effect-contributing around 45%-65% of the 33 degree differential between the normal & black-body temperature of the planet. However, on a ppmv basis, water vapor is the *weakest* greenhouse gas-whereas NO2 & CH4 are the strongest greenhouse gases (even though, in total, they contribute the least to *natural* greenhouse effect). Clouds, by comparison, have both a positive & negative forcing effect-depending on where the clouds are located-higher altitude clouds have a negative forcing effect-as they contribute to albedo-whereas lower altitude clouds have a positive forcing effect, as they reflect long-wave radiation back down to the Earth (which is why clearer nights tend to be colder than cloudy nights on average). See, el trollo, if you can’t even get the *basic* science right, then what’s the bet that the rest of your “beliefs” are utterly flawed?

  178. Sorry, I meant “your global cooling belief”. No doubt el trollo will try & exploit a typographical error as some kind of “gotcha” moment. It’s all these desperate denialists have left in their arsenal.

  179. El gordo, over the history of this blog I’ve know you to believe in BOTH global warming AND global cooling..sometimes within the space of hour, depending on which argument suits your particular point at any particular time.

  180. ‘After all, we can’t have ideology unless it is cleansed of all contrary ideas-right el trollo?’

    Watermelon ideology has been successful through mass propaganda, during a communications revolution, but as soon as the weather changes the msm will jump to the other camp.

    Min… its always been global cooling with me, but regional warming may have been mentioned in relation to the jet stream.

    At the end of the Eemian Interglacial the ice cores have picked up a situation that looks similar to now… not that I want to alarm anyone unnecessarily.

  181. ‘higher altitude clouds have a negative forcing effect-as they contribute to albedo-whereas lower altitude clouds have a positive forcing effect’

    The other day I mentioned that there is new conclusive evidence that clouds are negative closer to earth, but the stratospheric clouds and the stratosphere generally is the missing link in our understanding of climate change.

    That’s why NASA is seriously involved at the moment.

  182. ‘Yet almost all of the hottest global temperatures in the last 150 years have been in the last decade. That doesn’t do a great deal for your “global cooling” scenario, does it?’

    Temperatures worldwide have plateaued and in Germany the trend is definitely down. Michael Mann says a mini ice age begins with regional cooling and who am I to disagree with the man.

    Has our Modern Climate Optimum reached its end?

    Or is this just a breather for a couple of decades before temperatures rebound?

    One thing is certain, it has nothing to do with CO2.

  183. Told you, el gordo comes through and proves everything I’ve said of them.

    Why are you waiting for a science audit?

    You made the accusation, no ifs or buts, but outright accused the climate scientists of being on the take, that is all climate scientists around the world that are proponents of AGW, you were quite specific in lumping all of them under your libellous accusation.

    Now you are saying that they may or may not be in it solely for the grant and it needs an audit to find out, and why an audit, that utterly stupid. Surely if there is evidence that they are only finding the way they are to get public monies, and of course this ignores all the private money that also goes into it, then there should be a commission or enquiry, not an audit.

    But the truth is that you fucked up big time as you so often fuck things up and are now trying to squirm out of it by diversions and the very idiotic “audit” statement.

    So do you standby your emphatic statement, made more than once, that climate scientists who are for AGW are only engaging for the grants they get and not because of the scientific findings they are uncovering?

  184. ‘Why are you waiting for a science audit?’

    A lot of taxpayers money is being spent to prop up the Klimatariat, so Abbott will need the audit to see where money is being wasted.

  185. You call it ‘on the take’ (which is putting words into my mouth), whereas I prefer to think its just enlightened self interest. Oh wait, look over there, is that a gravy train?

  186. I am sure Mr. Abbott will be having audits, left, right and centre. That is the only promise I have seen from him make.

    He needs audits, so he can abandon every election promise made.

    All we will here, is we cannot afford it. Not his fault, all Labor’s.

    Whether these audits are dinky di or not will not matter.

    They will be as spurious, as those of Costello in Queensland.

  187. el gordo @ 12:57 pm

    Hang on el gordo, you never said Australian Climate Scientists and Abbott has never promised or mentioned an audit into our climate scientists, that’s something you have dreamed up using Newman as a model in attempting to squirm out of your mouthing off once too often.

    Your inference was all climate scientists around the globe only find for AGW because they get money to do so. Are you now contending that Abbott is going to audit all of them and tell the world what to do? I know he’s said he will tell Indonesia what to do and still can’t live that one down, but the entire world?

    And sorry I’m not putting words into your mouth, your statement, made more than once, was an emphatic that they are only in it for the grants, in other words on the take. The inference is that they are only finding man made global warming because to do otherwise would mean they would get no money. If that’s not the same as on the take then nothing is.

    Again you are being very disingenuous in attempting to worm your way out of a very accusatory statement that verges on the libellous if not is libellous.

  188. Oh yes indeed Tony Abbott is bound to want to have audits, especially anything to do with people’s reproductive health (just on “moral grounds” of course…), the environment and the “waste” of giving money to public health and education. But of course millionaire mums will be fine to spend as much as they like on nannies and au pairs.

  189. ‘Are you now contending that Abbott is going to audit all of them …’

    Just the Australian federal Klimatariat.

    It can’t be libelious (sic) because all I said was ‘they should consider their future’.

  190. What and who the hell are the Australian federal Klimatariat…. let me guess, someone gaining benefit by “pretending” that climate change is real and these people are scientists. I know how it’s done..that sneaky thing called The Prime Minister’s Prize for Science..I’ll bet that there are just oceans of these devious scientists lurking around the halls of Questacon.

  191. @eg

    Christ all bloody mighty, I think you should consider your future.

    If I might comment that those who operate on the basis of reality who are considering our future on our planet
    In contrast to those who who seek conspiracy theories to justify their ideological opposition to the reality of AGW, and in support of inaction on how to address perhaps the greatest threat our civilisation has yet faced.
    That the denialists continue their obstruction, well beyond acceptable risk, illustrates not only their venality, but also their collective failure to consider the future realistically.
    @Mo

    Squirm and turn, divert and deviate, in the end it means the same, dishonest.

    and stupid IMO.

  192. Min the whole green machine will need to be dismantled, subsidies for this and that will need to be reanalysed and due diligence applied.

    The Climate Change Commission is the Klimatariat, along with academia, this is why an audit is necessary.

    The foot soldiers should be spared if possible ….and reeducated.

  193. Just curious, el gordo do you have any idea of what Clean Energy Future entails.

    Maybe you could explain it to us.

    Yes, tell us exactly what has to go.

    What happens to all the nice bits, that came in with it. You know, the goodies we all got, to help us cope with any extra cost

    Then maybe you can compare it with what Direct Action is about.

  194. Sorry for the length. A little more than a tax

    ..

    There are a number of related programs administered by various government departments under the Clean Energy legislation that will contribute to the implementation of the Clean Energy Future package. The function of the programs include bringing the carbon pricing mechanism into effect, distributing household assistance, rolling out clean energy and providing energy efficiency initiatives. All programs and initiatives are listed here in alphabetical order:

    ACCC activities
    The ACCC will work with businesses and consumers to raise awareness of how the Australian Consumer Law applies to carbon price claims.

    Australian National Registry of Emissions Units
    The Australian National Registry of Emissions Units (ANREU) is a secure electronic system designed to accurately track the location and ownership of emission units issued under the Kyoto Protocol and Australian Carbon Credit Units.

    Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA)
    Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), a new independent agency, will incorporate measures currently managed by the Australian Solar Institute, the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy, and the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism. Under ARENA, funding will be invested in renewable energy and enabling technology projects between now and 2020.

    Biodiversity Fund
    The Biodiversity Fund will assist land managers to store carbon, enhance biodiversity and build greater environmental resilience across the Australian landscape. For further information about the Biodiversity Fund go to the fact sheet on this website.

    Carbon Farming Futures
    The Carbon Farming Futures Program will ensure that advances in emissions reduction technologies and techniques will continue the evolution of management practices in the land sector towards emissions reduction and improved productivity.

    Carbon Farming Initiative (Non-Kyoto Fund)
    The Carbon Farming Initiative allows farmers and land managers to earn carbon credits by storing carbon or reducing greenhouse gas emissions on the land.

    Carbon Farming Skills
    The Carbon Farming Skills initiative will ensure that landholders have access to credible, high quality advice and carbon services.

    Carbon Price Implementation Program (incl Clean Energy Regulator)
    The Clean Energy Regulator (the Regulator) will administer the carbon pricing mechanism, National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme, the Renewable Energy Target and the Carbon Farming Initiative.

    Carbon Price Legislation
    The Clean Energy Legislative Package is now law. It sets out the way that Australia will introduce a carbon price to reduce Australia’s carbon pollution and move to a clean energy future.

    Charities Maritime and Aviation Support Program
    The Charities Maritime and Aviation Support Program will offer a rebate for the carbon price impact on essential maritime and aviation fuels used by organisations such as air and sea rescue services.

    Clean Energy Finance Corporation
    The Clean Energy Finance Corporation will invest in businesses seeking funds to get innovating clean energy proposals and technologies off the ground.

    Clean Energy Skills and other packages
    Clean Energy Skills and other packages will enable tradespeople and professionals in key industries to develop the skills needed to deliver clean energy services, products and advice to Australian communities and businesses.

    Clean Technology Focus: Supply Chain
    The Clean Technology Focus for Supply Chains will enhance the clean technology aspects of existing business development and facilitation programs.

    Clean Technology Innovation Program
    The Government has allocated $200 million over five years to the Clean Technology Innovation Program which will support the research, development and commercialisation of clean technology products, processes and services.

    Clean Technology Investment Program
    The Clean Technology Investment Program will provide assistance to help manufacturers make the transition to a low carbon economy and assist businesses to move into less emissions-intensive and more energy-efficient production processes.

    Clean Technology Food and Foundaries Investment Program
    The Clean Technology Food and Foundries Investment Program will assist food and beverage processing and metal foundries to embrace less emissions-intensive and more energy-efficient production processes.

    Climate Change Authority
    The Climate Change Authority will advise the Government on the setting of carbon pollution caps and conduct periodic reviews of the carbon pricing mechanism and other climate change laws.

