Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

Federal

Mar 2, 2011

Windsor receives death threats as climate of hate ramps up

Death threats received by Tony Windsor reveal that the debate over a carbon tax is not really about economic efficiency or policy effectiveness, or even about party politics.

Share

Death threats received by Tony Windsor reveal that the debate over a carbon tax is not really about economic efficiency or policy effectiveness, or even about party politics. It’s about the way responses to climate change threaten the worldview and cultural identity of some groups in the community.

Here, as in the United States, rejecting climate science and resisting greenhouse policies have become lore in the resurgent movement of right-wing populism whose dominant sentiment is anger.

After calling him a “f***ing dog”, Tony Windsor’s anonymous caller said “I hope you die you bastard”, a level of aggression way out of proportion to the possibility of a small rise in energy prices.

Last year I wrote a series of articles describing how Australia’s most distinguished climate scientists have become the target of a new form of cyber-bullying aimed at driving them out of the public debate.

Each time they enter the public domain through a newspaper article or radio interview these scientists are immediately subjected to a torrent of aggressive, abusive and, at times, threatening emails. Apart from the volume and viciousness of the emails, the campaign has two features — it is mostly anonymous and it appears to be orchestrated.

The exposé of cyber-bullying was picked up in the United States. In journals like Scientific American many more stories of intimidation emerged. Stephen Schneider, an eminent climatologist at Stanford University who died a few months ago, said he had received hundreds of threatening emails. Exasperated he asked: “What do I do? Learn to shoot a magnum? Wear a bullet-proof jacket?”

Schneider said he had observed an “immediate, noticeable rise” in emails whenever climate scientists were attacked by prominent right-wing commentators. Most of those commentators are employed by Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News.

The violence of the language is disturbing and designed to intimidate scientists into silence. I have spoken to Australian climate scientists who have upgraded their home security in response to the threats, and a number have taken the more serious ones to the police. Some parliamentarians, including Windsor, have also felt compelled to refer death threats to the AFP.

Tony Windsor believes the hate campaign directed against him is being orchestrated. The timing and content indicate that the cyber-bullying, as well as the phone calls to parliamentarians and the comment sections of websites, are being coordinated by one or more climate denier organisations.

Whether uttered from the Opposition benches, on talk radio or in anonymous emails and phone messages, the violence of the language of those opposed to a carbon price reflects a deep cultural divide.

In his prophecies of national ruin and calls for a “people’s revolt”, Tony Abbott has adopted a level of demagoguery rarely seen in Australian politics. And this kind of belligerent rhetoric simply serves to feed the abuse and threats being rained down on climate scientists, campaigners and parliamentarians.

The only parliamentary leader in the world to agree to meet Lord Monckton, Abbott sent a signal to the Australian public that Monckton’s half-crazed theories about a plot by communists and Nazis to impose world government should be taken seriously.

When Nick Minchin and fellow deniers say that climate change science is a conspiracy by ex-communists to pursue their goal of wrecking Western civilisation and imposing world government, sensible people scoff. But there are plenty of people out there who believe it. Convinced by high profile commentators like Janet Albrechtsen and Andrew Bolt that a secretive elite of scientists, politicians and activists are conspiring to destroy their way of life, some aggressive men have violent thoughts.

One young, female climate campaigner received this email:

“Did you want to offer your children to be brutally gang-r-ped and then horribly tortured before being reminded of their parents socialist beliefs and actions?

“Burn in hell. Or in the main street, when the Australian public finally lynchs you.”

As an author I am targeted too. A couple of months ago I opened my email to read this from someone calling himself “Graeme Bird”:

“Let’s have that evidence then you Stalinist c**t. Either come up with the evidence or admit publicly that you are a fraud and kill yourself. What a complete c**t you are.”

Journalists sometimes trivialise these threats as part of the cut and thrust of politics. But they soon change their tune when they become the targets. Last year I spoke off the record to a number of journalists who had been seriously spooked by the torrent of abuse and threats in response to their reporting on climate change.

It may be only a matter of time before the rage being stoked persuades an unbalanced individual to take the step from violent words in anonymous emails to spilling real blood. If Australia’s security services are not closely monitoring the activities of denialist activists then they are failing in their responsibilities.

Let us hope that in Australia we never hear a police superintendent repeat the words of County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik after US congresswoman Giffords was shot: “The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous.”

*Clive Hamilton is the author of Requiem for a Species: Why we resist the truth about climate change (Allen & Unwin 2010).

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

170 comments

Leave a comment

170 thoughts on “Windsor receives death threats as climate of hate ramps up

  1. Tomboy

    One Nation comes from Queensland. Clive Palmer comes from Queensland.

  2. Mr Squid

    The LNP is all over the place.

  3. Jim Reiher

    When thinking and caring politicians like Windsor, – a man prepared to make hard and unpopular decisions for the greater good of his electorate and his country – get death threats… it makes me deeply concerned for this country.

    To be a safe leader, I guess you have to shut up, keep things going exactly as they are, never question anything, allow those with money and power to keep doing everything they want to do to maintain their privileges, and keep saying “how high?” whenever Mr Murdock says “jump”. To stay a safe leader, I assume a person has to be a mindless puppet who lets the unelected power brokers behind the scenes tell you how to behave and what to vote for.

    If some idiot really did kill someone over all this, could fools like Mr Abbott be in any way held accountable? Inspiring hatred and violence? … I guess not. To hard to prove a direct connection. And the ridiculous thing is that Mr Abbott would be first in line to condemn the violence, phoney that he is.

  4. wilful

    Graeme Bird is a reasonably well known loon across the ozblogosphere – he gets banned many places – I think the only place he’s still tolerated is Catalepsy. I believe he has a genuine mental illness so ought to be treated with pity rather than anything else.

  5. mekongmelody

    Clive, greetings from Hue. As you may know I worked with traditional fishermen in Indonesia in 2002. Even then they were talking about how the climate had changed. Their old ways of reading the weather for signs that hey could go to sea in relative safety were no longer reliable. I did a survey of Lao a few weeks ago for a report for the Asian Media Forum, on media and climate change and 100% of the respondents ranging from farmers to soldiers and traders agreed that climate change is a serious issue and the changes well upon us. This week in Vietnam I have heard park rangers, foresters and planners talk about climate change adaptation. Bangkok and Ho Chi Minh city are making arrangements to relocate or at least ramp up protection from saltwater incursions into the city’s substrata.
    So what is it about the so called developed world that persist in this witchcraft? I agree that the media are reprehensible. Compared to Asia, Australian media is largely content free and lacks analysis… but how has Australia become a nation of deniers, (of racism, of indigenous and refugee rights) of climate change. How much are the coal and other self interested parties prepared to go to fund or in other ways support this neanderthal behaviour?

  6. Sir Lunchalot

    Watched Foreign Correspondant on ABC1 last night and the ease of getting guns in Arizona. I dont think we are at that stage, or even close. So calm down.

    Windsor and Oakeshott have chartered their course and they will have to defend themselves come the next election with their electorates. Judgement Day.

  7. nsaberle

    Great article, Clive.

    The anger of people who are unwilling to accept what climate experts say is a poor indictment on our society. We should be above that but, sadly, we are not.

    A recent article in the journal “Psychological Science” (Feinberg & Willer) points out that “the potentially dire consequences of global warming threatens deeply held beliefs that the world is just, orderly, and stable”. Ironically, it is presumably those with these beliefs of justice, order and stability who are exhibiting traits entirely inconsistent with those values.

    How to curb this violent rhetoric, then? Has the US learned any lessons in the wake of the Arizona shootings? And if it has, is it a lesson well learned, or just a temporary cease-fire while the no-mans-land is cleared?

  8. Mark Duffett

    But Clive, didn’t you only last week say yourself that conservatives see environmentalism, particularly in the context of climate change, as “a profound threat to the structure of the world they are committed to”? What’s more, you also said they were pretty much right on that score.

    So you can hardly act surprised when some of those people see “the possibility of a small rise in energy prices” as the first steps towards the end of the world as they know it, and react accordingly.

  9. Frank Campbell

    “I have spoken to Australian climate scientists who have upgraded their home security in response to the threats, and a number have taken the more serious ones to the police.”

    All email abuse/threats, right?

    In my region alone, the climate cult is responsible for real attacks and real arson. Verbal abuse and threats are common. Whole towns live in fear, fear of both individual nutters and corporate thuggery.

    A disability pensioner was beaten up for demonstrating (alone) on the side of the highway at Waubra, a town ruined socially and economically by the climate cult. He was then harrassed by a group of company thugs. The original attacker said he was going to shoot the victim. The second such threat in a fortnight. Police offered to charge the thug, but the victim was too scared to proceed.

    A Western District farmer had three hay sheds burned down in one night- for opposing industrial wind. A million dollars damage.

    The climate cult imposes real economic and social damage. The victims have no redress. Their plight is never mentioned on sites like Crikey.

    Hamilton failed to get elected in Higgins despite a tsunami of hubris. The Greens (my former party) have reached their electoral high-water mark, and the ALP was humiliated at the polls. The Greens could manage only one Reps seat competing against two discredited parties. So expect more hypocrisy like this piece from Savonarola Hamilton.

    Having no mandate whatever for a “carbon tax”, the Brown-led government is imposing one. Economic and social damage will intensify. Expect the cult to deliver government to the hard Right for a decade.

  10. Elan

    “Windsor and Oakeshott have chartered their course and they will have to defend themselves come the next election with their electorates. Judgement Day.”

    Et too Brutikins??

    Judgment Day? Lighten up poppet.

    What a pug ugly bunch these twisted haters are. They’ve been beaten senseless with the hatred stick to the point where they don’t spew bile. They are bile.

  11. Mark Duffett

    I hasten to add (having just experience premature submission) that I do not condone death threats in any circumstances (though I don’t read “I hope you die you bastard” as a death threat).

    And yes, I’ve been on the receiving end of similar missives from Graeme Bird too, so I think it’s a very big club that Clive’s joined.

  12. Lisa

    Excellent piece, Hamilton.

  13. Frank Campbell

    @ MekongM:
    “but how has Australia become a nation of deniers, (of racism, of indigenous and refugee rights) of climate change. How much are the coal and other self interested parties prepared to go to fund or in other ways support this neanderthal behaviour?”

    This is why you are losing- and empowering Neanderthals like Fr. Simian. You patronisingly assume that those who resist the climate cult are Rightwing troglodytes. Some on the green/left are speaking out against the shambolic mess the cult has dumped us in, but you are mainly alienating the voters. People aren’t fools. AGW belief has been declining in the polls since 2006. More to the point, the foolish predictions (eg Flannery, no water by 2009…desal for Brisbane) , hysteria (95% of the world’s popluation dead by 2050- Kevin Anderson) and sheer policy incompetence (you know the Rudd-Gillard list) have all undermined credibility of the AGW hypothesis.

  14. freecountry

    Under s 474.15 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code ( see comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2010C00842/Html/Text#_Toc280782338 ) it is an offence to use a “carriage service” to make a threat to kill someone (imprisonment 10 years), or a threat to cause or contribute to serious harm to someone (imprisonment 7 years). Intent to cause fear is a necessary part of the proof; actually causing fear is not. A “carriage service” includes telephone, email or SMS messaging.

    Personally I think for the sake of the public dialogue, all journalists and politicians should endeavour, as much as time permits, to report all cases to the police, to provide all available evidence, and to appear in court as a witness if possible. You should make the same effort to report attempted intimidation as you would make if you learned of the attempted blackmail or bribery of a politician.

  15. CHRISTOPHER DUNNE

    When even the ABC gives the likes of Piers Ackerman (as they did on QandA this week) a public platform to make his ignorant opinions available as some sort of legitimate position, you know that Australia is a long way from a really informed debate about climate change. And this concerted propaganda campaign of disinformation by the right flows all the way to the Neanderthal swaggering Abbott, giving him cover for his belligerent calls of a “people’s revolt” and other inanities.

    The really nasty stuff that Clive’s talking about is the bogan bottom of the barrel audience of shock jocks and their ilk, but the broader public too has clearly been deceived by the relentless anti-warming campaign.

    Hopefully the public will get tired of Abbott’s negativity and aggressiveness, so maybe then we can start an adult discussion about how to correct the monumental market failure of not pricing carbon dioxide emissions.

  16. craigb

    I have to agree with you Mark, hoping someone dies is not a threat. Tony Windsor sounds like more hot air, just like his mate Oakeshott.

