This has been my point all along. While others maintain that snow, in Sydney, in the summertime will end this religion, I have said nay. I have said that only targeted sackings in the public sector will bring this tawdry episode to a close. Since only sackings constitute an attack on the institutional power of the traitors.

The sackings have to be of a 360 degrees nature around any suspect. The sackings have to be arbitrary and blunt enough, such that no-one will want anything to do with these quislings, so that they cannot form impromptu coalitions. Its important that people be sacked, not for the job they have done, but for who they are. “We sack you for who you are, not for what you’ve done.”

If anyone thinks this is unfair or unethical, it must be remembered that no-one has the right to a public tit job in the first place. This is something that public servants ought to be reminded of around the clock. The spirit of Andrew Jackson lives and his example (vis-a-vis the public service) is what is needed right now.

Q.E.D.

Phrases like “The science is settled”, todays Garnaut statement “the issue is moving from science to politics” (ha ha its never been a science topic), and “there’s consensus on the science” - are all distributed nonsense. I havent heard the MSM in Australia cover one decent scientific debate on this subject. As you well know the real science will win out in the end and sceptics will have their day - probably sooner than many including you would like to think.

There is only one question to ask - what is the scientific evidence that demostrates that man-made Carbon Dioxide contributes to dangerous global warming - Ive looked hard and can find none. I challenge you and all your readers to table some.

It was at about this time I came to believe that his idiocy was probably terminal.

They may have to come to the conclusion that they really are not that bright. That so many people could be taken in so easily ought to have folks taking a long hard look at themselves.

Its not that hard. We were almost at the part where we could say that since absorption and scattering were responsible for much less than the total of the 30 degrees anomaly, it followed that this jive about a doubling leading to one degrees increase was a large overestimate. If you lack the patience to get that far the subject simply is not for you.

Anyone not drawing attention to the fraudulent nature of the science is usually getting in the way.

Its not that hard. We were almost at the part where we could say that since absorption and scattering were responsible for much less than the total of the 30 degrees anomaly, it followed that this jive about a doubling leading to one degrees increase was a large overestimate. If you lack the patience to get that far the subject simply is not for you.

Anyone not drawing attention to the fraudulent nature of the science is usually getting in the way.

What a disgrace you are. You call for the suspension of our democratic rights and then want to set the police and federal intel agencies against fellow citizens you oppose.

I’m appalled I have to share the same planet and the air we breather with someone like you.

You disgust me.

Now I’ve used that A-word “authority” so before I thank you for the discussion and withdraw, I’m going to suggest that there’s a valid way and an invalid way to use “argument from authority”. That is, there’s an inductive and a deductive form.

First the deductive form. “Professor such-and-such says it’s true and she’s got more qualifications than you’ve got books on your shelf.” Or even worse, “Journalist such-and-such used to be an unbeliever but he checked it out for 20 years and now he believes.” In both cases we probably wouldn’t even be hearing from the person if they didn’t believe what they believe, so it’s a moot argument.

Second, the inductive form. Induction, for those who don’t know, is the principle of agreeing to accept a certain test before you know what the result will be. For example:
- I’m going to do an experiment, and I’ll publish the results one way or the other.
- I’m going to do a metastudy and I have to ensure I neither give excess weight to one school of thought, nor try to find an even split in consensus which doesn’t really exist.
- I lack the qualifications or the resources to do this inquiry, but I’ve always trusted what the Royal Society says so I’m waiting for a statement from them.

The inductive form is valid (even though it doesn’t actually prove anything); the deductive form is not valid.

Anyway, it has been interesting but I really do leave the scientific reasoning to others, on whom I confer varying degrees of trust. That means sometimes I’ll misplace that trust. But I consider that to be the price of defending rationality in a whole range of fields such as political science and economics.

I’m glad you’re there to keep holding Clive Hamilton to account for his “burn the village in order to save it” dogma. Nothing is worth signing up for his way of persecuting heretics.

Bob Brown’s economics are ridiculous. He thinks consumers are not responsible for the pollution that they outsource to business, and he thinks he can practically insulate those consumers from a penalty he puts on the big end of town. Both of these ideas are absurd but we’re going to be doing it his way. Roll up, roll up, and get your Bob Brown Diploma in Economics! No knowledge required, just self-righteousness and complete denial of your own responsibility.