    Coal Mining Abatement Technology Support Package
    The Coal Mining Abatement Technology Support Package (CMATSP) will provide $70 million over 5 years to support the development and pilot deployment of innovation technologies to reduce fugitive emissions from coal mines, develop safe abatement practices, and assist smaller operators to develop mine emissions abatement plans

    Coal Sector Jobs Package
    The Coal Sector Jobs Package (CSJP) will provide up to $1.257 billion over six years (five years of funding) for targeted transitional assistance to the most fugitive emissions-intensive mines to ease their transition to the introduction of a carbon price. Payments will be up to a maximum of 80 per cent of the extent to which fugitive emission intensity is above the 0.1 tonne of CO2-e per tonne of saleable coal production threshold in 2008-09.

    Community Energy Efficiency Program
    The Community Energy Efficiency Program will support energy efficiency upgrades to council and community-use buildings, facilities and lighting.

    Coverage of LPG/LNG/CNG
    LNG projects will receive a supplementary allocation under the Jobs and Competitiveness Program, ensuring an effective assistance rate of 50 per cent in relation to their LNG production each year. This supplementary allocation is in addition to the provision of assistance that would be provided to LNG projects if assessed as eligible under the Jobs and Competitiveness Program.

    Energy Efficiency Information Grants
    The Energy Efficiency Information Grants program will assist industry associations and non profits provide practical, tailored energy efficiency information to small and medium enterprises and community organisations.

    Energy Efficiency Opportunities
    The Energy Efficiency Opportunities program and legislation requires large energy using businesses to undertake rigorous and comprehensive assessments of their energy use to a regulated standard to identify cost effective energy savings opportunities and report publicly on the results of the assessment and the business response. Currently 300 corporations from the generation, mining, manufacturing, transport and services sectors are covered, around 60% of Australia’s energy use.

    Energy Savings Initiative
    The Energy Savings Initiative will support economy-wide improvements in energy efficiency by placing obligations on energy retailers to find and implement energy savings in households and businesses, and help consumers to save money by encouraging the identification and take-up of energy efficient technologies.

    Energy Security Council
    An Energy Security Council will advise the Government on possible support measures to address energy security risks

    Energy Security Fund – Admin Allocations Cash/Carbon Units
    An Energy Security Fund includes $5.5 billion in transitional assistance, in the form of allocations of free carbon units and cash payments, to highly emissions-intensive coal-fired generators.

    Energy Security Fund – Contract for Closure
    An Energy Security Funs – Contract for Closure will support the closure of around 2,000 megawatts of highly emissions intensive generation capacity before 2020, open to generators with an emissions-intensity above 1.2 tCO2-e/MWh on an ‘as generated’ basis.

    Essential Medical Equipment Payment
    The Essential Medical Equipment Payment covers Australians who use essential medical equipment, such as those using a dialysis machine or other life-support equipment at home. For further information about the Essential Medical Equipment Payment go to the fact sheet on this website.

    Home Energy Saver Scheme
    The Home Energy Saver Scheme will assist low income households find more sustainable ways to manage their energy consumption.

    Household Assistance Package
    The Household Assistance Package will help low and middle income households take action on climate change without unduly bearing any costs.

    Indigenous Carbon Farming Fund
    The Indigenous Carbon Farming Fund will support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to participate in the Carbon Farming Initiative.

    Jobs and Competitiveness Program
    The Jobs and Competitiveness Program will support local jobs and production, and encourage industry to invest in cleaner technologies.

    Land Sector Carbon and Biodiversity Board
    The Land Sector Carbon and Biodiversity Board will advise the Government on the implementation of the Land Sector Package, performance indicators of the package and the priorities for research under the package.

    Light Vehicle CO2 Emissions Standards
    Placing mandatory CO2 standards on all light vehicles from 2015 will deliver savings for motorists by improving fuel efficiency in all categories of new light vehicles, and adopting a mandatory approach that is consistent with the approach of other major car manufacturing countries.

    Living Greener
    LivingGreener provides Information on living sustainably and links all Commonwealth, state and territory energy efficiency and climate change programs.

    Low Income Energy Efficiency Program
    The Low Income Energy Efficiency Program will support a consortia of community organisations, local councils and energy service companies to trial energy efficiency approaches in low income households.

    Opt-in Arrangements
    Please see the Opt-in scheme fact sheet on this website.

    Regional Natural Resource Management Planning
    The Regional Natural Resources Management Planning for Climate Change Fund will help to guide where biosequestration projects should be located in the landscape to maximise the benefits for biodiversity, water and agricultural production.

    Regional Structural Adjustment
    Regional Structural Adjustment assistance will support workers, regions and communities that remain strongly affected by carbon pricing after other forms of assistance have been provided.

    Remote Indigenous Energy Program
    The Remote Indigenous Energy Program will provide financial support to communities to install renewable energy generation systems like solar panels and wind turbines.

    Small Business Instant Asset Write-off Increase
    The Small Business Instant Asset Write-off Threshold will boost cash flow and help small businesses to grow and invest in assets, which may be more energy efficient.

    Steel Transformation Plan
    The Steel Transformation Plan (STP) aims to encourage investment, innovation and competitiveness in the Australian steel manufacturing industry in order to assist the industry to transform into an efficient and economically sustainable industry in a low carbon economy. For more information please see the Support for the Australian Steel Industry fact sheet on this website.

    Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Arrangements
    Synthetic greenhouse gases, which comprise hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), will have an equivalent carbon price applied to them through the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989. Please see the Synthetic Greenhouse Gases fact sheet on this website.

    http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/clean-energy-future/programs-and-initiatives/

  195. Gordo you filling the shithole that Hall left. Clean energy future must go 🙄
    What a crock.

    I’m still getting over all these capitalist scientist’s on campus who are driving around in Porsche’s. I think your mixing them up with the law faculty.

    You are
    A: taking the piss.
    or
    B: A fucking Moron

    Which is it?

  196. A price on carbon is the most environmentally effective and economically efficient way to reduce pollution. This means our economy can continue to prosper – without our pollution continuing to grow.

    Questions Answered

    Q. Where will the money raised from the carbon price go?

    A.
    More than half of the money raised will be used to assist households. The majority of households will receive tax cuts, increased assistance payments or both. With the rest of the money, the Government will be supporting jobs in the most affected industries and investing in our clean energy future.

    Find more questions about: Carbon Price , Household / Family

    Q. Will I have to pay the carbon price?

    A.
    No, it’s not a tax on households or small businesses – Australia’s biggest polluters will be required to pay for their pollution under the carbon pricing mechanism. They account for around 60 per cent of our carbon pollution. For more information on Australia’s biggest polluters.

    Find more questions about: Carbon Price , Household / Family

    http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/clean-energy-future/carbon-price/

  197. Especially so, as he has proven he is only capable of doing one thing at a time.

    Wonder if he will bother to read them, before he starts.

  198. Good catch Mo and I hope it works for them.

    “This project is important – I think it is impossible to use nuclear power in Fukushima again.”

  199. Andrew Bolt has no weather stories today.

    ——–

    ‘THE nation’s largest and most expensive water recycling system, Brisbane’s Western Corridor pipeline project, will run at a fraction of its capacity or be closed under options now before the Queensland government.

    ‘The $2.4 billion project is a cornerstone of the “water grid” that was constructed at breakneck speed with little expense spared by the state’s Labor governments under Anna Bligh and Peter Beattie, in the teeth of a drought that had threatened to empty dams supplying the Queensland capital.’

    Jamie Walker in the Oz

  200. We must all remember. The science is in… the science is settled. Our Prime Minister told us so………………

  201. We must all remember the science is settled.. no it isn’t… yes it is… no it isn’t.. yes it is… a carbon tax is the way to go… no it isn’t yes it is… no it isn’t… yes it is… WorkChoices is dead… no it isn’t yes it is… no it isn’t yes it is… Run away… freeze… run away… freeze… run away.. freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze… be positve… no be negative… yes be negative… no… no.. no… hero… stunt… stunt… stunt… Out opposition leader told us so.. no he didn’t… yes he did… no he didn’t… yes he did…

  202. login and reply report this comment
    The ‘green Revolution’
    Thu Jan 17 07:34:41 GMT 2013 by David R Allen

    Solar/Salt/Thermal stores molten salt produced by the sun during the day and uses heat during the night to produce steady reliable base load power 24/7. So we can store energy now, that can be converted to electricity when ever we need it.

    login and reply report this comment

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23082-japan-to-build-worlds-largest-offshore-wind-farm.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|environment

    TRUE AND BETTER OPTIONS ARE BEING FOUND EVERYDAY.

    From memory, big project is under way in Arizona.

  203. Will be good when the inane weather reports are banished back to the AGW thread when this one closes.

    Where is your evidence el gordo and you fallacious claim? Still waiting. Been a long time now and still nothing but guff from you.

  204. Mo the scientists in question, for the most part, will be highly embarrassed by their support for AGW.

    I suspect their peers (not on the gravy train) will finally get a voice.

  205. Lovo. You might be able to help me. If CO2 goes from 350 PPM to 400 PPM what are the changes made to the other 999,650 PPM that have to be made to make room for the extra 50 CO2 PPM. We only have 1,000,000 parts to work with at any one time. …..50 more PPM of CO2, what goes out?
    CU? Min? You guys are the deep thinkers….?

  206. Letter to the Editor of The Australian

    ‘A pattern of extreme weather should not be confused with climate change.

    ‘The recent heat wave across much of Central Australia and its occasional extension east and south is a pattern of extreme weather. Climate is the recurring patterns of weather that inure us to such extremes.

    ‘The climate of Alice Springs is exemplified by 1887, the previously hottest January with an average maximum of 40.7oC. The extreme, nearly 5oC above the long term January average, was made possible by a spell of 11 days over 40oC, a brief respite then another 10 days over 40oC.

    ‘Climate change, of course, is a persisting significant departure from the experienced pattern of weather. The current pattern of extreme weather is not outside the envelope of experience that describes Central Australian climate.’

    William Kininmonth

    William Kininmonth headed Australia‘s National Climate Centre at the Bureau of Meteorology from 1986 to 1998.

  207. Between Bolt the dolt, el dildo and the rest of trolls, on this thread alone, there has been enough hot air expelled to raise the temperature of the planet considerably.

    It’s nothing but an argument that just goes around and around in ever decreasing circles until it disappears up it’s own exhaust pipe.
    While the aspirational trolls argue on behalf of Gina and her ilk, that they should be not only allowed, but encouraged, to rape and pillage the planet for their own personal power and ego driven aggrandisement, the vast majority of expert consensus says do something now or the world will suffer the consequences!