  17. Philostrate

    Congratulations Clive – nailed it once again! Re Wilful’s comment about mentally ill correspondents – the guy who shot Giffords was mentally ill for quite a while – but something pushed him over the edge into extreme violence. Was it the inflamed, vile language that has been the staple of Fox News and some twisted Republicans? And could that same extremist, dehumanising language push abusive Australian correspondents over the edge?

    Tony Abbott’s role in the ramping up of extreme language is deplorable. If the Liberal Party had any soul left he would be long gone. (And as a Catholic myself, I am deeply saddened and appalled that this man can continue to shamelessly break almost every ethical code in the book if he sees a vote in it …)

  18. Mark Duffett

    But Clive, didn’t you only last week say yourself that conservatives see environmentalism, particularly in the context of climate change, as “a profound threat to the structure of the world they are committed to”? What’s more, you also said they were pretty much right on that score.

    So you can hardly act surprised when some of those people see “the possibility of a small rise in energy prices” as the first steps towards the end of the world as they know it, and react accordingly.

    (sick of waiting for Crikey moderation, so reposting without the link that triggered it)

  19. MLF

    Yes, many thanks for this good piece. And much respect to Tony Windsor for, amongst many other things, speaking out rationally and calmly.

    Nice post too, Free.

    I asked Crikey whether they were going to do anything concrete about Andrew Bolt’s bit last week where he suggested allowing more people from a Muslim background into the country was putting them in mortal danger. No reply.

    This is obviously not the only issue in the public arena that is divisive. We should all try to lead by example – getting hepped up and counter-attacking achieves nothing.

  20. Son of foro

    Why don’t moderate Christians stand up and speak out against the extremist elements in their communities? Until they do I can only assume that they all think the same thing.

  21. Mort

    The coordination of some of these attacks and the comment spamming of many online articles does make you wonder if there is an organised lobby business targeting Australian media. Particularly from the US that aims destabilised Australia’s efforts to reduce our carbon footprint. No doubt there are some very wealthy vested interests that want to keep Australia as their own private cheap coal pit.

    But there are plenty of sad home grown nutters who spend there life cutting and pasting Republican drivel. Drongos happy to be the mindless minions. Why the frick they idolise the Taliban/ Republicans is anyone’s guess. If the hate our country that much – well, there is plenty of cheap housing the State’s.

  22. freecountry

    That said, a large number of more mature and reasonable people have indicated angrily that they will not vote for him again or that they wish he were not in Parliament. And they have a point. Windsor represented himself as the voice of reason and moderation. He now promotes arguments straight out of the Bob Brown School of Economics, claiming that carbon pricing will create thousands upon thousands of jobs for Australians. (( climateinstitute.org.au/media-contacts/media-releases/789-pricing-pollution-and-clean-energy-policies-unlock-door-to-regional-australias-clean-energy-jobs-potential?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed ))

    The argument is completely specious and irresponsible. By all means, Mr Windsor, promote climate reform for the right reasons, but promote it for the right reasons. Don’t try to justify it using a deceptive implication that it’s a net wealth boom like discovering gold, or the deception will backfire electorally and give ammunition to those who oppose the reform.

    “Creating jobs” is just another expression for “costing money”, and of course that’s money that would otherwise be spent on even more jobs following natural supply and demand. Otherwise you may as well use the “creating jobs” argument to justify bloat in the public service, or making war on other countries, or anything else that costs billions and diverts labour away from more productive activity.

  23. shepherdmarilyn

    One Nation orchestrated the hate campaign against refugees coming to the Adelaide Hills, the repugnant Toben was their leader and he lives 40 miles from the hills anyway.

    The way morons carry on about wanting to keep sucking up poison when they can have clean air is absurd but the media stoke it along like they are the cheersquad for gladiators in the ring.

  24. LisaCrago

    Windsor has not said he will vote for the Carbon Tax.
    Clive Did YOU or anyone else listen to his interview on radio national this morning?
    If so you would see what waffle this story is to connect it to Windsor.
    Tony made a very unpopular decision to side with the Gillard gov last year and has been under constant fire since.
    As a primary producer and member of the NSW farmers association the people of New England have made their voices heard loud and clear that they want either a National party MP or a REAL Independent.
    There is no evidence that this weeks threats are any different to the many months of similar that he and his electorate office have been subjected to since joining in coalition with an ALP/Green government.
    on another point
    It is the AGW advocates who have framed the debate as an Us or Them; Believer or Denier; blah blah blah….
    This verges on religious schism and when people are whipped up into a frenzy sensible political debate and scientific questioning is impossible.

  25. MLF

    And just to add. I consider myself to be an intelligent, interested, well-read (not on everything obviously) person who values the environment and believes in sustainability.

    But when it comes to this issue I am totally confounded. I read both sets of arguments and I am stupefied. It is not easy in this age to sort real from propaganda.

    So I resent the accusations that if you don’t agree with the opinion of the day – you are a fool and either a conservative or a tree-hugger (depending on the subject).

  26. Lorry

    At no time was Windsor threatened – the called wished him DEATH (I hope you die you B-stard) not I am going to kill you – COMPREHENSION PLEASE.

  27. rubiginosa

    Interesting the numbers of comments published today by The Australian in support of threats of violence.

  28. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    MLF – it is much easier than supposed to sort out fact from fiction – just visit http://www.skepticalscience.com.

  29. Jim Reiher

    Lisacrago: how do you define a “real” independent? Someone who just sides with conservatives because he is one? Does all he is told by a big Liberal national coalition?

    I use to live in New England for ten years and wish that someone like Windor was around then. I had to put up with a National party yes man for the Liberal party.

    Windsor has more claim to being a “real” independent that almost any person in politics. He chose to side with a group that would not be his normal bed-fellows, but he did it out of concern for getting fast speed internet into New England, and some actual action on climate change. He made that very clear in his agonisingly long speech.

    Wow,… call him a bastard because he does not do all you want, but you really cant call him a failure as a “real independent”. He is risking his political career on 3 years of actual influence.

    A “real independent” like you want – is that more like Bob C up in Qld? Who did not join the minority govt and who cant therefore, have weekly influence on the Gillard govt as Windsor can… surely you must see that Windsor has actually put New England on the map! At least for 3 years.

    If you and your like minded fellows vote him out next election, … well … you will get a “real national party man’ and that means inaction for your electorate from then on. Just like it use to be. A yes man or woman for the Liberal party.

    Wow… you will get what you deserve by the sound of it.

  30. LisaCrago

    Jim Reiher you really do assume too much.
    A “real indy” does not side with anyone. If you leave one party to go indy and side with another it makes it harder to argue you are a genuine indy pollie
    You also confuse rob oakeshott and windsor when you talk of long speech.
    It is also Bob Katter not Bob C.
    btw I could not give a rats arse who the people of new england vote for next fed election.
    ps. don’t pretend to know my mind or who my ‘fellows’ are….lol

  31. drmick

    Fox Media has got the mongrels dog whistling.
    The attack dogs are salivating, and the red necks just cant wait to join the party.
    Why does it have to degenerate to become just like America? Because Murdoch, big tobacco, big banks and mine owners want it that way.
    They have taken over radio, papers and TV recently and are seeking a return on their investment which did not pay off after the last election.
    The gutless thickhead that left the message for Tony Windsor would have been paid for his comment. What a brave thug he must be. His family must be proud of him. If you listen today’s media reports from the Liberals front-bench “lack of brains trust”, and the support it is receiving from the ABC, Murdoch and Fairfax press, you will see how balanced and informed discussion in this country really is.

  32. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    A “real indy” does not side with anyone.

    What nonsense. What you mean is a “real independent” is somebody who sides with the Nationals. If they wanted the Nationals, they should have voted for the Nationals.

    Instead they got a member who votes for what he believes is the best for his constituents. If New England want a Liberal party stooge then please, next time, vote for a Liberal party stooge!

  33. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    If you leave one party to go indy and side with another it makes it harder to argue you are a genuine indy pollie

    Possibly the most genuinely stupid thing I’ve read all day. He left one party because he didn’t agree with them and became an independent, but now he’s not a real independent because he doesn’t vote with the party he left?

    I still see there a lot of angry people who never got over the fact the born-to-rule lot didn’t form government, even though it’s their God given right.

  34. klewso

    It seems to me, that the intemperance unleashed by these politicians and echoed in their media PR sponsors – all only aimed at winning an election, but at any cost, just to show off how they can – only has to bring one “Jared Loughner” out into the light, believing their cause is so right, because it’s been validated by these “politicians” with their “social” beliefs.
    Then “all” those politicians have to do is plead innocent, that they “had nothing to do with” such radicalism. By the time the “Dupnik’s” come out with the reasons they see are behind such mindlessness, and have to debate “part of the reason” (like Megyn Kelly), in their self-righteous abdication of any responsibility, it’s too late.

  35. Jim Reiher

    Lisacrago: thanks for the grammatical corrections – and you are quite right: Oakshot gave the long speech.

    I would have liked more on your idea of a “real independent” though. It seems that such a person is someone with no influence or power. Okay… fair enough. But lets be honest about what that means for the electorate they are in.

    In the real world of politics, you can do nothing and keep getting back in, it seems, or you can take very hard choices and risks, and lose the support of those who really should be able to see what you are doing and why. Why do you think he made his decision to be in the minorty govt? he KNEW it would be unpopular. But he did it for his electorate. To try to have real influence for at least one term of govt.

    And I concede: I should not presume to know that your fellows are thinking! I can only attempt to understand the writer (you in this instance) by what they write.

  36. Elan

    “I consider myself to be an intelligent, interested, well-read (not on everything obviously) person who values the environment and believes in sustainability.

    But when it comes to this issue I am totally confounded. I read both sets of arguments and I am stupefied. It is not easy in this age to sort real from propaganda. MLF

    Ditt bloody o !
    ______________________

    “At no time was Windsor threatened – the called wished him DEATH (I hope you die you B-stard) not I am going to kill you…” LORRY

    This is such a comfort. Thank-you sweetie.
    _______________________

    “In my region alone, the climate cult is responsible for real attacks and real arson. Verbal abuse and threats are common. Whole towns live in fear, fear of both individual nutters and corporate thuggery.” FRANK CAMPBELL

    Hucking Fell!!!! Man the bleedin barricades!!
    ____________________________

    Damn right I’m stupefied. I sit here typing when I should be pushing furniture in front of my padlocked doors, arming myself with a baseball bat, and donning my hard hat.

    FFS CALM DOWN !!

  37. freecountry

    Tony Windsor in my opinion took a strange, possibly made-to-order, view of his responsibilities as first and foremost “guaranteeing stable government.” I’d like to know just what Westminster convention that follows, or did he just make it up because it suited him?

    He also claimed, without providing any evidence, that an Abbott-led government would seek an early election, which it was somehow his duty to prevent. Before that he convinced Oakeshott and Katter that he was genuinely open-minded, and by virtue of this and his seniority, became a leader of sorts to the cross-bench trio. My impression is he influenced Oakeshott under false pretences, and tried to do the same with Katter. Maybe the result would have been the same; but then again maybe not.

    It seems to me in retrospect Windsor was acting mainly out of personal emnity with Barnaby Joyce. If that was his main motive, well he wouldn’t be the first MP to express personal issues by choosing sides (Cheryl Kernot), but he should have either said so or kept his own counsel and left his colleagues to make their own decisions for their own reasons.

  38. Sir Lunchalot

    @ Elan @ Lorry

    Did you mean maybe he wishes Tony Windsor has a heart attack when he sees his latest poll results or the angry people standing outside his electoral office in Tamworth

  39. drmick

    Freecountry.
    You appear to be giving T Windsor too much Machiavellian skill, and not listening to the whole story he is telling about T Abbott .
    It is compulsory to vote
    Voters generally vote for who they want;
    Educated voters will look at where their vote may end up if their first preference doesn’t get up.
    The uneducated is cheesed off when his preference does not get up and may not understand where his vote will end up.
    The people who voted for Messers Katter, Oakshott and Windsor knew what they were doing and who they were voting for.
    The problem here is a split decision and sore losers.
    We have not been privvy to what Abbot said to the independents; but it is becoming increasingly clear how desperate he is to get in to power, and, how desperate he was to get into power, as such, it is very easy to believe he would have sold his soul to get them to side with him. His desperation is evident and he is not even trying to hide it now.
    Far from being calculating as you have suggested, T Windsor may have exercised excellent judgement. It appears he can live with the decisions he has made regardless of enmity towards anyone.