And yes I did say that Senator Conroy behaves in Senate in a way we wouldn’t let a dog behave. The Senate is the body we most rely on for reason and enlightenment in Australian government, although some people think it’s just a way to get also-ran parties in the back door. Someone like Nick Xenophon exemplifies the way a Senator should behave, whether or not you agree with his politics. But Senator Conroy makes an utter mockery of the very fabric of our government with performances like this (( abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s781672.htm )). Whatever decisions he makes that I may disagree with, that’s a matter for the whole body democratic to review, and I may find myself outvoted and have to accept it, but to degrade that political process the way he does by behaving in a way we would not tolerate from a dog, deserves the contempt I expressed for his behaviour.

But you’re the one who tried to hang the culpability for anonymous death threats on me and another poster, just because you don’t know how else to answer whatever you think it is we’re saying. Such tactics put you at the second bottom rung of the ladder, just one rung above whoever did make the threats. How is the stench down there?

I haven’t forgotten any of that stuff knuckle-dragger.

“Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for some 36,300 million metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2008 [Le Quéré et al., 2009], release at least a hundred times more CO2 annually than all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2010).”

This is the lie that Tony Jones and Monbiot used to set Ian Plimer up with. Its the most transparent lie in all of climate science. The second most brazen lie is the idea that water vapor is only responsible for half the absorption-scattering (ie greenhouse) effect , all-up.

well it’s both really. Superbird.

Mr Bird says he’s deflated Hamilton.

If only.

Like Flannery, Garnault and the other intellectual carpetbaggers, Savonarola still rules the MSM (including Crikey).

The voters are deserting the cult, but its institutional power remains- strengthened by the nature of the opposition: the hard Right, tabloid shockjocks etc. The institutions (ABC, Fairfax etc) know they must be right when they look at their ugly enemies. Like you Superbird.

Noise from the Right is just that to the Climate Cult Progressives. Progressives have to be weaned off the cult or the juggernaut will roll on.

Why do you suck up to Crikey? It relentlessly provides space for the Cult and never, ever allows a critical article to appear. I note that everything I say on Crikey is censored, but you aren’t.

Crikey purports to be “fearless”, “independent”, “feisty”, “irreverent”…but runs a very tight editorial line. On “climate” it is downright authoritarian, and that bias infects every topic- because the cult affects nearly everything.

Hmmm. In and out will work with a furious tendency towards equalization, since Stefan Boltzmanns law is one of the few verifiable realities that work to the fourth power. Like if a “black body” is twice as hot as another black body in Kelvin the first black body will radiate 16 times more strongly. If four times the difference the radiation will be at a factor of 256. Hence there is never this heat hidden in the system.

Let me give you an example. There can never be a runaway greenhouse effect. Like an upward spiral to Venus. But one could easily conceive of a runaway pressure-heat effect. And if you had that, you would not be waiting for hidden joules to manifest themselves. There is no hiding the extra joules. SB’s law will make sure a new higher equilibrium is revealed quick smart.

So this deal that Hansen has on the fly where we are accumulating secret joules at .25 watts per second per metre …. or some nonsense like that …. thats all jive-ass talk. The only hidden joules that you could have would be deep in the ocean or something. With an ocean conveyer that takes 1600 years for a round trip and moves forward like toothpaste.

Frank Frank Frank Frank Frank (said five ways) You have no idea what you are talking about. I ended the Clive juggernaut. He’s never been the same. It may be hard for the layman to pin the tail on the donkey here, but Clive has lost … SOMETHING .. since I laid out some home truthzzzzzzzz his way.

Clive was everywhere ( everywhere, everywhere. He was everywhere). And now he barely gets out of the house. Its a basic scientific fact of nature that the effluent of any organism is toxic and debilitating to that same organism. And Clive had been spraying the Australian people from every orifice for a very long time prior.

What successes have you had Frank? ……… at restraining the Stalinists, globalists, and the more presumptuous dreamers, that dog our every step?

You-tell-me I-don’t-know. Maybe you are smiting the commie-bankster alliance, and if we had but three Franks, the fight would be all but over. Show me your successes. Show me your successes and I shall adopt your methods. I’ll do anything that works. Clive wants Australians to have more expensive energy, and for their energy to be rationed by global taxeaters. I want Australians to have cheap energy and to produce, consume, and export, more energy per capita than any other country. Thats two different visions of Australia.

Ultimately what I’m after is pretty simple:

I win.

Clive loses.