    FFS, wake up and grow up trolls, and realise that the very ones that you so vehemently argue in support of will not only ruin this delicately balanced ball of dirt, in the name of mega profits, but when it suits them they will wipe you too like a dirty rag. 😯

    For them, you are just TOOLS (in every sense of the word) 😦

  208. Dolt Bolts Cult are just ‘tools’ of Bolts carreer ‘aspirations’ Truthy …..Now, here comes the army of deniers to trot out the point of view that’s been drummed into their pointy little white starched headressssses to prove my point. They’ll start harping on “the climate has changed before” and “scientists are hiding data” .. Co2 is ‘just a gas’ .It would be cute if it wasn’t so sad.

    Aaaaaaaaaaaaand, deny!

  209. “They’ll start harping on “the climate has changed before”

    LOL…Only the biggest of morons actually would attempt to refute or dismiss that reality, to include the ” scientific consensus” they constantly cite but then you read such postings and remember that “intellect” is missing from this discussion on many levels…… It is not a question of “if” but “why” and there is no evidence on Earth that can refute the theory of “natural forces” at work here either. So it is a very valid question to ask “how much” if any role we are playing in this process…

  210. But Truth Seeker. You are not listening. The Science is Settled. Our Prime Minister said so. Can’t understand why the controversy rages around the planet.
    We Know Gillard knocked out Global Warming by using a Carbon Dioxide Tax.
    Who would have guessed a Bogan from Sunshine, Victoria, Australia 3020, was destined to save the World.

  211. “Who would have guessed a Bogan from Sunshine, Victoria, Australia 3020, was destined to save the World.”

    Tweed, you have it wrong. The woman you speak of, caught us up with the rest of the world.

    You are under the misperception that the rest of the world has done nothing.

    It is a shame, that we are NOT out in front.

    Yes, most of the world seems to believe the science is settled.

    Well, as much as science can ever be settled.

  212. A tax on carbon dioxide was never going to reduce emissions and this grandstanding ‘feel good’ act by joolya will cost her the election.

    ‘Yes, most of the world seems to believe the science is settled.’

    You mean the pigs in the trough?

  213. You know..Michael Leunig could do a hilarious cartoon featuring his iconic “little bloke” W /”deniers” T-shirt on, joining a “fun run” of other deniers scooting and slipping up a hill of shit of their own making!

  214. Well, if we do not pay the tax, or should I say, the price on carbon emissions, we will pay the higher insurance and state costs. One or the other.

    In the past month there have been some interesting things happen. The Bureau Of Meteorology has announced that it is introducing a new colour into its temperature charts, purple. The reason for this is as we have now reached such unprecedented high temperatures, a new temperature range colour was required. Then last Friday, Sydney sweltered through its hottest day ever known since records have been kept. Then finally NSW families were told that they would have to pay a $300 fire levy to insurance companies, this is more than the average Carbon Price content per annum on a family power bill, however I strongly suspect we won’t here quite so much ranting and raving about the levy from the Coaliton.

    http://wixxyleaks.com/2013/01/22/diabolic-scheme/#comments

  215. Maybe you will find the snouts in the trough belong to those who dig the fossil fuel out of the ground. It is their turf that is being protected by the deniers, their gullible tools.

    I do hope at times that you are all correct. Trouble is, this would only be wishful thinking.

  216. ‘I do hope at times that you are all correct.’

    The science is settled, even the UK Met and James Hansen agree, the world is cooling.

    Joolya’s tax has worked.

  217. Obama goes green in inaugural address…

    ‘We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.’

    I like the man, but he’s another dill.

  218. Those who deny climate change is largely responsible for the recent bushfires should be called holocaust deniers.

  219. Gee the trolls are so convincing, they have newspaper articles and everything… Let scrap all these fine scientific minds research, who according to Gordo are all eating caviar washed down with champers, driving Lambo’s to their waterfronts.

    http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/articles/palaeoclimateconsortium.html .

    and rely on 3 anonymous trolls posting opinion, telegraph links from a wannabe Foxstar journalist

    http://environment.yale.edu/climate/publications/peer-reviewed-articles/

  220. Silkworm, I do not agree they are to blame for the present heatwaves. I do believe they will to be blamed for those that occur in the future,

  221. 1. “Those who deny climate change is largely responsible for the recent bushfires should be called holocaust deniers.”

    2. “Silkworm, I do not agree they are to blame for the present heatwaves. I do believe they will to be blamed for those that occur in the future,”

    Both statements are fatally flawed, the first because it is hatred based and the second because of naivety.

  222. “and rely on 3 anonymous trolls posting opinion, telegraph links from a wannabe Foxstar journalist”

    And Tory Torcher is somehow a fount of wisdom because it is anonymous also…Own goal TT

    ” Let scrap all these fine scientific minds research, who according to Gordo are all eating caviar washed down with champers, driving Lambo’s to their waterfronts.”

    Where has el gordo talked about lambos, champers and caviar and what do they have to do with research grants?

  223. ” the first because it is hatred based ”

    Why is it hate based for one to voice an opinion that disagrees with you and your ilk. Is not such a reply, a little childish.

  224. Here’s one especially for CU and small torch…
    Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications

    A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ∼10-fold since 1975.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/27/1212247109.abstract

  225. Silkworm

    FYI Professor Richard Parncutt, professor of musicology at University of Graz, Austrial agrees with you. he has been roundly criticised and forced to withdraw his blog post where he called for the death penalty for climate change deniers. The man knows nothing about climate whatsoever and yet….

    Where do you sit? What is your qualification?

    Have a read of the web citation http://www.webcitation.org/6D8yy8NUJ

  226. http://politicaljelly.wordpress.com/about/

    Oh Haven’t you heard, you must have fallen of your stump, Gordo thinks the Science he don’t like is a gravy train for aspirational scientific capitalists. I’ll “grant” you both one thing, your ideology is consistently ignorant as modern day medieval stake burning inquisitors.

    Fast forward to 2013. Your inane twaddle is yesterday’s news. The debate has been had and we have moved on. Its all over. Were at the what do we do next phase, so catch the fuck up.

    Market based carbon pricing = practical, good place to start
    Green Army = Dads army response

    Quote all the bullshit you want, Elvis has left the building.

  227. Gordo your depth has barely damped my thick souls. What faculty do you work at Gordo? love to read a few of you papers, 2 ply I assume. Blogashere sarcastic obstinacy is not a recognised qualification…. oh anonymous trolling nobody.

  228. Carbon auction cancelled due to knockdown prices

    THE European Union (EU) executive has urged a quick decision on a freeze of 900 million tonnes of pollution credits auctioned to firms in 2013-2015 in order to raise the price of carbon and make investment in clean technology worthwhile.
    “There are too many permits because of the recession,” said Isaac Valero, the spokesman for Europe’s climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard, on Monday.
    According to some estimates, there are currently two billion tonnes of carbon emission credits on the market, or around half of the bloc’s carbon emissions per year.
    The EU’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) is a so-called cap-and-trade system that seeks to fight climate change by gradually tightening the amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted by companies.
    Companies receive annual carbon emissions targets. They are allotted some carbon emission credits and can purchase allowances that have been auctioned or earnt by other companies.
    But the price of carbon allowances under the EU ETS has fallen so low that companies do not have a major incentive to invest in reducing their emissions.
    Hedegaard late last year proposed to freeze by 900 million tonnes the amount of carbon credits auctioned in 2013-2015, with allowances increased in 2018-2019.
    The EU had planned to auction credits worth some 8,500 million tonnes of carbon emissions in 2013-2019.
    Some experts had hoped she would propose a freeze of 1,400 million tonnes.
    The European parliament is due to vote on the measure in March or April and had backed a cut of 1,400 million tonnes at a time when the price of a tonne of carbon emissions was at around seven euros ($A8.93) a tonne.
    The current price is below five euros, according to estimates.
    Experts believe that the price should be between 24 and 30 ($A30.61 and $A38.27) in order to make investment in clean technologies worthwhile.

    Read more: http://www.news.com.au/business/breaking-news/eu-urges-quick-decision-on-carbon-credits/story-e6frfkur-1226558765463#ixzz2IgHLYn1z

    http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2237514/carbon-auction-cancelled-due-to-knockdown-prices

  229. A good place to start Treeman, not the ultimate solution. Its one measure in concer with a multitude of measures.

    I concede that Carbon Trading left to the markets is in danger of being the next derivatives debacle. Stock brokers are not the most truthful people.

    The only way to stop corporate entities wicked ways globally is to make it expensive to pollute. Greed is the only universal language these cowboys understand.
    Its still very early days for carbon trading, unlike green energy technology which is deliverable but stifled by the same interests.

    PS: Don’t waste your time posting a fox link, they could be giving away hundred dollar bills and I would still not read it. I put it in the same category as religion, fiction.

  230. I haven’t been able to get a response from another Global Warming site to the question below. Can any of you whisperer’s help?
    If CO2 has gone up from 350 to 400 PPM what parts of the atmosphere of the other 999,650 PPM need to change to accommodate the increase of 50PPM of CO2?
    Does nitrogen (N2) go from 780,000PPM to 779,950PPM? or does Oxygen (O2) go from 210,000 PPM to 209,950PPM or perhaps Water Vapour or Argon go from 10,000PPM to 9,950PPM. What does the Peer Reviewed research say about these movements in the PPM of the major components of the atmosphere?
    Thanks for your help?
    CU? Treeman? Gordy? I’m putting my money on you LOVO to resolve this issue…or Ricky?.

  231. Tweed, I just replied to your comment and copied it below.

    Your previous comment at Cafe Whispers was similar:

    If CO2 goes from 350 PPM to 400 PPM what are the changes made to the other 999,650 PPM that have to be made to make room for the extra 50 CO2 PPM. We only have 1,000,000 parts to work with at any one time. … 50 more PPM of CO2, what goes out? [Tweed]

    You seem to be assuming that the mass of the atmosphere is constant, which is complete nonsense. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere doesn’t require any other gases to decrease in order to accomodate it. The atmosphere just gets slightly heavier. There’s no law of physics which forces the atmosphere to have a constant mass.

    In fact, adding CO2 to the atmosphere warms the oceans, so they evaporate more water vapor into the atmosphere. This has been confirmed by multiple measurements showing a ~4% increase in global water vapor since 1970, as predicted by fundamental thermodynamics.