  40. klewso

    Christopher Dunne – next week Q&A has reserved a guest star soap-box seat for that “mouse’s eared screamer” “Planet Janet” – and still we get comments about the ABC’s “left bias”? Because Murdoch doesn’t have enough editorial say, yet?

  41. Daniel

    Noted sentient automobile ‘Lorry’ threatens to run over Australia MP! See the post at TMZ.com!

  42. klewso

    Like “short and curlies” – while ever there is a hip pocket (or xenophobe) nerve to be “poked for a vote”, don’t expect much concentration on any big picture, before the glaze breaks.

  43. freecountry

    But for all that, I think he’s probably a nice fellow (nobody’s perfect) and I certainly wouldn’t wish an untimely death or any other harm on the man. For that matter, I wouldn’t wish those things on any of them. Not even Stephen Conroy, although if a dog started carrying on in a public place the way Conroy sometimes does in Senate Estimates, its life wouldn’t be worth squat once the council rangers showed up. 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.

  44. Son of foro

    “Not even Stephen Conroy, although if a dog started carrying on in a public place the way Conroy sometimes does in Senate Estimates, its life wouldn’t be worth squat once the council rangers showed up. 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.”

    Sir, I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the etc and so on! (Truth be told, I have no idea what you’re banging on about, but I haven’t enjoyed two sentences so much since the good Dr Thompson shot himself into the sky.)

  45. Smithee

    Wilkie’s crazy outburst and now Windsor’s claims is a good reminder of why “independents” are not as good as they seem. They quickly become infected with a massively inflated idea of their own worth and start making pronouncements about everything.

    The party system helps to hold the crazies in line.

  46. geomac

    The party system helps to hold the crazies in line.
    Really ? Mirrabella calls members of her own party terrorists. Wilson Tuckey , Bernardi who is so dumb he doesn,t realise Halal and Kosher meat is killed exactly the same way but only criticises Halal. Barnaby who has too many crazy quotes to repeat here. Peter Reith aka Scott Morrison or vice a versa because both peddle outright falsehoods dressed up as legitimate questions. Although to give Morrison his due he hasn,t fabricated a fraud such as children overboard but more because he hasn,t been a minister yet. Andrews he of Haneef infamy who made up the rules to suit himself or more correctly abused the rules to suit his delusional belief it would look good to the hansonite crowd. Either way an expensive and mad abuse of his office. Its a wonder that trauma didn,t turn Haneef prematurely grey although no chance of that happening to Grecian Andrews.
    An independent should go with his judgement and what he thinks is the best outcome for his seat/constituents. Howard was happy to use Coulson but to call him an independent is to blacken people like Harradine.

  47. andrew36

    Your kidding hamilton, you really believe this behaver is from the right only, were was your indignation with all the rubbish John Howard had to put up, including people saying he should be killed. The call windsor got was not a death threat but a malicious phone call, something no one should have to put up with but something that many politicians, radio announcers and people in the spotlight have being receiving for ages. If he doesnt like it he can always retire. Oh the poor climate scientists, they are finally being questioned and you dont like it, for years they have shut down debate, called deniers flat earthers etc etc and refuse to even have a proper debate on the subject. Everyone that speaks against it is even a nutter or in the pay of the oil companies, as if the scientists speaking for climate change dont have any financial reasons to support it. How dare abbott use the words peoples revolt, he should just sit back and let the leftys do what ever they want to do, after all everyone knows that leftys are so much more intelligence then everyone else, so noone should ever question there policys or reasons. People like you who consistently over exagerate everything tell people that the sky is falling in while consistency trying to cash in personly or politically on every disaster do a lot more harm then someone uttering peoples revolt. You really believe the only nutters out there are denialists, if you really believe that I hope the security services are keeping a close eye on you because your more dangerous then most of them. Maybe Clive if people like yourself were actually willing to have proper debates with ‘experts’ from both sides maybe you wouldnt get so many malicious emails. And if you really want to see anger, hatred and bigoty go have a look at the union people protesting in America at the moment, I guess those people are closet deniers and tea party goers.

  48. botswana bob

    Whats going on is classic Coalition dog whistling. Peripheral players–like Sophie LargeAbella–spew out excessive rhetoric comparing Gillard to Gaddafi. Along comes the “Leader” (sic) saying the comments are over the top BUT never actually repudiating them. Of course the name callers–like the aforesaid Sophie–aren’t disciplined so those who are dog-whistled remain on-side.

  49. Frank D'Farmer

    I am a man on the land.
    I dont condone threats or acts of violence against anyone, but I have been threatened because I dont believe in man made climate change. So what is a man to do, stay quiet or defend themselves for having an opinion??? – what happened to freedom of speech and thought!!!! Climate change is NATURAL!!!!! Weather patterns constantly change!!!! Nothing in nature is Set in Concrete!!!!!
    This Green agenda (proposed Carbon Tax) will destroy this lucky country, for no gain in controlling climate change. What a load of CRAP!!!! Its all about the money!!!!!

    Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
    If you’ve read his book you may agree that this is a good summary.
    Are you sitting down? Okay, here’s the bombshell.
    In just FOUR DAYS, the volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its’ first spewing of volcanic ash, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet – all of us.
    Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress – it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
    I know, it’s very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid’s “The Green Revolution” science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, holidays at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 pence light bulbs with £10.00 light bulbs …well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
    The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just FOUR DAYS by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud any one time – EVERY DAY.
    I don’t really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire time on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year – think about it.
    Of course I shouldn’t spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well recognized 800 year global heating and cooling cycles, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
    I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years…and it happens every year.
    Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus “human-caused” climate change scenario.
    Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention “Global Warming” any more, but just “Climate Change” – you know why? It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
    Just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme – that whopping new tax – imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.
    But hey, relax, give the world a hug and have a nice day!

  50. geomac

    Profound statements Frank. I,m also a man on the land unless I,m on the sea which doesn,t make me a mariner just aboard a vessel. A volcano erupts so that refutes or dispels any reason to reduce man made carbon. On that basis we are all going to die eventually so why bother wasting money with an ambulance service, same logic. Climate change , climate chaos or the Carl Rove inspired global warming anything but actually reducing the poisonous cocktail we allow polluters to dump in the air. Carbon , sulphur or any of the numerous noxious chemicals that are expelled into the air we breathe. I wont argue the toss about carbon because 97% of scientists are better educated to do that. I would however advocate reducing emissions since if I spill oil on the pavement changing my car filter I,m liable but polluters have no such risks.

  51. Liamj

    @ Frank D’Farmer [a.k.a Baflem W’Bullshit] – fierce crowd of exaggerated claims you’ve got there, care to try and substantiate any of them with a source not funded by a polluter? And no, Andrew Bolt is not a scientist of any description; its easy to tell, he doesn’t use evidence to back up his opinions either.

  52. shane

    Geez Frank, all those fiery volcanoes and natural 800 year cycles all just happen to occur right slap bang on the last 50 years of human industrialisation? Nope well global warming did.
    Your a man of the land, a farmer, a battler, proxy for a climate scientist, well we just had 3 cyclones, largest floods in QLD for 100 years (74 didn’t have wivenhoe to protect Brisbane), 6th largest snowfall on record in new york, similar in most of europe, brazils floods the worst natural disaster in their history. All in one month.
    Well if were talking about what farmers know or don’t know I’d say that on the scale of a human life time those record disasters are climate change by definition.

  53. Rocket Rocket

    Frank

    Yes, bushfires release carbon dioxide. Then what happens? The regrowth absorbs an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide.

    I love the old furphies accusing people of “demonizing” that friendly gas carbon dioxide. Yes, we exhale carbon dioxide and plants “inhale” it. But the problem is in the upper atmosphere, where it reflects heat back to the surface. I could be really silly and tell you that if carbon dioxide is so harmless why do people die when the inhaled carbon dioxide level is too high, but that just plays to the same pointless arguments.

  54. Rocket Rocket

    All these people who are bursting with rage – what is their response to the Coalition’s plan to PAY the big polluters big taxpayer dollars to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions?

    So if the Liberals dump (I predict Nov-Dec 2011) the only leader that Gillard can beat in 2013 and win the election, will the enraged ones “maintain the rage”?

  55. Seneca

    FRANK D’FARMER, I know you want to believe Professor Ian Plimer, but for him to be right, the consensus of climate scientists around the world have to be wrong. Climate scientists don’t just sit down and decide that hey, climate change is right, let’s run with it, and pick up all that moolah that’s to be had, or start the revolution, or whatever the latest loony right conspiracy theory is in vogue. For scientists to arrive at a consensus they have to submit their work for something called “peer review”, where other scientists can determine if they agree with the paper or not. After a long process, these people, who have professional reputations to live up to, then arrive at said consensus. Thirty two Academies of Science around the world have arrived at such consensus that Climate Change is real, and that it is high time the world did something about it if the planet is to survive.

    Yet, your guru is Professor Ian Plimer, who has no climate science qualifications at all, and is in fact a professor of Mining Geology who has never had a paper on climate change peer reviewed. Not a very convincing climate science resume, is it. Sorry, wanting his book to be true because you think a Carbon Tax will cost you money isn’t a good enough reason to do nothing while the planet slowly dies.

  56. Sir Lunchalot

    @ PocketRocket

    I am no expert in this debate, but Graham Richardson interviewed Greg Hunt today on the Coalitions Direct Action plan, and the plan is to cap incentives to polluters. he said that this works in various countries, whereas the Carbon Tax scheme has failed in every country.

    Even staunch Labor man, Richo said his arguement was compelling…

  57. sam

    Dear Frank

    To quote the US Geological Survey at link:

    http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

    “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).”

    Plimmer is telling porkies. Although I did enjoy his book Telling Lies for God

  58. Seneca

    Getting back on topic which is about death threats because of a belief in Climate Change, I’ve had one of those, and given the recent events in the U.S., it is not a pleasant experience. I write letters to the editor, and one such letter was about the consensus of scientists around the world believing in climate change. Along comes a letter, anonymous of course, saying to expect a visitor at 2:30 am in the morning to burn my house down, and that the writer hoped to soon read my obituary notice. Nice…The women in the house went into shock for quite a few days after. Anyway, I showed it to the local cops who weren’t interested in doing anything, and notified the local rag of the nice types who read their paper, and filed the letter away. You do have to wonder at the mentality of people who would send such a letter simply because you have a different opinion than they do. No prizes for guessing which party they vote for. They’re welcome to them.

  59. shane

    Sir L. Cap incentives to polluters, so we’ll only give them some free money to pollute wow thats really sticking it to them.
    Are you sure Richo wasn’t being sarchastic?
    Maybe I’ve missed the point?

  60. andrew36

    Shane there have been 3 cyclones hit australia on at least 7 occasions before, there has been a year when 4 cyclones hit and another when 6 hit, 3 is hardly extreme. We can argue about which flood was worse but the fact is that a flood of similiar magnitude has happen before so again this one was not extreme. What only the 6th largest snowfall, so not the largest, therefore not extreme, by the way how low can it go before it doesnt support climate change if it was only the 7th or 8th or 20th or 50th would it still support climate change. The flooding in Brazil was there worse ever but they have had major flooding many times in the past so again flooding in Brazil is hardly unheard of. So if next month we have no records set or natural disasters in the world will you turn around and say that its a sign there is no climate change. Geomac the fact that you think its carbon thats important says a fair bit. Yes Rocket Carbon Dioxide is dangerous when we inhale to much but only because it dilutes oxygen to below the safe level, to breath we need a certain percentage of oxygen, if we breathe in two much Carbon dioxide or any other gas for that matter and our oxygen levels are reduced to a below a safe percentage we will die, this does not make carbon dioxide a dangerous gas. So seneca Frank has his Guru just as you have yours, he refuses to listen to other sides just as you do, do you know which party the abusive emailer voted for or are you just assuming, plenty nof people on the left dont believe in climate change. Maybe you know how Howard felt when he use to get all the crap said about him just because he had a different opinion.

  61. wayne robinson

    FRANK D’FARMER,

    I was unfortunate enough to have read Ian Plimer’s book “Heaven and Earth”. His book only impresses readers who don’t have much science knowledge. I tried to highlight each and every error on the Kindle version on my iPad, but halfway through I’d highlighted so many errors, the memory on the iPad was so full that the App kept on crashing.