So you tell me what works and I’ll take all your advice on board.

Clive started this thread as a continuation of his efforts; primarily to rewrite and invert history. Secondarily, he’s go this Quixotic deal going where he wants to get people (who disagree with him) placed under surveillance. Utopian schemers are quixotic but they are not necessarily ill-advised. Clive surely sees dark clouds on the horizon and thats why he’s putting the hard yards in now. Placing patriotic types under watch, may seem laughable presently. But it won’t necessarily appear so implausible under a hard rain.

Apart from these two goals, which Clive had formerly been pursuing like rolling thunder, ………. Clive also wanted to get back his lost nerve, by associating me with some of the punters who have blown a fuse, at that nice old fellow Windsor.

Look it would be fantastic if Windsor went against his new alliance and brought this carbon trial of tears to an end. But only people under real stress, and fear for their future, are going to lose their composure, to that extent, at a chummy old guy like Windsor. Windsor is not trained to see through the lies of the ruling class rorters, and public servant crusaders, that are running this scam.

I never got angry with James Lovelock when he was on the wrong side of the issue. I called him a crank at first, but then I checked him out, and realized that I was bad-mouthing an exemplary scientist. So I retracted profusely, hypothesizing that James’ younger colleagues had misled him.

Whole towns face being closed down over the carbon-attack, and the entire nation will be entering endless stagnation, until we can rid ourselves of this menace AND THE THREAT OF this menace. So clearly what happened is a few people popped an artery and wrongly took it out on that nice fellow Windsor. And lets be serious. Thats ALL that happened. Any threats need to be checked out. But its Crikey and we are allowed to be honest:

I’m sure ASIO, the Feds, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, have been stood down by now.

But when it comes to people like Clive: Thats ill-will. Thats scheming. Thats rewriting history. Thats spitting on the men and women who have suffered for their science …… spitting by way of Clive turning a true persecution story on its head. If the ABC is pushing his type at us, day after day, I’ve got a problem with Clive. I’ve got a problem with Clive stalling on the evidence.

So Frank. You think my methods don’t work?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Well you see they used to talk about “bad hair days” didn’t they? Yes they did. You may not remember but it was bad hair day this and bad hair day that, and I’m having a bad hair day and so is he she and the gay guys cat as well.

Have you seen Clives head lately? Have you seen it Frank? Its nothing that the camera will necessarily always capture. Have you seen it?

When you see him now, since I had that talk to him. Since I had that talk to him. Since I threw down the gauntlet. Since I presented that request …… well there’s always been something different about him.

He gets in front of the mirror ……

And he can wipe it with alcohol.
He can rub moisturizer into it.
He can use wood polish, metal polish …
He can even get his special friends to spit on it ….

But that head is never going to be right for a very very long long time.

You haven’t in this thread, just played the amiable professor, ‘accidentally’ offtopic i’m sure. So i guess i should not draw direct link between you and the people threatening our MPs and scientists (real ones, not ones being played online), and i retract that link in your case. But i’d advise you to be careful of the company you keep.

And your thinly veiled violence is apparent in one of your (dozen off-topic) posts in this thread: “I hope all the sociopaths, proto-simians, rabies-sufferers, and sundry other email writers out there whose mothers accidentally took home the afterbirth instead of the baby, can get the point that criticism is far more expressive without the violent overtones.” (irony accidental, i think). That was right after you compared Senator Steven Conroy to a dog that needed to be put down (2 March 2011 at 4:58 pm).

Don’t dish it out, then whine when someone sends it back your way.

I know its only science.

But I like it.

Would you like to retract that you anonymous spineless insect?

I’ve never heard of a trap-door effect. I’ve never spoken of a trap-door effect. It sounds fantastically exciting. English is the language of science and I’m not the least bit worried about getting technical phrases right. I am interested in expressing myself clearly and logically, and particularly where it comes to base assumptions. Base assumptions at the bottom of the inverted pyramid of logic. Or better still the inverted pyramid of HUMAN REASONING.

I’m not the least bit worried about getting technical phrases right, because English is the TRUE language of science. But I swear I cannot for the life of me think of any part of the multi-disciplinary problem of climate science wherein I could rightly apply the phrase “the trapdoor effect” as much as I would like to.

Presumably on the science thread, courtesy of Aus Academy of Science, they’ll want to argue about .. Al Gore? Denialists are masters of evasion and irresponsibility.