  232. Dumbo.
    PPM means aaaaah PPM. There is always 1,000,000 parts and CO2 currently makes up about 350 of those parts.
    Currently O2 and N2 make up about 801,000 of those parts.Water and Argon make up about 20,000 of those parts. What I’m asking Dumbo is what happens when we add say 50 parts of CO2??
    You probably missed the nuanced point behind the question. 50 parts in 1,000,000 parts is Sweet Fuck All (SFA)
    Anyone else want to have a shot at answering the question? I don’t know the answer, but I’m sure any number of whisperers will take a punt and define it as “settled science” and explain how SFA is going to melt the Arctics by 2035 or 2350 or whatever that BS organisation IPCC quotes……….

  233. Tweed, I just replied to your comment and copied it below.

    Your previous comment at Cafe Whispers was similar

    That’s one of the modus operandi of right-wing forum trolls. When one of their ridiculous talking points is refuted, they simply raise it again in a different thread, or wait a while and post it again at a later time.

    There’s a certain troll who comes to the Cafe (though he hasn’t been spotted for a while) who has hammered a small repertoire of the same Liberal talking points for literally years on end. Though his ridiculous lines have been shown to be rubbish pointless times he just keeps wheeling them out again and again, as though each is for the first time. “Spin and Propaganda” is the name of their game.

  234. God you’re dumb Tweed you really are.

    I suggest you go away and read up on what parts per million really means or in fact part per anything means, like how many parts per water something in it is.

    As to a minute part of a million being insignificant I suggest you again go away and read up on how little parts per million it takes to kill a person with toxic substances or how SFA parts per million of some substance it takes to gas a person or animals.

  235. Back on theme…

    ‘A ‘snow bomb’ dumping up to four inches in just three hours tonight threatens further chaos in southern England as temperatures plunge to -4C.
    South and east Wales, southern England and the Midlands will see the worst of the flurries, which will fall on top of snow still frozen after several days of cold weather – although London is expected to escape more falls overnight. Road, rail and plane problems are expected for a sixth day tomorrow.

    ‘At Heathrow, 48 flights were axed by this afternoon, taking total cancellations since Friday to 1,050. Rain and sleet is turning increasingly to snow this evening, with heavy snowfall continuing overnight. Temperatures dropped to as low as -12.2C last night in eastern and southern parts of England.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266394/UK-weather-Severe-warning-issued-snow-bomb-forecast-Wales-southern-England-tonight.html#ixzz2IkkJVaDp
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  236. Reading the CO2 Science link there is this…

    ‘Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 1133 individual scientists from 652 research institutions in 46 different countries ..’

    The Klimatariat tried to eliminate the MWP, but a few real scientists objected.

  237. “The Klimatariat tried to eliminate the MWP, but a few real scientists objected.”

    Another lie el gordo.

    And can you please tell us exactly who the Klimatariat are as I can’t find any such group, or is it just another thing you have made up or someone else has made up and you have slavishly copied?

  238. OK Tweed – let me increase the arsenic in your drinking water by 50ppm and then see if you can answer your stupid fcking question 🙄

  239. “OK Tweed – let me increase the arsenic in your drinking water by 50ppm and then see if you can answer your stupid fcking question”

    The komentariat here gets less and less civil as the news gets worse…
    “SWISS banking giant UBS says the European Union’s emissions trading scheme has cost the continent’s consumers $287 billion for “almost zero impact” on cutting carbon emissions, and has warned that the EU’s carbon pricing market is on the verge of a crash next year.

    In a damning report to clients, UBS Investment Research said that had the €210bn the European ETS had cost consumers been used in a targeted approach to replace the EU’s dirtiest power plants, emissions could have been reduced by 43 per cent “instead of almost zero impact on the back of emissions trading”

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/europes-287bn-carbon-waste-ubs-report/story-fn59niix-1226203068972

  240. “I haven’t been able to get a response from another Global Warming site to the question below. Can any of you whisperer’s help?”

    A simple and reasonable question deserves better than hate filled responses…

    The composition of gases and vapours in the atmosphere is dynamic across altitude and latitude, dependant on wind, temperature, UV and IR radiation and other factors yet to be determined. The ability to measure all of the above is limited by a margin of error and it has been shown that over the last sixteen years temps have not risen more than the margin of error, ±0.40°F (0.22°C) or SFA.

    I suggest that whatever minuscule amounts of the major elements are displaced by an increase of the trace gas CO2 they will be within the margin of error for measurement of same and challenge the experts here to prove otherwise!

  241. Dumbo. PPM means aaaaah PPM. There is always 1,000,000 parts and CO2 currently makes up about 350 of those parts. [Tweed]

    CO2 hasn’t been “about 350” ppm since the 1990s. According to climate.nasa.gov, CO2 is now at 393 ppm and climbing.

    Peer-reviewed research shows that we’re increasing CO2 concentrations at least 10 times faster than during the last record, which preceded the largest mass extinction in Earth’s history.

    Currently O2 and N2 make up about 801,000 of those parts.Water and Argon make up about 20,000 of those parts. [Tweed]

    No, O2 and N2 make up about 99% of the atmosphere, or about 990,000 ppm. Argon makes up about 0.93%, or 9,300 ppm. Water vapor varies due to temperature and other factors (see references in my last comment) but generally makes up another ~0.4% of the full atmosphere, or ~4,000 ppm.

    Notice that these numbers don’t add up to 100% because water vapor depends on temperature and other factors so it’s not included in the “dry atmosphere”.

    Perhaps it’s more useful to think about the masses of various gases in the atmosphere rather than their ppm fraction of the total. Especially because that total is constantly changing.

    The mass of atmospheric oxygen is decreasing, but not to accomodate the CO2 on a ppm basis. In fact, oxygen wouldn’t be decreasing like this if the CO2 were vented from volcanos. But combustion uses up an O2 molecule from the atmosphere. So the fact that oxygen is decreasing as CO2 is increasing is one way we know that the added CO2 comes from combustion, not volcanic venting.

    I’ve briefly discussed nitrogen after asking a question at an AGU lecture about nitrogen-induced pressure broadening in the context of the greenhouse effect and the faint young sun paradox. It’s not changing enough to matter now, though.

    What I’m asking Dumbo is what happens when we add say 50 parts of CO2?? You probably missed the nuanced point behind the question. 50 parts in 1,000,000 parts is Sweet Fuck All (SFA) [Tweed]

    Your nuanced SFA point also implies that humans can’t get drunk. Please consider Admiral Titley’s analogy: the current ~393 ppm concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is similar to the concentration alcohol reaches in the blood when one starts to feel drunk.

    Anyone else want to have a shot at answering the question? I don’t know the answer, but I’m sure any number of whisperers will take a punt and define it as “settled science” and explain how SFA is going to melt the Arctics by 2035 or 2350 or whatever that BS organisation IPCC quotes… [Tweed]

    I’ve previously discussed the IPCC’s 2035/2350 mistake. The WG2 report (not WG1, the science report) accidentally transposed the numbers. It was a mistake about the Himalayas, not the Arctic.

    In reality, the Arctic sea ice is melting so quickly that the Arctic ocean could be essentially ice-free in September by 2030. This will expose the majority of the Arctic ocean to the atmosphere for the first time in hundreds of thousands of years.

    In all honesty Mig the Climate scientists are their own worst enemy. The cliques of global scientists that have sprung up in the last 30 years come out with the most outlandish claims. When cornered they come back with “… the science is settled.” It really is a case of 1- Create the conclusion of choice. 2- Hunt around for modeling that might fit your conclusion. 3- If this fails adapt the modeling to achieve 1. The dumb photos of Ice melting in the two arctics. Just to humor us who like to question “the science”, for every sunny picture of ice melting in one of the arctics, then take a picture at the same time in the other arctic. I suspect there is no sunny pic opportunity with melting ice. It is DARK and bloody freezing. IPCC and the British Met as well as sections of the Oz Met and CSIRO have been infiltrated by the career climate scientists riding on the overall good names of these iconic institutions, It happens in our iconic Universities. What we need, is when Hedley Thomas has finished with his expose of the Gillard/AWU saga, he should commence a pragmatic and wide eyed investigation of claims made by these climate loons. [Tweed]

    I study GRACE data which show accelerating ice mass loss in both Greenland and West Antarctica. As do GPS data, laser altimetry, and estimates of precipitation minus glacier discharge, etc.

    El Gordo. It is fashionable to be a climate scientist. Plenty of state funding to build a fat career on. It will eventually dawn on the taxpayers that is was BS and the climate comentariats at the Universities will close the scientists will be recycled into serious scientific research. [Tweed]

    I’m a climate scientist. I live in a one bedroom apartment without a dishwasher or central air, and park my unsightly 12 year old Nissan Sentra in the dirt behind the building. What little time I have left after research, sleeping and eating is spent defending myself against a never-ending stream of baseless accusations, and drowning out the insults with Coors Light. I don’t socialize anymore because I don’t want to spread my depression.

    A fashionable, fat career? Hardly; I’ve already burned out. If I could redo my education, I’d study anything but the climate. At this point, even foot fungus seems more interesting.

    Tweed, please stop spamming humanity with all this misinformation. It’s staining your legacy, and threatening the future of our civilization.

  242. Dumb Scientist (@Dumb_Scientist)
    January 23, 2013 @ 1:36 pm
    I wrote another response to Tweed, but it hasn’t shown up for almost half an hour. Perhaps the links tripped the spam filter.

    You certainly did and some 🙂 I suggest that whisperers read this bitchslap, its a cracker. 🙂
    http://dumbscientist.com/archives/abrupt-climate-change#comment-17739

    I’m a climate scientist. I live in a one bedroom apartment without a dishwasher or central air, and park my unsightly 12 year old Nissan Sentra in the dirt behind the building. What little time I have left after research, sleeping and eating is spent defending myself against a never-ending stream of baseless accusations, and drowning out the insults with Coors Light. I don’t socialize anymore because I don’t want to spread my depression.

    A fashionable, fat career? Hardly; I’ve already burned out. If I could redo my education, I’d study anything but the climate. At this point, even foot fungus seems more interesting.

    Tweed, please stop spamming humanity with all this misinformation. It’s staining your legacy, and threatening the future of our civilization.

  243. Try some viable sources Treeman. That’s a load of codswallop in those links and I’ve posted the source debunking that before.

    You only ever source from a very narrow handful of sites and all sites that have proven to falsify and manipulate data.

    Thus you have absolutely no credibility.

  244. Treeman can you please post your scientific credentials because at the moment you are inferring you know more than the scientists, and you do that by very selectively cherry picking little snippets of information and then challenging the whole science on it, and you also do it by referencing discredited sources who have been proven to falsify and manipulate data?