    The book is just packed with extraneous doubtful factoids, for example Plimer claims that the Sun is a pulsar star; he gives a reference too, a 1970s 2 page letter in a science journal entitled “Is the Sun a pulsar star?”

    Volcanos releasing carbon dioxide is just part of the carbon cycle. Over the long term it’s balanced by oceanic sedimentary carbonate rocks subducting beneath the continental tectonic plates to bury fossilised carbon to the Earth’s mantle. Volcanos are just returning buried carbon to the atmosphere.

    As someone else has noted above, bush fires will be balanced by regrowth of vegetation later.

    How do you think that humans’ burning of fossil fuels are going to be eventually balanced? Where are the enormous swamps with lush vegetation waiting to die and be buried and turn into coal to replace the enormous amounts of coal we’re currently burning, which were formed over millions of years in the carboniferous period? Similarly, where are the enormous amounts of dying plankton forming oil, the current reserves we’re burning similarly taking millions of years to form?

    Actually volcanos tend to cause cooling, not warming, because of the dust ejected. The eruption of Tambora in 1815 caused the year without a Summer in 1816, associated with global crop failures and famines. Actually, this is another example of how bad Plimer’s book is; he has a graph (figure 14) showing (purportedly) number of sunspots per year and grain prices versus time, supposedly showing that bad crops are related to solar output. What it actually shows is open to surmise-the left y axis is labeled with number of sunspots, the right axis is marked with with W/sq m which is a measure of energy per time. Anyway, the peak in grain price (if that’s what the graph is supposed to show) sails straight through 1816/16 to lower prices with no blip of increased prices you’d expect with a global famine.

  62. Seneca

    ANDREW36 My “guru” is the consensus of climate scientists around the world. Unlike you and Frank, I’m realistic enough to know that I don’t have the knowledge to have an informed opinion on climate change. That is why I rely on the consensus of people who do have the knowledge. If the consensus was that climate change is not man made, then I would have to believe they know what they are talking about, and accept that. The point that you ignore is that the scientific community follow the scientific method to arrive at the truth. Frank’s guru doesn’t. He just has an unqualified opinion that has not been subjected to scrutiny by climate scientists, and therefore has not been arrived at through following the scientific process. He doesn’t even have climate science qualifications. Some guru.

    And it wasn’t an abusive email I received. It was a hand written letter. Nice to know that you have no problem with death threats. Real classy that. No prizes for guessing who you vote for either.

  63. beachcomber

    The Libs and Nats are very effective at grassroots campaigns to denigrate. The get snappy focus group tested lines out quickly to members and supporters who use them in local media, talkback and through community and sporting clubs.

    They countered Anna Bligh’s popularity with a grassroots campaign calling her a “weather girl”.

    Morrison and Bernadi used racism to incite the sort of anger that leads to the Windsor death threats. What they said is now part of a grassroots campaign that will send the psychopaths wild.

    This is part of the latest email circulating through Coalition networks. It is so full of inconsistencies and outrageous claims that it will appeal to One Nation and Abbott’s Frontbench alike: it was probably drafted by them together over morning tea after church on sunday.

    “I emigrated to Australia over 60 years ago – On the ship there were Poms,Italians (Spags), Germans (Huns), Yugoslavs (Yuges), Poles, Ducchys, Ukes (Ukrainians) and Greeks. (Note – All European people!!) all looking forward to starting a new life in Australia. I arrived with 30 quid in my pocket and that’s all I had to my name Did I put my hand out?? Of course not – I got a job and paid my way just like everyone else who came to this country back then.

    “Now, it’s my taxes that subsidize these people who think they have Gods given right (read Allah) to come here and criticize those of us who have worked for the country we now call home..

    “If I didn’t like what I saw when I got here I would have gone home – they have the same option.

    “If they don’t want to become an Australian,
    they can GO BACK TO WHERE THEY CAME FROM
    – WE DON’T NEED THEM HERE!!! ”

    No wonder Tony Windsor is worried. The Rabid Right has control of the Federal Opposition, much of talkback radio, the national broadsheet, and most of the regional and city newspapers. They have a highly effective community network, and their message is getting more violent. We can but hope that there are sufficient moderate brains left in the Liberal Party to roll Abbott.

  64. geomac

    ANDREW36
    I said I would leave the carbon question to those who know more than me ,scientists. I don,t need a scientist to inform me of the ill affects of the noxious fumes that polluters expel without carbon which is why I mentioned carbon and then the poisons. I didn,t assume the emailer followed any party or in fact even mention that person. I don,t have a guru and to repeat myself I said I would leave that to the 97% of climate scientists that have knowledge in that area not someone who doesn,t. If your comments after you mentioned me were not all directed at me then no matter. If they were then at least you put your point politely.

  65. geomac

    BEACHCOMBER
    I got that email about Nic the Greek as well. I took the trouble to check the white pages for the name and found none in any state. Not even the surname with a different christian letter. As you say the email has many strange or non aussie terms. It originated in either Canada or the USA as a result of some citizens singing the national anthem in their native tongue. At least thats what I found after a fair bit of googling. It only takes one nutter out of 20 million to shoot a gun and not much inflammatory rhetoric to set that nutter off. To have it as Windsor has claimed be orchestrated is a dangerous path. After todays efforts and the coalition this year politics deserves its low reputation.

  66. geomac

    Nik Ziogopoulos

  67. andrew36

    Seneca, did I say I didnt have a problem with death threats, I would love you to point out were I said that. Anyone that issues a death threat should be locked up. My point is that your complaining about something that happen to you but did you because your opinion was differrent, did you feel the same when people were threatening Howard, do you feel the same when people make threatening remarks about denialists, when they say denialists should be shot (ive seen this comment more then once on this site) because they are destroying the world, all because howard had different opinion and the bso called denialists have a different opinion to the people on this blog, if your not disgusted by these comments why not. You actually make my point with climate change, your god is the so called consensus of scientists, how about the problem being there isnt any real consensus, there are more and more scientists coming out against it, there was only a consensus because anyone speaking against it was ridicile and threatened because, wait for it, they had a different opinion. Frank and many other people believe pilmer you choose to believe the so called consensus, when it comes down to it your both formed your opinion and refuse to listern to any alternatives. I dont actually confess to know everything, I actually have done a fair bit of research looking at both sides, and have made my own opinions and I can see both sides of the argument but im not stupid enough to think taxing carbon will stop it if it is happening, Im not stupid enough to believe that models can actually perdict what will happen in 20, 30 or 50 years. If someone said they could predict your future in 50 years would you believe them, there are so many variables its ridiculous to believe we can get them all right and predict the weather in 50 years. Its been proven that they cant even predict accurately a few years ahead, but we are suppose to believe they can predict 50 years or more ahead. There is plenty of evidence to show that the world has been hotter in the past and Cartbon dioxide obviously didnt cause that, the world is billions of years old and we are nieve enough to think we can tell what the weather has been in the past. We have been measuring temperatures and weather for only a few years (compare with the life of earth) so all this rubbish about the hottest year or wettest year on record is rubbish. There is also plenty of evidence to show that many of the past records are not all that accurate. Saying that its not hard to believe that that pollution is not doing any good, we need to move to a cleaner future but taxing carbon will not do that, we need to develop better and cheaper alternatives before we cut back on coal, surely it makes more sense to develop cheaper and better alternatives not make the cheapest and most effective energy source we have dearer.

  68. Sir Lunchalot

    Crikey Cops A Mention

    ALERTS TO TERROR THREATS IN 2011 EUROPE

    By John Cleese

    The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats and have therefore raised their security level from “Miffed” to “Peeved.” Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to “Irritated” or even “A Bit Cross.”

    The English have not been “A Bit Cross” since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out.

    Terrorists have been re-categorized from “Tiresome” to “A Bloody Nuisance.” The last time the British issued a “Bloody Nuisance” warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

    The Scots have raised their threat level from “Pissed Off” to “Let’s get the Bastards.” They don’t have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

    The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from “Run” to “Hide.” The only two higher levels in France are “Collaborate” and “Surrender.” The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France ‘s white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country’s military capability.

    Italy has increased the alert level from “Shout Loudly and Excitedly” to “Elaborate Military Posturing.” Two more levels remain: “Ineffective Combat Operations” and “Change Sides.”

    The Germans have increased their alert state from “Disdainful Arrogance” to “Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs.” They also have two higher levels: “Invade a Neighbour” and “Lose.”

    Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels .

    The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

    Australia , meanwhile, has raised its security level from “No worries” to “She’ll be right, Mate.” Two more escalation levels remain: “Crikey! I think we’ll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!” and “The barbie is cancelled.” So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final escalation level.

    — John Cleese, 2011

  69. Sir Lunchalot

    @ Beachcomber

    I think people are worried that we have PM Gillard and President Brown, and whatever the President wants, he gets, without reason. PM Gillard is storing browny points now, so when she has something to pass that the President is not happy with, she will use them.

  70. Sir Lunchalot

    @ Shane

    Richo was genuine, suprised and a touch worried. Try and watch the replay or podcast and form your own opinion.

    The polluters only get paid when they reduce emissions and sustain it, by moving to a cleaner technology like gas over coal etc

  71. Frank Campbell

    Andrew36: Qld has an average of 4.7 cyclones per annum.

  72. MLF

    We are fighting the wrong fight and the fight we need to be fighting seems to be one we just can’t win.

    “The old punditocracy, grounded in facts, credentials and rational debate, has been overpowered by a new breed of political entertainer, who deals in raw emotion. Sure, theres some brainy blue-state satire.. Jon Stewart… but the likes of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin etc. aren’t trying to change the way people think… they don’t want people to think at all.”

    “Mourning the fall of judicious savant.. is pointless… elite opinion has failed this country so miserably it has no moral or intellectual standing left…”

    “To understand what Beck is doing.. you must suspend your capacity for rational thought and just let the emotions wash over you…”

    “Fox news are often criticized for not making sense… this is not a failure of communication on their part… that is the object of the exercise: to make rational thought difficult or impossible due to emotional overload.”

    vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/02/wolcott-201102

  73. Tomboy

    @ ANDREW36

    You reported having “…done a fair bit of research looking at both sides…”. I’m really interested in what you’ve done – have you published your meta-analysis of the studies yet? What are the trends you’ve found? When you publish this, of course I’m hoping you will include in your “method” section assumptions and justification for inclusion/exclusion of particular variables, and in the “results” section, the multivariate statistical techniques used to correct for standard errors of measurement and “R squared” coefficients. C’mon “Einstein”, we’re waiting!

  74. Elan

    Gawd’s strewth! The knic….the panties are really bunched up aren’t they?
    Tony Windsor could get done over big time and I doubt anyone would notice.

    That awful Gore fellow really started something didn’t he?

    Mind you, this is sheer delight! At least we fight with each other, it takes the focus off ethnic minorities, and gives them a much needed break.

    Do go on.

  75. Liamj

    @ Sir Lunchalot – thanks for raising terrorism, what else would you call a widespread campaign to threaten and intimidate people for their factual and political beliefs?

    Imagine how different the MSM’s reaction would be if the pro-polluter botnet was threatening the lives of Our Diggers, or CEO’s.

  76. freecountry

    Threats of harm against politicians are, literally, terrorism against our society. It’s an overused vogue word, but let’s reclaim its real meaning. The evidence of any threats should be investigated by a federal police task force and punished to the full extent of the law.

    Interesting the choice of target though … did Rob Oakeshott get any of those threats? My impression is that although Oakeshott and Windsor made essentially the same decision after the election, Oakeshott made his for honest reasons, and his integrity remains intact. Windsor, on the other hand, seems to have not only used the Australian Parliament to settle personal scores, but also tried to use his colleagues Oakeshott and Katter for the same purpose. Windsor is now the one launching dodgy Climate Institute studies which claim that costs aren’t really costs at all–they’re jobs! He cannot possibly be a successful businessman in his other life and honestly believe that myth.

    So I hope for three things. I hope someone is charged and does prison time for distributing threats of harm. I hope Oakeshott’s voters in 2013 respect his integrity even if they doubted some of his judgements. And I hope Windsor gets no more votes at all from the people he’s let down, other than himself and his relatives and friends.

  77. birdsnewworld

    What we are after Clive, for starters, is a CO2 record. We already have Becks record but if Becks record makes you want to cry all over again then you can present your own. Then we need an honest temperature record, or better still a reconstructed heat content record …. And then you need to relate one to the other in a way that goes beyond mere correlation.

    Take some time out feeling sorry for yourself and make good with the evidence. You would not do this PRIOR to a carbon tax becoming a fait accompli. We will see if you will do so after the fact of this menace you have visited upon your benefactors.

  78. birdsnewworld

    Clive has been laying abuse on climate rationalists for many many years now, and as soon as people start getting sick of his filthy behavior he’s the victim. Clive cannot be found to refer to a climate rationalist without laying out a term of abuse. And yet this despicable crybaby thinks he’s exempt from return fire.

    Clive may feel its too much to ask for him to make good with the evidence. But I don’t think its too much to ask.

    I’ll check back tomorrow Clive. Have your evidence ready. No need to lose your hair about it. Lets just have the evidence and then you can hold your head up high. Gleaming in the sunlight.

    Here’s the Beck CO2 record if you don’t have your own. No rigged data is ever acceptable nor will it be accepted.

    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/images/beckco2.png

  79. Seneca

    ANDREW36

    Just so’s you know the difference next time you air your thoughts on Climate Change, predicting climate change is not the same as predicting weather. If you can’t get that difference right, then you haven’t learnt very much from all that supposed research that you’ve done. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

  80. Liamj

    @ birdsnewworld – Beck again?! when are you guys going to invent some new material instead of resurrecting the old invented material?
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/beck-to-the-future/

    And Clive doesn’t need to present his evidence, the Academy of Science are here today doing exactly that http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/03/03/the-australian-academy-of-science-explaining-climate-change/
    Take your ‘evidence’ to them.

  81. birdsnewworld

    Right Seneca. But the reality is that the climate alarmists cannot predict either. Their understanding of climate is unbelievably crude. They work with a flat earth model which consists of looking at watts per square metre. This model winds up averaging and aggregating everything interesting about the climate out of it.

    The best climate predictors all ignore CO2 levels. They disregard CO2 entirely and worry about what the sun and the moon are doing. And no-one using a computer model has ever managed to predict either weather or climate whether by back-testing or in advance.

  82. birdsnewworld

    If we consider the astonishing amount of joules that can be locked up in the oceans, then the excuse that weather and climate are two different things gets to be a bit weak in view of the northern hemisphere being snowed under. If the heat content of the oceans was as high as back in 2003, no way could the Northern hemisphere be experiencing such cold weather. And after all its heat content we are talking about.

    They had all these you-beaut argos floats put in a few years back but its characteristically hard to get any timely information on them. Thats what is most despicable about this movement in some ways. The attempts to monopolise on information. For example the movement has monopolised on CO2 measuring and has run down chemical testing. Therefore we have lost any independent verification of what the CO2 levels are supposed to be. And there main CO2 measuring station is right next to the largest volcano in the world. I’m not joking about that. Everything about these people is shonky.

  83. Seneca

    BIRDSNEWWORLD

    So let me get this right. All the thousands of climate scientists around the world who believe are wrong because “their understanding of climate is unbelievable crude.” So just what are your credentials that qualify you to make such an unbelievably arrogant assumption? And who are the “best climate predictors who ignore CO2 levels”? Let me guess. They’re all deniers, no?

  84. birdsnewworld

    “Graeme Bird is a reasonably well known loon across the ozblogosphere – he gets banned many places – I think the only place he’s still tolerated is Catalepsy. I believe he has a genuine mental illness so ought to be treated with pity rather than anything else.”

    You mean well. I know you mean well. But we are hardly going to shake down Clive for some climate science answers with all these soothing words.

  85. Mark Duffett

    “…no-one using a computer model has ever managed to predict either weather or climate whether by back-testing or in advance.”

    Really? Barry Brook has just done exactly that, over at bravenewclimate, admittedly with what he calls a ‘toy statistical’ model, but a computer model nevertheless.

    Not to mention that the Bureau of Meteorology and dozens of others use computer models to predict weather, usually successfully, about, oh, every other hour.

    The above quote would have to rank as close to the stupidest statement I’ve ever seen on Crikey, and boy is there a lot of competition in that space.

  86. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    Graeme, you have a mental illness. You need help.

  87. MLF

    Mark, the BOM didn’t predict the massive amount of water that recently hit QLD. And I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve had weather warnings that have failed to eventuate, ditto, no warnings and then the mother of all storms.

    This whole climate change issue aside – the BOM aint all that.

  88. Mark Duffett

    MLF, these particular stats don’t lie. The BoM gets it right far more often than not. It’s just that people only remember the times they don’t. And if memory serves, they certainly predicted heavy rainfall in Queensland preceding the floods.

  89. birdsnewworld

    “Really? Barry Brook has just done exactly that, over at bravenewclimate, admittedly with what he calls a ‘toy statistical’ model, but a computer model nevertheless.”

    Come off it. Barry’s no dead hand at weather soothsaying. But you give me the link anyhow and I’ll go and check it out. Did he predict the Queensland floods? Or the recent cold weather in Britain?

    So are you saying I ought to go to Barry and not Piers Corbyn for insights into what the future will bring? Barry as the new weather soothsayer. Somehow I don’t think so.

  90. birdsnewworld

    “You need help.”

    I agree. I’ll willingly accept any financial help from anyone’s rich uncle.

  91. Mark Duffett

    Barry would be (indeed, has been) the first to admit that quantitative climate prognostication is not his forté, but he seems to have had a moderately successful crack notwithstanding. I withheld the link initially for fear of tripping the moderation filter, but the interesting exercise is here.

  92. birdsnewworld

    Oh right. Barry’s just started this project. Look he’s got the right idea. But should he choose to highly emphasize the effect of CO2, and if he doesn’t find a way to bring the moon into it he won’t be able to make particularly powerful projections.

    Thats the way to do it alright. Start with a small and humble model and only increase its complexity as you go along. Barry’s a smart guy and he may well succeed where all these mega-funded propagandists at Hadley and Goddard have failed.

  93. birdsnewworld

    “So let me get this right. All the thousands of climate scientists around the world who believe are wrong because “their understanding of climate is unbelievable crude.”

    Yeah you got it. Although we are not talking thousands. We are really talking just a few bully-boys. The people with a less crude theory of climate keep their head down or they are out there in the skeptic camp.

    The standard model is quite literally a flat earth model. It bears no resemblance to the planet earth. They need a model which is less aggregated and averaged to bring some reality back to it.

    Where do we expect extra CO2 to add more joules then it subtracts? The answer is that we expect this only where the air is dry. Dry air is usually cold air and seldom is dry air over the oceans. So there really isn’t much chance of the CO2 leading to any substantial increase in oceanic heat content. If you cannot affect heat content then you can have no serious warming. Since extra joules in the atmosphere are basically ephemeral.

    I used to use an analogy a lot to do with the heater-in-the basement versus the heater-in-the attic, to show that not all DELTA-JOULES are equal. And that therefore the INCOMING Joules that the CO2 was absorbing or scattering (ie the joules that extra-CO2 negated from the lower atmosphere) may well be more important than the theoretical extra joules through back-radiation.

    But even if one suspects that there is a net gain in joules where the air is dry, when you take a more marginalist approach its very hard to see where the extra CO2 can be doing much at all. All such considerations are ethnically cleansed out of these crude averaged and aggregated models. You aren’t going to see this if you average the worlds water vapor so that your models water vapor levels are really low.

    Also since they were looking at temperature and not heat content, they failed to realize that water vapor is almost everywhere a negative feedback. That is to say water vapor being produced from the ocean is a massive refrigerant for the ocean. The watts per square metre model appeared to be a land-lubbers model. Land and not ocean-focused.

    Its basic mistakes like this, along with a obsessive allergy for evidence that made me give up on these clowns. You cannot reason with them. The best you can do is to try to get them sacked.

  94. En Passant

    Well it pains me to agree with a lunatic like Graeme Bird, but his comment that Clive Hamilton is a “stalinist” has a certain ring of truth to it when Clive Hamilton claims such things as “canvassing of “emergency” responses such as the suspension of democratic processes.” and “If Australia’s security services are not closely monitoring the activities of denialist activists then they are failing in their responsibilities.“. It is no wonder he was a strong proponent of mandatory internet filtering.

    Clive has long campaigned against modern western lifestyle (eg Affluenza and other books) and it comes as no surprise he is now trying to hijack the important issue of AGW to push through his social and possibly religiously motivated agenda.

    The issue of AGW is too important to let it be hijacked by ideologes like Clive to further their main agenda.

  95. MLF

    @Rich Uncle – thanks for yesterday’s link. Interesting site and very useful the way the ‘skeptics’ argument is laid out and then the rebuttal in the form of ‘basic’, ‘intermediate’, ‘advanced’. Nice. But, I honestly can’t see how I should determine that to be of any greater scientific worth than any other site of similar nature. What I’m looking for is a more simplistic combination of information to establish credibility, for example:

    1. Argument
    2. Author background i.e. commerce, research, industry, government.
    3. Peer-reviewed – and ‘level’ of peer-review, i.e. Nature is worth more points than ‘Current Opinion’ titles.
    4. Cited by – and these should be up-the-ladder citings, not Joe Blogs in his uni essay.

    Then a direct comparison to the against-argument, author background, peer-review, cited by etc.

    Only then is it possible for anyone to really make a judgment on the value and worth of the information. Even if I don’t understand what its saying, per se, at least I can see which of the arguments is considered more credible in an easy to understand way.

    Otherwise its just the world biggest and most tedious game of he said, she said.

  96. Seneca

    BIRDSNEWWORLD

    Did I miss the part where you established your credentials to challenge the findings of thirty two Academies of Science around the world who say that man made climate change is real, and that it is high time we did something to stop it?

  97. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    MLF, Skeptical Science is based on peer reviewed science. Its credibility is flawless, unless perhaps you’re a conspiracy theorist who knows deep down in your heart it’s all a scam.

    Only then is it possible for anyone to really make a judgment on the value and worth of the information. Even if I don’t understand what its saying, per se, at least I can see which of the arguments is considered more credible in an easy to understand way.

    And Skeptical Science doesn’t do this how?

    It’s almost like you’re looking for some kind of bizarro Skeptical Science. No such website exists, or could exist, because skeptical arguments are nothing but lies, misinformation and contradiction.

  98. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    And if you only accept peer-reviewed science from credible journals, you are aware the skeptics have none?

  99. birdsnewworld

    “Did I miss the part where you established your credentials…”

    That amounts to an ad hom, and therefore is a logical fallacy. Science is about evidence and reason and not about time spent in lectures. Your epistemology fail is noted.

    “Well it pains me to agree with a lunatic like Graeme Bird, but his comment that Clive Hamilton is a “stalinist” has a certain ring of truth to it when Clive Hamilton claims such things as “canvassing of “emergency” responses such as the suspension of democratic processes.” and “If Australia’s security services are not closely monitoring the activities of denialist activists then they are failing in their responsibilities.”. It is no wonder he was a strong proponent of mandatory internet filtering.”

    Right. He’s spent years preaching against our freedom and lifestyle. And of course I felt the need to get a few choice words in before nobhead took control of the country and every last word became a thought crime.

    But notice I took a shot at him under my own name, and with my own email address. Whereas you have just insulted me under cover of anonymity.

    It used to be about the science.

  100. birdsnewworld

    “And if you only accept peer-reviewed science from credible journals, you are aware the skeptics have none?”

    1. Thats nonsense.

    2. You are mistaking science-worker sentiment with scientific evidence. Its true that most studies are worded to appear to be sympathetic to the racket. This is neither here nor there.

    3. The cult of peer review is a priesthood dogma, and has nothing to do with the scientific method properly considered.

    Lets go over whats required again because its a simple data and attribution problem. You need a CO2 record. We have Becks record but if you get weepy looking at it you would need to compile your own, explaining the reasoning for your adjustments …..

    …… Then you need an honest heat content reconstruction or failing that an unrigged temperature record. And you need to relate one to the other in a way that goes beyond correlation.

    Now you can skim google scholar counting the sympathetic studies and tally them against the unsympathetic ones. But this has some ways to go as a form of evidence.

  101. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    You have all bases covered there Graeme. Not only am I wrong that there is no peer-reviewed skeptic science in credible journals (there is not), but peer-review is all a scam anyway! Your argument is completely contradictory, but this is to be expected of deniers.

    Peer review is constructed to keep fringe nutters like you out, Graeme. Suck it up big boy.

  102. birdsnewworld

    Yeah. You are wrong on all points. You are fundamentally delusional. Are you saying to me that Singer and all those others never get published? Ridiculous. Silly old man. Can you get nothing right?