  245. Treeman can you please post your scientific credentials because at the moment you are inferring you know more than the scientists, and you do that by very selectively cherry picking little snippets of information and then challenging the whole science on it, and you also do it by referencing discredited sources who have been proven to falsify and manipulate data?

    In a nutshell, Mo.

  246. I feel that many of our illustrious visitors, protest too much, and overrate their knowledge and understanding.

    How often can one rehash the same arguments, that they put forwarded as debate.

  247. Nuts living in a shell indeed….. Migs

    Dumb Scientist, I applaud your work and dedication as I do the fine work of scientists at my university, UNSW. Never since the dark ages have scientists been so disrespected and subject to character assassination by philistines. Congratulations. 🙂

  248. “I study GRACE data which show accelerating ice mass loss in both Greenland and West Antarctica. As do GPS data, laser altimetry, and estimates of precipitation minus glacier discharge, etc.”

    Isn’t that the data which claims ice loss in East Antarctica where average temps are colder than -30°C during the summer, and never, ever get above freezing?

    Doesn’t GRACE measure gravity and not ice?

  249. Isn’t that the data which claims ice loss in East Antarctica where average temps are colder than -30°C during the summer, and never, ever get above freezing? Doesn’t GRACE measure gravity and not ice? [Treeman]

    I’ve already pointed out that Antarctica’s mass loss is mostly due to glacier calving, not melting. That thread also shows how ice mass loss is distinguished from other gravitational effects.

  250. Cannot find Klimatariat. Nearest is below,

    What are they talking about. Suspect a made up word that seems to have another meaning.

    Maybe they have a link?
    …………………………….

    Klimataria Restaurant Reviews, Athens, Greece – TripAdvisor
    http://www.tripadvisor.com.au › … › Attica › Athens › Athens Restaurants
    Rating: 4.5 – 73 reviews
    Klimataria, Athens: See 73 unbiased reviews of Klimataria, rated 4.5 of 5 on TripAdvisor and ranked #18 of 1011 restaurants in Athens.
    Klimataria, Athens – Restaurant Reviews – TripAdvisor
    http://www.tripadvisor.com › … › Greece › Attica › Athens › Athens Restaurants
    Rating: 4.5 – 75 reviews
    Klimataria, Athens: See 75 unbiased reviews of Klimataria, rated 4.5 of 5 on TripAdvisor and ranked #18 of 1011 restaurants in Athens.
    Ταβέρνα Κληματαριά
    klimataria.gr/ – Translate this page
    Ταβερνα Κληματαρια ζωντανη μουσικη, ελληνικη παραδοσιακη κουζινα, στο κεντρο της Αθήνας, greek cooking lessons, cooking lessons,Traditional Greek …
    Ο χώρος μας – Ιστορικό – Νέα – Αρχική

    ……………………………………………………

    http://www.google.com.au/search?q=klimataria&rlz=1C1YBKB_enAU506AU506&oq=klimataria&sugexp=chrome,mod=14&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

  251. “I’ve already pointed out that Antarctica’s mass loss is mostly due to glacier calving, not melting. That thread also shows how ice mass loss is distinguished from other gravitational effects.”

    I get that..but Isn’t GRACE data the data that is “sprawling and incomplete” that when “enhanced” showed that on Greenland, the annual acceleration in ice loss is much lower than previous research has suggested?

  252. Min, I have noticed there is no explanation or link. Looks more like a Greek word.

    Made up word, just like most of what they write.

    Maybe some of the quotations may be real, but the interpretation of them are fragments of their imagination.

    Graph with no explanation are supposed to mean something.

  253. Cu, the usual spelling is Climatariat.. more than likely based on the word proletariat. The K spelling appears to be an El gordo invention.

  254. And el gordo quotes a site called Online Opinion.

    Shouldn’t that title have given you a clue as to the veracity of any science presented.

    Also thanks for confirming to all of us that Treeman’s links are bunkum. Nothing proves that more than an endorsement from el gordo, the monarch of dud sources.

  255. “And el gordo quotes a site called Online Opinion.”

    That is the site I can find the word. Cannot even find a meaning or definition. Yes, I believe, a made up word from the lunatic fringe.

  256. Tweed said..”I’m putting my money on you LOVO to resolve this issue..or Ricky..” and “..and Treeman no answer to the question yet……”
    Tweed, we get a scientist in, ( waves to DS@DS, g’day mate ) to answer your Q and then you disappear…. no thanks or nothing from you since…. typical 😆
    DS, thanks for helping corral them pesky varmits that infest this Cafe from time to time. Cheers 😉

  257. Read it and Responded Ricky.
    Two issues here DS. I think I’m speaking to Dumb Scientist. The thread is getting somewhat truncated.
    Career wise my Golden Rule is…If I am not happy getting up at dawn to tear into work I realize that it is time to change jobs.
    It has served me well over a long time. It sounds like a career of Global Warming stuff is not going to be a long term life plan for you emotionally or financially. Don’t be afraid to do something you get a buzz out of.
    DS. Life is not a dress rehearsal. So ends our father son talk.
    Now. I stick to my comments that the Global Warming fraternity, scientists or wide eyed evangelist are up shit creek in a barb wire canoe.
    Too much undisciplined Global Warming BS has been vomited into the cyber world. People are not dopey. They read, digest, analyse and form an opinion. it is their democratic right. (depending in which country you vote of course) Opinion is that there is a fair degree of BS in what is packaged as “the science is in”, “the science is settled”. If it was settled we would not have these interminable blog exchanges. If the science was settled our BS Prime Minister would not be getting thrown out at the next election probably in March 2013.
    Anyhow. Has anyone come up with the answer as to what gets sacrificed for the extra 50 PPM of CO2? O2 or N2 or do they share the pain. ….. and really there is a preponderance of people who do not give a rat’s arse either way.
    As I said earlier. The Global Warmists are up Shit Creek in a barb wire canoe.
    One other thing DS. When a Global Warmist goes to either of the Arctics in WINTER, then I might take a modicum of notice of what they say.
    Haven’t been there but apparently it is DARK and FREEZING in WINTER.

  258. Tweedy, said
    Has anyone come up with the answer as to what gets sacrificed for the extra 50 PPM of CO2? O2 or N2 or do they share the pain. ….. and really there is a preponderance of people who do not give a rat’s arse either way”….. yup, says it all… no really…… Tweedles we are gunna sacrifice you…. thats right Tweedle dee …you….. your way to smart….. with to many ‘gottcha’s’….. ya gotta go…. I’m making the call now……. to late.. thats it……. 555-555-555obama/cia/greens/julia@pm

  259. You really do have NFI, do you Tweed? You seem to think you”ve got some great “gotcha” with your ppm .BS. Sorry, you got nothin’ 🙄

    Be a good boy and drink your 50ppm arsenic tea and F off and die, please.

  260. Career wise my Golden Rule is…If I am not happy getting up at dawn to tear into work I realize that it is time to change jobs. It has served me well over a long time. It sounds like a career of Global Warming stuff is not going to be a long term life plan for you emotionally or financially. Don’t be afraid to do something you get a buzz out of. [Tweed]

    Yes, I’ve long suspected that all this abuse is meant to discourage scientists from studying the climate.

    DS. Life is not a dress rehearsal. So ends our father son talk.

    Your patronizing advice would be less hypocritical if it weren’t followed by the usual references to vomited BS, barb wire canoes and shit creek.

    Anyhow. Has anyone come up with the answer as to what gets sacrificed for the extra 50 PPM of CO2? O2 or N2 or do they share the pain. … and really there is a preponderance of people who do not give a rat’s arse either way.

    Sounds like you don’t give a rat’s arse about your own question, given that I’ve already answered it.

    One other thing DS. When a Global Warmist goes to either of the Artics in WINTER, then I might take a modicum of notice of what they say. Haven’t been there but apparently it is DARK and FREEZING.

    GRACE flies over both poles every 90 minutes during all seasons. Here are GRACE timeseries of the accelerating ice mass loss in Greenland and Antarctica. Clearly, ice gained during winter is less than the ice lost during spring and summer. That disparity has grown in recent years, which is why the ice mass loss is accelerating.

  261. Like the monkey who has reached through the trap-hole and grabbed the bait of fruit, These deniers have hold of their only tragic peice of “evidence” and even though, like the monkey that won’t relinquish its’ bit of fruit and therefore escape the tragic consequences of its’ need to possess, the deniers are caught in a trap of their own making and must now draw upon even the most bizzare “evidence” and persons (eg. A. Bolt) to support their decision not to drop the bait and escape the trap with at least a little credibility intact!
    Fools!…absolute fools!

  262. the deniers are caught in a trap of their own making and must now draw upon even the most bizzare “evidence” and persons (eg. A. Bolt)

    It’s a Liberal thang.

  263. The science is settled, climate change is insensitive to CO2.

    JC do you know the true story of Noah’s Ark? Its climate related.

    Bolt has taken the CC debate and run with it, but thats not to say all those who read him are right wingers. I’m of the left and often give him CC tips.

  264. Deniers who state that the science is settled, obviously meant as a sarcastic remark indicate their ignorance of science. When youngest who is soon to complete her PhD in molecular bioscience embarked on her chosen field of research it was unknown what the end results might be. That is why it is called research:

    re·search/ˈrēˌsərCH/ Noun

    The systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions.

    When new facts present themselves, new conclusions will be drawn.

  265. Gordo, if you really believe and expect me to believe you are “of the left” with such concrete Ayn Rand-ish bullshit arguements then you really, really are demented!
    Further to draw on the “Noah’s Ark / Gilgamesh” myths for ANY sort of “evidence” merely supports my findings in my above post and with that I rest my case. I have already spent too long rambling amongst the idiots cages.

  266. You don’t have to believe I’m of the left, it makes no difference to the science.

    In regards to Noah’s Ark, the Black Sea was inundated by sea water.

  267. “When new facts present themselves, new conclusions will be drawn”

    New facts are being presented on a daily basis but the New Deniers here simply can’t accept that the science was never settled and is less settled today than it was when Gore and Pachauri suggested it was!

  268. “Climate Crimes”
    Green Policies That Are Killing Nature

    That current climate policies harm conservation in many ways is nothing new, even if many do not want to admit it. However, no one so far has compiled the evidence as strongly and on a global scale as Eichelmann. His one-hour film, which is shown in several cinemas in Germany these days and also on Austrian television, is the result of two years of work that led his team to Brazil, Turkey, Iraq and to Indonesia, but also to the model country of climate protection, Germany, where crimes against nature are especially evident.

    Eichelmann feels particularly affected by what he has found out in the course of his research; that’s because, as he says, he has been deeply involved in the fight against climate change – until he discovered some time ago “that something went wrong here “.

  269. Tweed
    January 23, 2013 @ 9:49 pm
    Read it and Responded Ricky.
    If the science was settled our BS Prime Minister would not be getting thrown out at the next election probably in March 2013.

    Anyhow. Has anyone come up with the answer as to what gets sacrificed for the extra 50 PPM of CO2? O2 or N2

    I have I will.
    1. Julia Gillard and her extremely successful government will win the election

    2. Dumb Scientist has answered your ridiculous question but you don’t like the answer

    3. He gets the “Nuance” of your question, you don’t get the Nuance of his contempt for the idiocy of politically and ideologically motivated moronic denialists pretending to be brilliant scientific analysts. (Coors light anyone? Gordo?)

    Gordo…. Noah’s Ark? FFS 🙄 my souls are completely dry.

  270. Written in 2010, this 8part series in Der Spigel might help the New Deniers get a grip on reality.

    Plagued by reports of sloppy work, falsifications and exaggerations, climate research is facing a crisis of confidence. How reliable are the predictions about global warming and its consequences? And would it really be the end of the world if temperatures rose by more than the much-quoted limit of two degrees Celsius?

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-catastrophe-a-superstorm-for-global-warming-research-a-686697.html

  271. Utter bullshit Treeman and another case of projection.

    It’s the deniers like you who never accepted the majority science and did so not out of any real knowledge on the subject, but purely out of blind closed minded ideology. The vested interest masters lobbied the right wing governments and both ran misleading campaigns against AGW to which the gormless zombie trolls like you duly repeated across the internet.

    Proof of this is that the same gormless right wing zombies take the majority science for granted and settled on every other discipline out there, it’s only climate they have railed against and only when the concerted and organised campaign by the vested interest started did they go against it.

    If Treeman even bothered to read the science and what the credited climate scientists are saying, not the weathermen and paid mouthpieces he always sources, he would quickly find out they don’t say the science is settled.

    And this hypocrisy of this is from the right wingers, who adamantly and with barely a jot of credited science say their side is settled. Read their responses and attacks, there’s no ifs buts or maybes, just absolutes they are right and all of the rest of climate science, the institutions, expertise and governments are wrong.

    The further hypocrisy on this is that they jump on every scam, deception, false information, manipulated data etc. and when proven to be false they just move onto the next as though nothing happened, yet have one small piece of untold volumes of the real climate science put a single word out of place or get it wrong in one part that doesn’t change the end result and all hell has to be paid and the entire climate science is damned and must be shut down as the deniers have proven them wrong.

  272. “t’s the deniers like you who never accepted the majority science and did so not out of any real knowledge on the subject, but purely out of blind closed minded ideology. The vested interest masters lobbied the right wing governments and both ran misleading campaigns against AGW to which the gormless zombie trolls like you duly repeated across the internet”

    Spoken like a true believer with his tail in his mouth! One who sees splinters in others eyes and ignores the logs in his own. As the going gets tough for climate charlatans and the funding dries up, they become as fervent preachers of snake oil, yelling from their shonky trailers to no-one in particular while biting themselves on the backside…Hilarious…made my day!

  273. …Proof of this is that the same gormless right wing zombies take the majority science for granted and settled on every other discipline out there, it’s only climate they have railed against and only when the concerted and organised campaign by the vested interest started did they go against it.

    Turning the situation 180 degrees for a moment… If wealthy powerful vested interests (had) decided they stand to benefit from backing climate change theory, el trollo, Treetroll and the other morons would be adamant that climate change IS occurring, no two ways about it.

    They faithfully do and say whatever the corporate overlords want them to. Unswervable in serving the interests of those who contemptuously view them as useful idiots.

  274. Written in 2010, this 8part series in Der Spigel might help the New Deniers get a grip on reality.

    Treeman, nothing you provide will ever convince us.

  275. DS, love your work, and forget the trolls, many of us here appreciate your efforts so don’t think that you are without support.
    Keep up the good work 🙂 Grin: Cheers

    Cuppa, I made a similar comment a day or so ago (sorry for the rhyme, I just can’t help myself 😀 ), but I’ve come to realise that they are so thick that they take public ridicule and humiliation as a compliment, ignoring truth fact and reason as inconvenient arguments that just need to be yelled down or talked over, because they believe, like the LNP that if you say something often enough and loud enough, then it will eventually become truth/fact. 😦

    God himself could not convince these idiots that they are wrong cos they are just not interested in the truth!

    We should feel sorry for them, but we should not engage them as in their sad little minds it gives them the relevance that they so crave. 🙄

    Sadly pathetic 😥

    Cheers 😀

  276. A reminder..

    At some point in the next few years the EU will impose general sanctions on those nations that don’t measure up to its standards on carbon control. There’ll be some fine and filthy politicking over it, of course. Economic superpowers like the US and China will either muscle up, impose their own retaliatory sanctions, or simply make life so difficult that Brussels comes to an arrangement that accommodates their raw power.

    Smaller and middle power players, however, countries like ours, they’ll get bent over the negotiating table for some rougher than usual handling. If Tony Abbott is PM at that point – and he is convinced he can ride Gillard and Brown’s carbon tax back into office – he’ll huff and he’ll puff but in the end he’ll drop trow and take it, because the pain imposed by Europe will far outweigh any pain he needs to impose via a carbon price to avoid their sanctions.

    Don’t believe it?

    Potential EU sanctions are why we have the privacy legislation we do. The Howard government, of which Abbott was a member, made wrenching changes to Australian privacy law to avoid being penalised when doing business with Europe.

    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/blogs/blunt-instrument/no-carbon-tax-europe-will-make-us-pay-instead-20110530-1fcu9.html#ixzz2IqRA5RLl

  277. I’ve just discovered this website quite by accident. I find it interesting that the author of this article hasn’t told us who he is.
    Anyhow, DumbScientist there are two problems with your logic:
    1. No one doubts that increased water vapour comes from a warming ocean, but you haven’t proved that it comes from CO2. Or to make the same point a different way, if water vapour is a greenhouse gas in that it absorbs in the IR, how much MORE an IR absorber is far more concentrated liquid water (ie the ocean)? Put a glass of water outside on a cold, sunny day and watch how quickly it heats up. Now put the same glass of water in a room with hot air, and it won’t get any warmer significantly.
    2. There’s too much water (in the ocean) and not enough air (in the atmosphere) for the latter ever to affect the former, as I’ve easily demonstrated here: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/12/diy-ocean-heating

  278. So how does Treeman respond.

    @ 10:03 am

    Just lots more guff really and no substance without addressing the contention. We didn’t expect anything else really, and even a Gillard is doomed strawman as well, a sure sign of having no cogency in the discussion.

  279. La gorda lets slip that she believes in the Noah’s Ark myth. This fat arsed girl is just another religious nutter, just like Trollman with his fantasy that there is a war on Xmas.

  280. Truth Seeker,

    Cuppa, I made a similar comment a day or so ago (sorry for the rhyme, I just can’t help myself 😀 ), but I’ve come to realise that they are so thick that they take public ridicule and humiliation as a compliment, ignoring truth fact and reason as inconvenient arguments that just need to be yelled down or talked over, because they believe, like the LNP that if you say something often enough and loud enough, then it will eventually become truth/fact. 😦

    God himself could not convince these idiots that they are wrong cos they are just not interested in the truth!

    We should feel sorry for them, but we should not engage them as in their sad little minds it gives them the relevance that they so crave. 🙄

    Sadly pathetic 😥

    Wow, that really is fucked. Glad I’m a lefty.

  281. Miglo
    January 24, 2013 @ 10:22 am
    Treeman, nothing you provide will ever convince us.

    I’m convinced he’s off his tree and about as convincing as the dirt diving Gordo, and tWeed smoker.

    BTW, Nice picture Migs, I see the trolls are all in consensus…. nuts in a shell.
    Coors Lite anybody? 🙂

  282. Anyhow, DumbScientist there are two problems with your logic: 1. No one doubts that increased water vapour comes from a warming ocean, but you haven’t proved that it comes from CO2. [Mark Imisides]

    I’ve already linked to peer-reviewed research showing that most of the warming since 1950 is very likely due to our CO2 emissions. My third comment shows results from 6 attribution studies which reach similar conclusions.

    Or to make the same point a different way, if water vapour is a greenhouse gas in that it absorbs in the IR, how much MORE an IR absorber is far more concentrated liquid water (ie the ocean)? Put a glass of water outside on a cold, sunny day and watch how quickly it heats up. Now put the same glass of water in a room with hot air, and it won’t get any warmer significantly.

    Analogies can be misleading; the ocean is not a glass of water. Increasing CO2 heats the cool skin layer over every square meter of the ocean surface. The same amount of sunlight warms the water below the skin layer, but less heat escapes up through the skin layer to the atmosphere.

    2. There’s too much water (in the ocean) and not enough air (in the atmosphere) for the latter ever to affect the former, as I’ve easily demonstrated here.

    You compared the heat capacities of the ocean and atmosphere, then calculated that the atmosphere would have to be at 4000°C to warm the ocean by 1°C if the heat came from the atmosphere. That’s completely irrelevant, because (as I’ve explained above) the heat comes from sunlight. Increasing CO2 just slows the rate at which that heat moves up, until it eventually leaves Earth at the effective radiating level.

    Your article concludes:

    Why on earth (pun intended) do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible. [Mark Imisides]

    Because there’s no significant trend in solar activity over the last 50 years as temperatures (and CO2) have both increased.

  283. “Because there’s no significant trend in solar activity over the last 50 years as temperatures (and CO2) have both increased.”

    You really are a dumb scientist aren’t you? A statement like that confirms it!

    You cherry pick fifty years for starters…

    You then link to skepticalscience and an incomplete graph showing temps vs solar activity over approximately 100 years. Problem is the solar activity line does not reflect reality and neither does the temperature line. A “depth of pragmatic knowledge” can surely do much better than that!

  284. “As the Sun enters a period of low solar activity over the next 50 years, new research has calculated the probability of unusually cold winter temperatures occurring in the UK.