  103. Seneca

    BIRDSNEWWORLD

    “That amounts to an ad hom, and therefore is a logical fallacy. Science is about evidence and reason and not about time spent in lectures. Your epistemology fail is noted.”

    Thanks for that. Best laugh I’ve had in ages. Great use of big words to say, “I have no qualifications that entitle me to be taken seriously. What I say is right just because I say it is right”. Great scientific method in that. You don’t happen to believe in the need for tin hats to ward off death rays, do you? Not that I really want to know.

  104. birdsnewworld

    Well you don’t understand science. Laugh all you like until you become hysterical, and the laughter echoes down the halls of your lonely house. But it won’t change the fact that credentials have nothing to do with it. This is a scientific matter and credentials are irrelevant to science. Sorry you had to hear it from me.

    For the global warming fraud to not be fraud the fraud proponents would have to find evidence for the following:

    1. That there was a likelihood of catastrophic warming due to extra CO2.

    2. The the USGS lie about underwater volcanic CO2 wasn’t a lie.

    3. That a little bit of human-induced warming during a brutal and pulverising ice-age was a BAD THING.

    4. They could start by showing any non-negligible warming from extra CO2 in the first place.

    Since they can do none of this its a straight case of science fraud. Worse than Piltdown Man and much more transparent.

  105. MLF

    Rich Uncle, I hear you. Please be assured it is in my nature to pull all arguments apart, its not reserved to the ‘yays’ and ‘nays’ of climate change.

    I’m not trying to be funny right, but take for example the CO2 lags temperature page. I’ve got a skeptic (Texas Rep Joe Barton) and then I’ve got a rebuttal by Anne-Marie Blackburn and John Cook (who are they by the way?).

    Then the statement in one section: “CO2 didn’t initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming” and in another section: “So CO2 causes warming…”. Straight away I’m not happy, you know?

    Then I have a very persuasive argument that refers to, as you say, peer-reviewed data. But the argument itself isn’t peer-reviewed, you know? I know how to formulate arguments too – but I also know you can find information to back up a theory that you have. We all do it every day. And you’ll note Rep Barton does it too.

    What I’m interested in is the whole shabang. The whole argument. Someone must have proven that CO2 has caused the temperature rises – who did it? How did they do it? And what do all his colleagues say about it?

    (Also, the graph on that page shows that CO2 and temps have increased and decreased at regularly spaced intervals for the past 400,000 years. To me that says ‘ok, we are in another cycle’. And remember I’m green at heart. If this says that to me then what’s it saying to the nay-sayers?)

  106. birdsnewworld

    “Then the statement in one section: “CO2 didn’t initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming”

    This is a realclimate/ Coby Beck claim without a scrap of evidence supporting it. The very claim denies any potential for cumulative warming. That is to say for heat content to rise and fall. Their whole model is an instantaneous light-and-air model. You look at the data it looks like CO2 is negatively correlated but Coby thinks he’s got proof of an amplification there.

  107. MLF

    That said Rich Uncle, I have just seen Crikey’s link to the Australian Academy of Science report. I plan to read it cover to cover. Cheers.

  108. birdsnewworld

    When I sent that email to Clive, which he acknowledged by return email wasn’t threatening (ie by saying that if he got a threatening email he would alert the police) he had just gotten through a monumental Stalinist rewrite of history. He had done this with the assistance of comrades within the ABC. And they were comrades too. Because they had given him a totally unprecedented four articles in a row to ply this fiction of an anti-science conspiracy on the skeptical side of matters. A skeptical conspiracy persecuting people.

    In other words he was laying down a Stalinist retouching of history. Just as surely as comrade Trotsky was airbrushed out of various photos, here was Clive airbrushing the actual history of continual persecution of anyone who stood up to the global warming fraud juggernaut.

    Back in 2003 when I first went onto the internet I was really polite to everyone. But when I went to ask questions about global warming (and I WAS then pretty green) I’d get on these sites and be persistently abused, for merely asking questions in a pretty persistent way. By not taking evasiveness for an answer. You could get banned and persistently belittled for simply trying to get at the truth. So by about 2005 I had thought, “no these days are over” if I thought the belittling was going to start I’d get a kick to the throat in right at the beginning.

    I was fully aware of the relentless ostracism and penalties to the careers of scientists who stuck to their scientific values, and therefore called this leftist science fraud into question. And this is definitely a leftist fraud. This is no mere collegial disagreement.

    The tendency of any supporters of skeptical scientists getting nasty is very recent. I thought it was just me. But its pretty clear now that peoples tempers are boiling over at this constant Soviet-style propagandizing to us, on the basis of a brazen science fraud. People are not happy at Clives crowd hijacking the various school programs and lying to children in national socialist fashion.

    After Tony Jones and George Monbiot set Ian Plimer up, on live television (on the basis of an outrageous lie perpetrated by the USGS) …. after that I naturally emailed Monbiot and swore at him relentlessly and the only response I detected was the mysterious temporary disappearance of the source study for the USGS lie.

    You see Clive is alleging co-ordinated action but its really his crowd and it always has been. As far as I knew (at the time) I was the only one taking this sort of action, and always under my own name.

    But you see Clives historical rewrite is as if Clive and his bully-boys have spat on the Dalit women,every day of the week for ten years, and the very first time a few of them react to this spitting campaign, he and his ABC bully-boys orchestrate an historical rewrite of the entire history of the case.

    Crikey is a respectable left-of-centre outfit and more-or-less well regarded even by hard rightists like myself. But Clive is poison to Australian society, with his scheming, his dishonesty and his Stalinist instincts. If Crikey wants to stay respectable it ought not tolerate, much less patronise, a poisonous cultural virus like Clive Hamilton.

  109. birdsnewworld

    “Let’s have that evidence then you Stalinist c**t. Either come up with the evidence or admit publicly that you are a fraud and kill yourself. What a complete c**t you are.”

    So come on Hairshirt Hamilton. I wrote this a long time ago. Its not okay to tell lies about an Australian (newspaper) war on science, to organise petitions for a new tax, to pursue globalist (ie treasonous) goals further eroding the sovereignty of the Australian electorate. To undermine the responsiveness of already unresponsive Australian politicians. To libel every honest scientist in Australia. To practice demagoguery in order to incite the eschatological-utopian instincts of hard leftists everywhere. To campaign maliciously for restricting Australian freedoms and lifestyles. To try and subject people like me to surveillance. To play down the reality of the Quixotic draft Copenhagen treaty.

    You think its okay to do all this year in year out and not respond to a request for evidence?

    You have to be joking Mate. Its not okay. Its far from okay.

    You see I think you are a coward who wants to be on the other end of the entire muscle of state apparatus. Guns money cops intelligence and armed forces. I think you are a big coward that want all this on your side since utopians are nothing if not Quixotic. Utopian socialists are big fat dreamers but sometimes their malicious dreams come true. And here I don’t want to alienate small government egalitarians. I’m an egalitarian myself.

    But supposing I were to show up at your place of work and ask for some evidence in person? What would you do? Would you burst into tears? Would you squirt a few? Would you cry in front of everyone?

    You know what you need. You need an honest CO2 record that goes back as far as possible. You need an honest heat content or temperature record that goes back as far as possible. You are allegedly a trained economist. If you have both of those you ought to be able to show causation if your movement isn’t fraudulent.

    Show up with the evidence or retract. Hurry up about it. Or hide that gleaming head from public debate until the end of time.

  110. Zugzwang

    And if you only accept peer-reviewed science from credible journals, you are aware the skeptics have none?

    Firstly this is wrong. Secondly as we have documented by email trail Phil Jones and co were actively undermining the peer review process so no contrary research was published.

    Actually its quite interesting that Clive is accusing “skeptics” of some sort of conspiracy (which he assumes and presents no evidence for) when we know that in actual fact there was a documented conspiracy amongst the leading climate researchers to supress facts.

  111. freecountry

    Mr Bird, did you know that Australia has an office of Chief Scientist? It’s not a rhetorical question. Our Prime Minister apparently didn’t know such a person existed, having never met with her, and Australia’s delegation to Copenhagen didn’t even consult her. The timing of the carbon tax announcement seems to be an attempt to recover the initiative following Prof Sackett’s resignation announcement.

    A pity. She is a strong advocate of the AGW theory to which you dissent, but she is also a strong opponent of Clive Hamilton’s style of condemning heretics from the pulpit. A daughter of the Enlightenment, you could say, who paraphrased John Stuart Mill in a speech last year (( chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/100615-climate-change-speech.pdf )) while talking about how to discuss science in such a way as to enlighten the public rather than proselytising them.
    [In many ways, and I have said this before, there has been a great deal of miscommunication around climate change. The science has often been misinterpreted, the speed of some impacts of climate change have been exaggerated and the scientific process itself has been misconstrued … Unfortunately, in many cases, people confuse the scientific and the ideological, attacking science when their gripe is with policy.

    (T)he use of labels … such as ‘denialists’ or ‘warmist’ for that matter, is neither a legitimate nor an effective response to the problem at hand … Dismissing their claims reinforces cynicism about science and promotes distrust for scientific and medical authority … Why? Well they might actually be right about something that would have been otherwise missed and if so we would have then just squashed a little bit of truth. On the other hand they might be wrong, but in the process of examining their claims we might discover more truth or learn how thinking and understanding can go wrong.

    The second communication failure I want to address is the use of quotes such as “the science is settled” or “there is no more room for debate about science”. Make no doubt about it; there is a lot about climate change that scientists do not know yet. We do not yet know how the great ice sheets will move, how climate change will affect local weather patterns or whether the great oceans can continue to absorb carbon at their current rate. When we state that the science on climate change is complete, we leave ourselves open to ridicule and damage our credibility while some questions are currently unanswerable or when new information surfaces.]
    It’s a disgrace for a government claiming its carbon tax to be its great “floating the dollar” moment, to have so ignored this unusually intelligent spokesperson for science and the scientific enlightenment, to the point that the only way she could be heard was by resigning.

  112. birdsnewworld

    So all you have is the argument from authority? No we didn’t want a logical fallacy pal. Its pretty simple. Data and attribution. Now you are not coming up with the evidence. I’ll accept a retraction and some help putting this fraud down.

    And the argument from authority is always a fallacy when you can find equally credentialed people with contrary sentiments. Butt out if you are not going to be serious.

  113. Elan

    ………………………how in the hell do you unring the damn bell??!

    34 emails clogging my inbox and all saying exactly the same thing, time and time again!

    I post because I thought I’d get the wee ‘untick this box’ symbol,-where is the bloody thing?

    HELLLLLPPPPPP!!!

  114. Mark Duffett

    Elan, try the tiny ‘Manage your subscriptions’ hyperlink just under the ‘Post comment’ button

  115. freecountry

    Mr Bird, whom was your last reply to? To clarify my own, although I addressed it to you, it was really meant for everybody. It would be a pity if everybody missed the point. You said something earlier about a water vapour aggregating assumption distorting the models of the energy trapdoor effect. The rest was about politics. So I’d like to know, did you or someone have difficulty getting material about the water vapour factor published?

  116. birdsnewworld

    Ha Ha. Sorry Elan. They mentioned my name three times so I had to show up. Hence all the emails. But maybe we can end this scam once and for all.

    Does anyone believe these three graphs? Bear in mind that year-long averaged temperature is really just a spin-off of oceanic heat content. So does anyone believe that the Northern Hemisphere temperatures were on average half a degree higher these days, when the Northern Hemisphere is under snow, then during the 30’s …. the dust-bowl years ….. those years that spawned the “Grapes Of Wrath”?

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

    Crikey readers don’t need to be dupes. There is nothing that compels anyone to be so stupid as to imagine that these graphs represent any honest rendering of the data. When Climategate hit, which proved it was a racket, it really was old news to me. I knew they were faking the data a long time before. One reason is I compared the satellite data to the Hadley and Goddard riggups. It was a Sesame street moment. One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just doesn’t belong.

    But it wasn’t just that. They did not make proper adjustments in the early 90’s when all the Siberian measuring sites went out of operation. They keep on adding tropical third-world sites. Now Hadley is adding temperature from the oceans to keep the upward trend going. And everyone knows that deep water holds the heat better else why does the mist rise from the swimming pool in the early morning? Why is the diving pool warmer than the big pool at morning training? To be adding ocean regions over time is straight fraud.

    So they are continually faking data.

    Here’s Goddards riggup:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif

    There is no point saying “ho ho conspiracy ho ho” because we already know its a fake. And there is nothing to compel you to believe this nonsense.

    All that aside we know that they are rigging the data to an even greater extent than I’m implying. Since when you just throw in the raw data without processing this is what you get:

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/hammer-graph-5-us-temps.jpg

    All unrigged data so far gives us the 30’s as the hottest decade. Thats really the end of the matter.

  117. Elan

    DONE! Thanks MARK!

    (I did notice that option-I though it was to do with m/ship. I should have checked. What a pillock!)

    Muchoz grassy arse.

  118. Elan

    ……………ahhh! the leeetle grey cells. No spelling errors. I am increasingly getting though/through/and thought mixed up……..:(

  119. jc123

    Clive:

    Mr. Bird makes some fair points here. Your actions do seem cowardly and unmanly and you also seem to be always baiting people.

    I think the country has had more than enough from you. Go away and please don’t ever come back here.

  120. birdsnewworld

    “You said something earlier about a water vapour aggregating assumption distorting the models of the energy trapdoor effect. The rest was about politics. So I’d like to know, did you or someone have difficulty getting material about the water vapour factor published?”

    As far as I know I was the first person to bring marginalist thinking to the problem and showed why we have to assume that the effect of the CO2 will be less than if we were in an aggregated and averaged environment, as in the models. Now someone might have pointed this out before me. I try and put this sort of stuff out on all the blogs when I get the chance.

    Its a very obvious point. Its also an unassailable point. There is no getting around it. There is no disproving it.

    I do not know if anyone has tried to publish on the basis of something so obvious as this. I don’t even know if you could turn it into a paper. But it doesn’t matter. Because reality, and therefore science, has nothing to do with leftist publications or any publication. The act of publication has nothing to do with science ……… properly considered.

    But as a tangential matter everyone in the industry (and thats what it is) of course knows that no matter what their particular paper is about, they are going to have to word it as being sympathetic to the global warming fraud.

  121. Elan

    “Clive:

    ……….I think the country has had more than enough from you. Go away and please don’t ever come back here.”

    ….and what’s more take your bucket and spade , and your girlie magazines…AND your hundreds and thousands sandwiches with you!

    So there!

  122. freecountry

    “The act of publication has nothing to do with science”? Mr Bird, I find your point about water vapour localization vs aggregation interesting. Interesting enough to look up a few websites on the subject (eg, brneurosci.org/co2.html , appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/WaterVapor.htm ). But they are only websites, nothing I would bet the farm on. Science as a concept is perfect but it can only be practiced by humans, and humans are imperfect, sometimes to a frustrating extent. Consequently the publication and peer review process will never be perfect. That’s no grounds for claiming that the whole process “has nothing to do with science”.

    It sounds as if you have spent a lot of time fencing with your opponents, sometimes offering very interesting arguments, but sometimes using the same methods your critics do. Whereas if you played the game their way, you might be at a serious handicap for getting qualifications, research funds, publication, and political attention, but without people prepared to do so we never would have found out how to prevent bubonic plague or fly to the moon.

  123. Frank Campbell

    Bird: “I was fully aware of the relentless ostracism and penalties to the careers of scientists who stuck to their scientific values, and therefore called this leftist science fraud into question. And this is definitely a leftist fraud.”

    I’ve referred often to the intimidation and ostracism of anyone (esp. scientists) even mildly critical of climate millenarianism. But it has nothing to do with Left or Right. I keep telling the Left that their fascistic behaviour/groupthink over climate simply brings the feral Right out of its holes. Do we need reminding that the Right is as capable of intellectual fascism as the Left?

    Climate millenarianism is institutionally based. It’s the dominant paradigm. It’s a very fragile paradigm. Extremists overstate the case daily. That’s why we have Lambeck’s arse-covering on Crikey right now. Read it: there are more caveats than you’d find at a lawyers’ picnic.

    Sending Savonarola Hamilton that nasty email shows how thick Bird is: it plays into Hamilton’s hands. He wants to portray himself as a victim, while ignoring the real victims of the climate cult (see my post above). What sickens me about the Hamiltons, Birds and most of the posters on Crikey is that they have no direct experience of the climate cult and its toxic derivatives.

    And you have to laugh at this: “Crikey is a respectable left-of-centre outfit and more-or-less well regarded even by hard rightists like myself.”

    In terms of climate, Mister Birdbrain, Crikey is one of the worst offenders. It relentlessly promotes the climate cult. It never, ever allows editorial space for contrary views. Hamilton, the indescribably banal Anna Rose, Farmer, Keane, the bloggers etc….they all assiduously maintain Climate Discipline. They’re dragging us into an era of rule by the hard Right. Failing that, we’ll have decades of anti-working class, self-defeating “climate policies”. A truly horrible choice.

  124. birdsnewworld

    Yes the process of peer review has something to do with science properly considered. But the dogma of peer review does not. The matter of peer review ought not arise in our discussions except perhaps as a way of verifying that data has been properly compiled. We ought concentrate on the “logic upside-down pyramid” alone. Because in this story even the data compilation of peer review has been broken …….. when it comes to this one subject.

    Ask me anything about the logic of matters. Don’t ask me for quantitative work. You can find it if you look for it but I’m not going to. But if you wish to understand how the entire edifice stands up (or teeters) on a logical basis I can answer any questions you feel you need to know.

    This is no line-ball call. No one needs to get a research grant or go back to school to refute this monstrosity. This is the biggest incident of wrong-way-Corriganism in the history of mass-media. If anyone feels they are half-way smart you can follow the logic with me and I will show you just how stupendously wrong this movement is.

    I’ll never be evasive about any QUALITATIVE questions you ask me. I’ll get back to you on anything. But I won’t get back to you today on anything because I fear I must be trying the patience of the crikey moderators.

    If you can follow the logic of this story, should I make some sort of blunder that does not stack up to the empirical evidence, that will be revealed soon enough.

  125. freecountry

    I can follow the basics of your argument on water vapour, but I can’t evaluate it. I rely on others to evaluate scientific argument for me. I can follow your argument that those to whom we outsource that evaluation are subject to hysteria bias. Even the argument that “the planet must be given the benefit of the doubt” is potentially an excuse for neglecting objectivity. But I can’t evaluate that either.

    I sometimes read some very convincing contrarian investment stories in websites which appear to be better researched and better thought out than the investment bank consensus. I don’t rush off to my broker to change my investments based on them. I don’t ignore them either. I bookmark them and make a note to ask professionals their opinion on it the next chance I get. That’s what I would expect on this water vapour argument. A professional view from somebody or some institution that I already knew of and considered credible, before I read their opinion on flawed water vapour assumptions in the energy trapdoor model.

  126. birdsnewworld

    You have to be able to evaluate the reasoning without recourse of the fallacy of the argument from authority, no matter how sneakily this fallacy is put over, or you ought not be participating in the debate.

    You’ve tried to put this fallacy over like rolling thunder. Now I don’t care how politely you put this crap about. Either commit yourself to a process of human reason or get out of the way.

  127. freecountry

    No, you’re the one who’s got to do better than that. Maybe you’ve been doing this so long that you mistake skepticism for sabotage. An interesting syndrome from someone trying to engage in skepticism and being accused of sabotage. Do you see the symmetry here? Show us something in the orthodox model which rests on this aggregate-vapour fallacy.

  128. birdsnewworld

    No its you who has to do better. And you have misrepresented my claims, which I will summarise below. But If you just cannot help yourself. If a logical fallacy has been pointed out to you and you refuse point blank to cease and desist from it, you ought to recognise your weakness and just stay away.

    Now Clive. Take off that phoney costume you are wearing. Stop pretending to be for a free country. Because you are not for a free country. You’ve never been for a free country.

    By your admission Clive, you don’t understand climate science. Which means you are opportunistically using this issue to plug your eschatological-utopian daydreams. I recognize your writing style. I see the gestapo-like hatred behind the polished and uber-polite veneer.

    Here is my contribution to the internet debate on climate-science:

    ((((( I was the first person to suggest that the fact that water was more viscous when cold helped explain the step-fashion nature of cooling and warming on a multi-decadal basis. I was the first person I can find who hypothesized a direct relationship between the resistance-to-circulation of the currents, and the equilibrium heat content of the globe (holding energy input constant)via Stefan-Boltzmanns law.

    Others have mentioned this but not before me as far as I know. And I plugged this concept all over the place

    In philosophy I was the first person I know of to articulate that only convergent evidence gave us rightful certitude and not deductive exactitude or anything else. I know that everyone with any commonsense already acts like they know this but its a serious philosophical point.

    I was the first person to make the heater-in-the basement versus the heater-in-the attic analogy to show that not all DELTA-JOULES are equal. And that therefore the INCOMING Joules that the CO2 was absorbing or scattering (ie the joules that extra-CO2 negated from the lower atmosphere) may well be more important than the theoretical extra joules through back-radiation.

    I was the first person to bring marginalist thinking to the problem and showed why we have to assume that the effect of the CO2 will be less than if we were in an aggregated and averaged environment as in the models.))))
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Now what have you contributed to the debate on climate science Clive Hamilton? Nothing at all. Because you were never interested in the science Clive. You were only interested in leveraging the issue, to take away the sovereignty of your fellow Australians. Now there is a technical term for that Clive. A term for which we have lost the meaning in this culture. We have lost the meaning of the word “”treason.”

    I told you that you were a sissy. And here you come slumming-it, to talk to me, under cover of anonymity. But there was something wrong with that phoney costume you were wearing Clive. While Achilles Mother forgot that his heel was covered by her hand, you forgot to cover that head of yours.

    I could see that head shining a mile off on a foggy day.

  129. JamesH

    Freecountry,
    Bird is not worth arguing with – you will only give yourself a headache. You may wish to consult The Graeme Bird memorial thread and the Big Bird Brain Graeme Bird Education Charity to learn about why. Here’s an unusually profanity-free sample from the latter:

    “No no.
    You are wrong again.
    I was right.
    And you were wrong.
    You SAID I was wrong.
    But thats not the case. In fact you are wrong and I wasn’t wrong I was right.”

    Beware, only cutting rebuttals like this one await you if you continue to engage.

  130. Rohan

    Far out Graeme!

    You’ve well and truly circumvented my irony radar with this Free Country = Clive Hamilton skit.

  131. O_o

    There’s so much crazy concentrated in one feed….

  132. freecountry

    Sorry, did you call me Clive Hamilton? Hilarious. I suppose it was also Hamilton who in a recent blog, using this ID, summed up his own argument as “it’s necessary to destroy the village in order to save it.” Very cunning of him to have offered such a summary of his own position and not yet answered it.

    But back to what you were saying. “In philosophy I was the first person I know of to articulate that only convergent evidence gave us rightful certitude and not deductive exactitude or anything else. I know that everyone with any commonsense already acts like they know this but its a serious philosophical point.” That’s true, but isn’t it just a restatement of the principle of inductive reasoning?

    Anyway, the more interesting part is these flaws you say are built into the warming models. If you are right about these factors, and if neglect of these factors is built into the orthodox warming models, that’s interesting, but my own lack of expertise means I need to be spoonfed some of the evidence. There’s a difference between me being able to follow your arguments and me being satisfied that the standard models don’t take account of them. This is a laymans’ blog, I’m a layman, so I need a certain amount of spoonfeeding to show just where these factors are overlooked. You’re the one most likely to have tracked down just where these factors are overlooked, unless you expect non-scientists to comb through thousands–I don’t know, maybe millions–of pages of literature on it, most of it gobbledegook to me.

  133. birdsnewworld

    Yeah I thought there was a bit of sparkle to it.

    The point is a carbon tax has been scheduled. So its not funny anymore. Everyone has to understand what I would call the “upside-down-pyramid” of atrocious pseudo-reasoning under-pinning this …. business. If you are of goodwill and you don’t know everything about the subject then you ought to ask questions from the ground up. From very most basic assumptions all the way to the top, where nationally ruinous policy is being made.

    Don’t be clogging up the works with politely worded arguments-from-authority, typed through the teeth of a poo-eating grin.

  134. birdsnewworld

    Okay Freecountry. No more arguments from authority and lets sort this thing out from the ground up.

    Deal?

  135. freecountry

    Deal. First up, please show us a link to some document showing that IPCC models rely on an assumption of uniform distribution of water vapour, and second, that water vapour varies strongly enough to invalidate those models. The first part will probably be a lot harder than the second part. It is not necessary to prove the reliance for every single model; it is enough to show the reliance in one model which is widely relied upon. Ideally, for those of us like me who don’t know where to look, there would be some way of testing (eg some keywords to google) whether orthodox models have been revised to take account of that factor.