    Last year, the same group of researchers, from the University of Reading, linked colder winters in Europe to low solar activity and predicted that the Sun is moving into a particularly low period of activity, meaning the UK will experience more cold winters in the future – potentially similar to those experienced in the Maunder minimum at the end of the 17th century.

    The new research, published today, Tuesday 5 July 2011, in IOP Publishing’s journal Environmental Research Letters, supports recent suggestions that sunspot activity is waning, and goes further, using the behaviour of the Sun over the last 9300 years to predict the probabilities of future solar changes. ”

    http://www.iop.org/news/11/july/page_51371.html

  285. The unsettled science…

    “it has become common knowledge for some time that the climate has recently developed differently than predicted. The warming has stalled for 15 years; the upward trend in the average global temperature has not continued since 1998 (sic). “The standstill has led to the suggestion that global warming has stopped,” NASA admit.

    “There are plenty of plausible explanations for why global warming has temporarily slowed down. However, the number of guesses also shows how inexact the climate is understood.”

    http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/stillstand-der-temperatur-erklaerungen-fuer-pause-der-klimaerwaermung-a-877941.html

  286. Min reminded us…

    “At some point in the next few years the EU will impose general sanctions on those nations that don’t measure up to its standards on carbon control. There’ll be some fine and filthy politicking over it, of course. Economic superpowers like the US and China will either muscle up, impose their own retaliatory sanctions, or simply make life so difficult that Brussels comes to an arrangement that accommodates their raw power.

    Smaller and middle power players, however, countries like ours, they’ll get bent over the negotiating table for some rougher than usual handling. If Tony Abbott is PM at that point – and he is convinced he can ride Gillard and Brown’s carbon tax back into office – he’ll huff and he’ll puff but in the end he’ll drop trow and take it, because the pain imposed by Europe will far outweigh any pain he needs to impose via a carbon price to avoid their sanctions”

    Combet was confident of a $29 a tonne carbon price in 2015/16.

    Reality is quite different.

    1. Currently the carbon price in Europe is around $4 and tanking. It’s too low to drive any shift to “green” power.

    2. Europe is too broke to get serious about cutting emissions, leaving Australia even more isolated.

    -3. Australian business, knowing carbon prices will soon fall here, have little incentive to invest now in “clean power” technologies to cut their emissions.

    4. The federal Budget is going to spring a giant leak if compensation for a tax now of $23 a tonne outstrips the money the Government will earn from a tax that will fall to … what? $4?

    Min you should take up mouse whispering!

  287. You cherry pick fifty years for starters… [Treeman]

    Baseless accusations of cherry-picking are depressingly common. I didn’t choose the timespans, the papers did. The 6 attribution studies shown in that graph had timespans between 50 and 65 years long.

    That’s because our population and electricity use per person skyrocketed between 50 and 65 years ago, so our CO2 emissions also skyrocketed. It’s also long enough to establish statistically significant climate trends. No cherry-picking here.

    Treeman quotes:

    It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: “We’re experiencing a very deep solar minimum,” says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center. “This is the quietest sun we’ve seen in almost a century,” agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. [NASA]

    Interestingly, fewer sunspots mean the Sun is dimmer than normal. But not by much compared to our CO2’s extra radiative forcing. (Here’s a prettier chart which also projects into the future.)

    Treeman quotes:

    Last year, the same group of researchers, from the University of Reading, linked colder winters in Europe to low solar activity and predicted that the Sun is moving into a particularly low period of activity, meaning the UK will experience more cold winters in the future – potentially similar to those experienced in the Maunder minimum at the end of the 17th century.

    The new research, published today, Tuesday 5 July 2011, in IOP Publishing’s journal Environmental Research Letters, supports recent suggestions that sunspot activity is waning, and goes further, using the behaviour of the Sun over the last 9300 years to predict the probabilities of future solar changes. ” [IOP]

    The key phrase is that “these results do not have any implications for global climate change…”

    If you’re actually interested in global climate change due to a (hypothetical) solar Maunder Minimum in the future, you might want to read Feulner and Rahmstorf 2010 which says that its global climate effects would be “much smaller than the warming expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the century.” Here are explanations for the general public.

    Treeman also claims that global warming stopped in 1998, which is completely wrong, just like it was wrong the last time someone regurgitated this talking point, and the time before that, etc.

    Treeman, please stop spamming humanity with all this misinformation. It’s staining your legacy and threatening the future of our civilization.

  288. I think they mean new tested facts that are produced after research, not those cherry picked out of thin air.

  289. Treeman, you should start thinking about the future instead of trying to argue points which are 10 years out of date. Guess what, the price on carbon won’t always be as low as €5 ($6.50).

  290. There has never been any single scenario, that are set in stone for how future climates will reacted to man made climate change.

    What has been said, it will be bad for the planet, as far as people are concerned.

  291. Three monkeys with their hands through the trap-hole grasping that bit of fruit and won’t let go…they make a lot of noise, but it is only an echo from somewhere else and they are still caught.
    Like the rabbit also caught in a spotlight, you can’t go away because you fear something will be revealed that will expose your cry for help!…..you know climate change is real, is happenning, will affect yourself, but you don’t want to know about it so, like the child caught red-handed will yet deny!
    Relax, chimps!…if, as you say, it ain’t gonna happen…you don’t even need to come here to argue………….do you?

  292. ‘global climate effects would be “much smaller than the warming expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the century.”

    That’s not right.

  293. Well responded DS but I will pre-empt Treeman for you.

    1. Go around the Interwebs using Google.
    2. ignore all those searches that come up for AGW and demonstrate its veracity.
    3. Though not really understanding it cherry pick those bits that seem to concord with my very limited narrow minded ideological view, and then post lots of them one after another.
    4. Put out Challenges for answers on those bits that sound good, even though I wouldn’t really have a clue as to what I’m asking and definitely wouldn’t have a clue on the response no matter how valid and credible.
    5. Totally ignore any responses, no matter how in depth or lucid and repeat 1.

    Supplemental. When challenged, project like buggery and accuse the challengees of having closed minds for not falling in behind the discredited guff I’m cherry picking.

  294. I agree, Mobius Ecko. What scares me is that roughly 1000 people in the general public lose this particular battle with Morton’s Demon for every climate scientist in the world. We’re running out of time to reduce emissions quickly enough to limit global warming to “only” 2°C.

    Obviously nothing could ever sway them, but I like to imagine that others with open minds might be reading. Frankly, I don’t know what else to do.

  295. Oh and 1 to 5 plus supplemental goes doubly for el gordo, as they just illustrated.

    el gordo has an addendum to the supplemental that goes; Throw in lots of inane single paragraph posts with no context or links to troll for a response so as to throw up more inane single paragraph posts of increasing imbecility. Repeat ad nauseam.

  296. Yes it is el gordo but the simple charts you post with no source or context inevitably never show the thousand words you infer they do.

    Same as your inane local cold weather reports really.

    Summer is coming in the region you have been posting all those weather reports on, wonder if any of the hot weather will be reported with equal multiplicity by you.

    Nah don’t be stupid Adrian, of course they won’t.

  297. You know, I could not care if they are tight or wrong. That is their problem.

    I do not have enough in depth knowledge to test what those from the right put up.

    I can only go to the established scientists and experts in the field, that analysed what they are putting forwarded.

    Every effort has found to be wanting. There is a reasonable, alternative answer to what they claim.

    Why they spend so much time and effort putting forwarded their views is beyond me. Surely saying things once or twice is enough.

    Repeating it numerous times, will not make it is anymore believable.

    Our crime seems to be, that we do not take what they say at face value, That we go to the expert, for their opinions.

    The efforts of our visitors, make for a tedious debate if that is what one can call it.

  298. Thanks Treeman.
    Just a simple bloke asking what I thought was a simple questions.
    Obviously not such a simple question. No one has been able to answer it yet.

  299. No-one’s even trying to Tweed – it’s an inane question of no consequence 🙄

    How’s your 50ppm arsenic cordial going?

  300. Mark Imisides.
    Mate. You are way too logical.
    I think if you ask for a Global Warming Grant of say $100 we might be able to solve this Global Warming controversy overnight.

  301. Treeman…getting a bit wet up your way?…weather a bit erratic?…remember..you, like us are not going anywhere..you’re going to cop it sweet along with the rest of us…but it is going to hurt you just that little bit more..and when it does, I’ll be thinking of you!

  302. Tweed, no one seems interested in answering your question. Obviously has more importance for you than others.

    I do not believe there are any rules, that state, all questions must be replied to.

  303. “Treeman…getting a bit wet up your way?…weather a bit erratic?…remember..you, like us are not going anywhere..you’re going to cop it sweet along with the rest of us…but it is going to hurt you just that little bit more..and when it does, I’ll be thinking of you!”

    jc, the sooth sayer?

  304. Tweed, no one seems interested in answering your question. Obviously has more importance for you than others.

    I do not believe there are any rules, that state, all questions must be replied to.

    Cu, I think that el gordo and Treefrog are the only people who read his comments anyway.

  305. “Tweed, no one seems interested in answering your question. Obviously has more importance for you than others”

    It was a simple question that no-one here can answer, despite a resident scientist who thinks he’s got the grail!

  306. “Cu, I think that el gordo and Treefrog are the only people who read his comments anyway.”

    How can that be when we get so much vitriol back?

  307. Now that Iain has taken a break, Scaper has moved to greener pastures, Neil is quiet and Voyager at sea the full force of truth perverter, sooth sayer, short sword, CU and chasing tail lizard have been concentrated on us…they “don’t know what else to do”

  308. On that note hasta la vista and have a great weekend. I’m for an early start to Australia Day with a few coronas and some Lamb Lamb Lamb to coin a phrase.

  309. “A simple chart is worth a thousand words”

    Is worthless when taken out of context, with no explanation.

  310. “How can that be when we get so much vitriol back?”

    Do not see much vitriol. Plenty of treating much of what is written as a joke, along with sending the writer up.

  311. tree, if you took the focus off what your self for a while, you will notice, I make comments on many sites and posts.

    You play very little part in my output.

    Do not even bother reading or replying to most of what you write.

    Not even that interested in this site or topic.

  312. Where am I off topic.

    One is not allow to challenge the reliability of the people putting forwarded information.

    Is it that only the visitors are allowed that privilege.

    Yes, you are correct, I only drop in now and then, when I feel the need for some light comedy.

    Surely not many take this post seriously.

  313. Scafetti is another quack, which is why el gordo thinks he’s great.

    “Scafetta was a speaker at the Heartland Institute’s Sixth International Conference on Climate Change.”

    Now why does the Heartland Institute continuously come up in the sources el gordo quotes. Maybe because the sources come from such a tiny handful of vested interest idealogical places.

    Scafetta obviously doesn’t know the meaning of having his data reviewed.

    “Many researchers in the field have viewed Scafetta’s claims as being incorrect, and his papers have also been debunked by scientists.

    It appears that Scafetta refused to release the code to the software he used in this study. This meant that his results could not be replicated by climate scientists.”

    Yep not hard to see why el gordo likes him, he’s another climate sham that el gord’s fallen for. Really need to stop going to WUWT for your source of enlightenment, it just rips out any credibility and always leaves you looking foolish.

  314. There is a hell of a lot of warming going on in here today, the trolls are on fire, best laugh I have had all year, Coors Lite anyone? 🙂

    Treeman
    January 24, 2013 @ 6:29 pm
    How can that be when we get so much vitriol back?

    I’m for an early start to Australia Day with a few coronas and some Lamb Lamb Lamb

    Please feel free to join Hall and don’t forget your Velcro Gumboots

    Tweed
    January 24, 2013 @ 5:39 pm
    I think if you ask for a Global Warming Grant of say $100 we might be able to solve this Global Warming controversy overnight.

    Just a simple bloke asking what I thought was a simple questions.

    I think we all agree that you are in fact simple 🙄

  315. This is Scafetta’s ‘harmonic’ theory and for once you might be right … he’s obviously a sceptic.

  316. Where Treeman goes wrong is that we who accept the science do not have to “soothsay” at all….I myself, believe the science..I accept the pictorial evidence, ergo I will presume the computer prognosis to be reasonably accurate.
    So far the science et all has not let us down..give or take small deviations that can be the usual variables in scientific prediction into the future. Climate change is here, it is now and it will become more devastating in the future.
    We have the science which backs it up.
    The deniers have no more than hope and the reasurances of one ; A. Bolt!
    If both of us were to take our statistics as a business plan to any bank and seek a loan on the strength of it…I’ll bet Balmain to a brick the deniers will miss out!
    Yet the fools will sail into the teeth of a storm on the good word of their mate ..Andrew.
    Good luck…..you won’t have it!

  317. ‘I will presume the computer prognosis to be reasonably accurate.’

    Bad call, they have been a complete failure.

  318. …… well Ricky…..attempt to answer the question?
    50 PPM Vs 999,650 PPM. go on Ricky……. break out of your comfort zone……..set yourself free….join the side of light…. reject the dark side…
    Happy Oz Day to you all.

  319. For fuck sake Tweed, you still haven’t worked out ppm yet?

    Here’s a clue for you to search. I’ve highlighted the important bit.

    —————————————————–
    ppm is an abbreviation of parts per million. ppm is a value that represents the part of a whole number in units of 1/1000000. ppm is dimensionless quantity, a ratio of 2 quantities of the same unit. For example: mg/kg.

    One ppm is equal to 1/1000000 of the whole:

    1ppm = 1/1000000 = 0.000001 = 1×10-6

    One ppm is equal to 0.0001%:

    1ppm = 0.0001%

  320. Come off your high horse el gordo, you don’t discuss the implications of anything nor debate, you troll. The moment the discussion challenges your furphies and inane one paragraph nonsense, you divert and throw up local weather from somewhere else in the globe.

  321. DS, your fond but naive hope that you’ll get a rational argument based on facts and credible evidence from the likes of Treetroll and his ilk is laudable but misplaced. You must remember you’re dealing with people who think eleventy is actually a number.

    Well, well. Treetroll swans in with “evidence” from that reliable source the infamous liar, cheat and conman, Larry Pickering. Published from his gaol cell, mayhap?

    Next thing he’ll be saying that Peter Reith can be trusted with a government phone card.

    Time for a close look at Liealot’s role in the slush fund to silence Hanson along with the fact that he lied to both the AEC and the Parliament about it. And an equally close look at the role Prissy, Brough and the rest of that company of rogues played in the Ashbygate.

    It would come as no surprise to see some juicy prosecutions arising from such inquiries.

    “It appears that Scafetta refused to release the code to the software he used in this study. This meant that his results could not be replicated by climate scientists.”

    Just the way grodo likes it, ME. Like all dingbats, a bald statement which can’t be tested is their idea of scientific rigour.

  322. Jane, Abbotts slush fund is the topic of my first poem for the new year. 😀

    “Tony Abbotts Australians for honest politics” coming to a blog near you sooooon.

    Cheers 😀 😀

  323. I really am sick of having to put up with the bullshit the debunkers keep thrusting upon us.

    Why don’t we finish up with this thread? I can only take so much crap, as can the the majority of us here.

  324. Trouble Migs, is that they will just move to other posts. Ay least we can shoo them back here. Do not believe many take it serioulsy anyway.

  325. Hi Cu. It’s just a suggestion. If you or anybody else is happy to put up with their rubbish then it’s fine by me.

    And yes, they do take it too seriously.

  326. …. I can only take so much crap …

    While I can only agree, it raises a broader question as what to do with the ‘deranged’, broadly defined. They don’t put up (logically) and yet they don’t shut up. ADHD on steriods rather than Retolin.

    The ‘freedom’ to express comes with some ‘responsibilities’. Otherwise it’s just … whatever.

    Perhaps, limiting all and every ‘contributor’ to a certain number of posts per day might encourage more rational thinking? But perhaps not. LOL.

    Don’t stand between a ‘troll’ and ‘endless postings’ of nonsense.

  327. Enjoy the weather coming your way this weekend Col. The plants should love it!

    Rabbit’s thread while you were away has served its purpose well Migs. Perhaps limiting the intellectually challenged and anyone who wishes to play with them to the AGW thread kills many birds with one stone 🙂

  328. Not So Dumb Scientist said….”Obviously nothing could ever sway them, but I like to imagine that others with open minds might be reading. Frankly, I don’t know what else to do.”…….. cobba, your turn’n tides… even in Australia….. and your message is being heard… but just on a point of order… Coors ‘light’ beer…. mate, wtf… 😆

  329. This thread attracted new people, which is a big plus.

    Apart from that, I discovered climate change is not sensitive to CO2. The profound implication of this discovery has left me speechless.

  330. Funny that Treeman parted with the notice that he was off to have a bbq with “Lamb, lamb, lamb..as they say”….I suspect THAT menu will have to be changed to “Guppie, guppie, guppie…on the fin..as they say!
    AND SForBrains. Gordo and her stupid Greenland 8 degrees warmer 130.000 yrs ago!….FFS……FFS jeesus Christ!!!??? are you a complete fwarking goose and blathering fwarking idiot!!?
    130.000 yrs ago!!??….We’re talking industrial made climate change NOW you fwarking idiot!..What can you say to these idiots??…I mean…words fail..words bloody fail!
    Go join your mate ; Treeman and bloody swim for it!

  331. I had a link up from your ABC and all the scientists agreed global warming is serious. There was the suggestion that our temperatures could rise to the same height as the Eemian because of CO2 pollution.

    All very amusing.

    JC … homo sapiens were on the planet 130,000 years ago and survived the ice age to follow, you clearly have no appreciation of this model’s qualities.

  332. I am not replying to gordo..she is an imbecile…an absolute, primordal, barbaric, cretonious, sfb. d!ckweed idiot!!!….I’ll bet..I’ll just bet she has a plug-in device that, like the old joke, instructs her to : “breathe in..breathe out!”

  333. You know, I’ve just worked it out..These deniers don’t think in a human rational or logical way…they are like an animal ; they reason and think in an INSTICTIVE way!…I mean it…you think about their irrational stubboness…it is like trying to urge a dumb ox through a gate it doesn’t trust to go through..even though there is pasture on the other side!

  334. I am not replying to gordo..she is an imbecile…an absolute, primordal, barbaric, cretonious, sfb. d!ckweed idiot!!!…

    Good idea. Just mock them. Don’t include them, talk about them in the third person. Don’t respond, just explain for other readers the trolls’ motives and stupidity.

  335. Thanks for your support Migs. I must admit to being trolled myself by them: my anger is evidence that they are ‘succeeding’ at their trolling. So I’m going to cool down and will treat them with the contempt and derision they deserve.

  336. Miglo @ 10:58 pm

    Close it Migs and put AGW back into it’s dedicated thread. At least in one place it’s much easier to ignore them.

    Enough el gordo polluting this topic with their string of inane one paragraph posts purely to troll. Put them back into the AGW thread where that stupidity and trolling can go on to their hearts content.

  337. ‘just explain for other readers the trolls’ motives’

    Speaking for the Denialati, we believe serious global cooling is just around the corner.

    We could just sit on our backsides and say nothing, but feel that would be irresponsible in the extreme.

  338. … …..and just to wrap up for the weekend.
    Did any of the whisperers decide which of the atmosphere’s component(s) PPM was going to decrease and by how much when CO2 increases by 50 PPM (in a hundred years)?
    I reckon it will be in the Oxygen component of the atmosphere, C2.
    Plants sucking in the extra 50 PPM of CO2 and pushing out an extra 50 PPM of O2? So my best punt is O2 will go from 209,500 PPM to 209,450 PPM.
    …….. terrifying scenario …..apparently.

  339. Gordy.
    We can simply burn more fossil fuels if we a approaching a dangerous cooling period. What do you think of this solution?

    …I am definately signing off for the weekend. I am having way too much fun with the whisperers and have to get some work done before COB today…

  340. What do you think of this solution?

    As climate change is not sensitive to CO2 it makes little difference in terms of temperatures, but hopefully there will be better agricultural growth during this mini ice age because of it.

  341. @Migs

    Why don’t we finish up with this thread? I can only take so much crap, as can the the majority of us here.

    Close the thread, restrict the trolls to the AGW thread, or to their own “personalised” threads – either way, you’re not “censoring” the idiots, and any who wish to can still attempt to “engage” with their fantasies, recycled lies and hypocrisy.

    The bonus being that we generally would be able to discuss matters in the absence of irrelevant trolling, lies and malice, none of which add “value” to a conversation.

    Retaining perhaps, a Killfile script as an”ultimate” sanction? 😈

  342. I’ll close this thread.

    It becomes as waste of space when we have people like el gordo screaming that the planet has been cooling for 16 years, only to follow up with:

    we believe serious global cooling is just around the corner.

    It sort of indicates that she has been doing nothing but, well, bullshit.

Comments are closed.