  136. birdsnewworld

    We really must start from the bottom of the pyramid and work our way up. Otherwise the debate will become incoherent. Its certainly fair enough to debate what is at the bottom of the inverted pyramid. Thats something to argue about at great length. The more you argue the ins and out at the base of the inverted logic pyramid the more valid are any subsequent discussions and the more time is saved later on.

    We have to do things differently this time since a google of words have been written on this subject without resolution despite it being a very simple subject. Also we have to maximise arguments that are to hand rather than forcing homework on everyone by demanding that the other fellow pour through google scholar or file freedom of information writs to answer a question. If some claims are persistently divergent from empirical reality that comes to the surface in the by and by. So there is never an excuse to be setting homework for the other guy. Never is an over-emphasis on apriori reasoning wasted. Since resultant mistake show up bigtime and can be corrected.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Now is the alleged doubling of the CO2 levels, holding air pressure constant, allegedly going to cause a one degree increase in average temperatures ….. is that at the base of assumptions? Or can we get closer to the bottom of the upside-down pyramid than that?

    Also a good epistemologist keeps circling over base assumptions. Since even one wrong assumption at the bottom of an inverted logic pyramid renders the whole edifice untenable.

    I’ve got the doubling creating a one degree difference …….. and certain matters to do with air pressure at the base. Do you think that we can go even more basic than that? Or is that as far to the bottom of the inverted pyramid as we can go?

  137. freecountry

    Just assume I know nothing about the subject but can reason with what you show me, please. If you misrepresent accepted orthodoxy at any point, I’ll just have to rely on someone being there to point it out.

  138. birdsnewworld

    But you know a little bit about it. And I don’t know all things about it. Off the cuff what do you think is behind that assumption? Why do people believe it? Do you suppose they assume this due to some sort of temperature anomaly?

  139. freecountry

    The most coherent account for laymen that I’ve heard, was that recent warming trends were unusual not so much in their amplitude as in their rapidity, that this correlated with a rapid release of subterranean carbon into atmospheric CO2 in the last century or so, and that the rate of aggregate warming might overcome the usual dynamic equilibrium mechanisms which at slower speeds would normally correct the effect.

  140. birdsnewworld

    Yes but you are jumping half-way up the inverted logic pyramid. By the way this is no exclusive dialogue. I invite anyone of goodwill to jump in so long as we go with the rough epistemological outline I’ve layed out. Because I assure you we can resolve this matter from the policy point of view to TOTAL CERTAINTY should we go about things in an exemplary and systematic way. Wherein we max out on apriori reasoning and only force a recourse to making the other guy do homework when absolutely necessary.

    I’m trying to teach people about the scientific method.

  141. birdsnewworld

    “While carbon dioxide makes up only 0.038% of the atmosphere, it is vital in the energy balance of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. If the atmosphere contained no greenhouse gases, the surface temperature would be about 30C colder.” (David Karoly)

    You see I think that the one claim is related to this other claim. Do you have a contrary understanding? The idea that doubling of the CO2 will (in the first instance at least) increase the average temperature by 1 degree. I assume that this estimate has something to do with the assumption that David Karoly is making here.

    Now any assumption has to have three convergent lines of evidence in order for us to have rightful certainty about it. Meaning that we can only build an edifice safely on assumptions that are confirmed three ways ( we need the third line of evidence even if only as a tie-break). But nonetheless can we not say that the one assumption is likely built on the other?

  142. birdsnewworld

    Okay lets move sideways to another base assumption. Since right this moment we aren’t getting a great deal of traction with the other one. Air pressure. What can we say about air pressure?

    But first what would be the effect of back-radiation were it to work as advertised? Well take the Sahara versus Singapore. Singapore has the higher average temperature. But Sahara has higher maximum temperatures. People would say that the reduction in the heat differentials of Singapore is PRIMARILY to do with backradiation. I disagree with this but I’m unable to quantify what proportion greenhouse plays.

    But here are two propositions

    1. Greenhouse, if it works as advertised, always reduces heat differentials. Between summer and winter. Between night and day.

    2. In the first instance its an open question as to what proportion of the effect of this heat differential reduction is being caused by backradiation …….. and what proportion may be caused by a range of other factors.

    After all we don’t want to be guilty of falling for some sort of “god-of-gaps” argument now do we? We don’t want to be plugging our pet theory greenhouse ….. in to fill the entirety of the mystery, every time we cannot explain an anomaly.

  143. Tom McLoughlin

    1. guilt

    2. embarrassment about poor education

    3. anger, pain and denial, over items 1 and 2.

    That’s about 70% of Australians right there.

    I became aware of this at a public meeting on the south coast of nsw … in 1993

    I tend to think there is no point being polite to pigs. Better to offend them with the truth that they are ignorant bogans who don’t know their heads from their arse when it comes to science, that they should shut up, until they have something useful to say.

    There is more chance they will respect that directness.

  144. freecountry

    Actually I don’t know why tropical temperature ranges are narrower over day-night cycles. At a guess I would expect Singapore to have a higher specific heat than the Sahara because of the heat reservoir of all the water in and around it. We’re not going to get anywhere by reverse-engineering any of the assumptions we intuit to be in orthodox models. I need to see some indication in the literature of where the assumption or false approximation is made.

  145. birdsnewworld

    There is no doubt at all that the air in Singapore would usually maintain a higher heat content than in the hottest part of the Sahara, even on very hot days. Good point. The amount of joules contained in any volume of air ought usually be more than in the desert . Because you’ve got so much more water vapor, with its consequent latent heat of condensation, in the air in Singapore.

    Now this ought to usually be true even when the desert air is right up there in the high 40’s. But it is not apriori true in all cases. And I’ll tell you why:

    1. The act of evaporation has a refrigerant effect, cooling the sea, but it cools the air too. For example friends took me to a restaurant by the sea just South of Bangkok. They chose this establishment because its always a strong cool breeze that blows off the ocean there. You look at the map and even though these are likely equatorial winds they have traveled consistently over sea, without ever hitting land for a very long way.

    2. The greater proportion of electromagnetic (as opposed to electric) energy reaching to the lower troposphere is infra-red as well. People talk as if this were not the case and as if this were no serious reality to contend with. But “greenhouse gases” scatter and absorb incoming infra-red as well as outgoing. Therefore at a certain altitude, or a certain region of altitude, extra greenhouse will scatter more joules up to space then to the surface. I cannot say what height or region that would be. But nonetheless logically this argument is unassailable and no-one appears to be making it. If I were to guess I would put the cut-off at mid-troposphere, but it would also depend on surface temperature and the time of day or night where that cut-off lay.

    Your point brings up the idea that we are wagging the dog talking about temperature. To think clearly about this issue we ought speak in the first instance of heat content alone. And only convert to temperature now and then after the fact.

    Also when I speak of the greenhouse effect I often use the term “back-radiation”. I now see that to maintain clarity we must use the phrase ….. “The absorption/scattering effect” or the a/s effect for short. Since there are so many other effects to consider when you look at what a gas may be doing. Only by using the phrase the absorption/scattering effect can we keep our reasoning clear all the way along the inverted logic pyramid.

  146. freecountry

    But isn’t the whole basis of the trapdoor effect that the incoming radiation averages a higher frequency than the outgoing radiation, and that greenhouse gasses scatter the lower frequencies more than the higher? I’m on shaky ground here, I’m still waiting for the bit where you show me an assumption in the literature. The one that caught my eye earlier was when you said orthodox models assumed uniform moisture, which should be able to be traced if indeed they assume it. Otherwise how do I know these aren’t straw man arguments?

  147. Liamj

    How unsurprising that birdsnewworld & freecountry want to argue science on this thread, instead of the death threats their type are making against MPs.

    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.

  148. freecountry

    Is there no depth to which you do not sink, Liamj? I said my piece on the death threats and I don’t have anything to add. In the distinguished record of ad hominem attacks in this forum you have set a new low. Congratulations.

  149. birdsnewworld

    “But isn’t the whole basis of the trapdoor effect that the incoming radiation averages a higher frequency than the outgoing radiation, and that greenhouse gasses scatter the lower frequencies more than the higher? ”

    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.

  150. birdsnewworld

    “How unsurprising that birdsnewworld & freecountry want to argue science on this thread, instead of the death threats their type are making against MPs.”

    Would you like to retract that you anonymous spineless insect?

  151. birdsnewworld

    “There’s so much crazy concentrated in one feed….”

    I know its only science.

    But I like it.

  152. freecountry

    Trapdoor effect is my own term. “Greenhouse” implies more energy coming in than going out because of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. I say “trapdoor” to imply a similar net effect without limiting it to just one mechanism and excluding for example surface reflection. Sorry if I caused confusion, I really am not technically conversant in this subject.

  153. Liamj

    @ Freecountry – you’re no stranger to the Ad Hominem yourself – your “Bob Brown school of economics” for example.

    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.

  154. Liamj

    @ birdsnewworld – “Would you like to retract that you anonymous spineless insect?”
    Which bit do you think needs retracting? I’ve just shown how Freecountry is quite willing to issue veiled threats himself, in this very thread.

    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.

  155. birdsnewworld

    “Sending Savonarola Hamilton that nasty email shows how thick Bird is: it plays into Hamilton’s hands.”

    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.

  156. birdsnewworld

    “Trapdoor effect is my own term. “Greenhouse” implies more energy coming in than going out because of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.”

    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.

  157. Frank Campbell

    Is it a plane? Is it a bird? is it Superman?

    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.

  158. mekongmelody

    It seems ladies and genitalmen that what we have is a conversation between two idiot savants, trading Oh Aren’t I so Clever and Powerful remarks within in ever diminishing realm of relevance. They fail to include oceanography, botany, biology and all the other ‘y’s’ that make up the scientific world. I suggest they read Fred Pearce’s With Speed and Increasing Violence. It seems to sum up these exchanges and the stuff they don’t know about.

  159. birdsnewworld

    http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

    “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.

  160. birdsnewworld

    “They fail to include oceanography, botany, biology and all the other ‘y’s’….”

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

  161. freecountry

    Liamj, I said what I said. I didn’t say what I didn’t say. In particular I did not threaten Windsor’s life and for you to pin that on me just because you disapprove of whatever you imagine (probably more by stereotyping than by reading what I say) my politics to be, is the most disgusting smear tactic.

    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?

  162. freecountry

    Mr Bird, you’re right, Mekongmelody does talk like a knuckle-dragger when he refers us to a New Scientist journalist who embarrasses even the IPCC, instead of to a credible authority. But he is right about one thing: this is turning into a discussion about atmospheric science, when what I agreed to discuss was specifically not how the the atmosphere and radiation work, but some approximations or assumptions you said were built into the mathematical models that the IPCC were relying on.

    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.

  163. jc123

    Clive

    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.

  164. birdsnewworld

    If you leave the science reasoning to others than you ought not engage the subject. Since this is a case of science fraud. Like Piltdown man.

    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.

  165. birdsnewworld

    If you leave the science reasoning to others than you ought not engage the subject. Since this is a case of science fraud. Like Piltdown man.

    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.

  166. birdsnewworld

    “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.”

    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.

  167. birdsnewworld

    “Mr Bird, you’re right, Mekongmelody does talk like a knuckle-dragger when he refers us to a New Scientist journalist who embarrasses even the IPCC, instead of to a credible authority”

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

  168. Mike of Climate Team B

    Clive, the dominant sentiment of sceptics is frustration, not one of anger of the name calling, violent kind that you are making it out to be – so you need to stop the name calling from your side. Sceptics frustration has always and continues to be born out of the scientific debate being sidelined by the government and the media – and you are continuing to be part this process (until the tables turn that is).

    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.

  169. birdsnewworld

    Hopefully Mike, you know that you are talking to third parties. Because if you are trying to talk to Clive using human reason, he aint listening. You see Clive has treason on the brain. The only way to get this fellows attention is to shout at him.

    Q.E.D.

  170. birdsnewworld

    “The voters are deserting the cult, but its institutional power remains ….”

    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.

Leave a comment

Advertisement

https://www.crikey.com.au/2011/03/02/windsor-receives-death-threats-as-climate-of-hate-ramps-up/ == https://www.crikey.com.au/free-trial/==https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/

Show popup

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.

Free Trial form on Pop Up

Free Trial form on Pop Up
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.