Australia's Victorian government creates seminar to "deal with denialism"

Whoo boy. It must be rough out there when CSIRO has to have seminars on how to deal with us rowdy ruffian “deniers”. I’m surprised though, a 15 million budget, and they ask you to bring a sack lunch?

Here’s the text, PDF follows:

================================================

DSE invites members of the Victorian Public Service to a presentation on:

Dealing with climate change denialism with Paul Holper, CSIRO

Popular opinion on climate change often waivers, particularly when the media focus on denialist views and encourage “debates” with climate change scientists.

The Victorian Government, along with other governments in Australia and across the world, rely on the scientific community for advice on climate change and its likely impacts.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is recognised as the international authority on climate change science and denialist views often lack rigor and credibility in comparison.

Paul Holper (CSIRO) will present on ways to approach climate change denialism in a Victorian context.

To register for this event please email: climate.change@dse.vic.gov.au by Friday 11 June 2010

Friday 18 June 2010, 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm (includes question time)

Treasury Theatre, Lower Plaza

1 Macarthur Street, East Melbourne

BYO lunch!

Paul Holper

Paul manages the CSIRO’s involvement in the Australian Climate Change Science Program, a $15 million program supported by the Commonwealth Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. This program undertakes observations of the atmosphere, oceans and terrestrial systems, as well as climate model development, and projections of Australia’s likely future climate. Paul coordinated the most recent climate change projections for Australia (based on IPCC models), announced by BoM and CSIRO in 2007.

========================================

Here’s the PDF of the poster for this event:

Poster_Paul_Holper_final

Thanks to David Archibald for the tip.

Advertisements

127 thoughts on “Australia's Victorian government creates seminar to "deal with denialism"

  1. So the Victorian government has sponsored a seminar to instruct people how to stifle public debate?
    Wow.
    Are the public coffers so overflowing in Australia that spending on this kind of one-sided advocacy doesn’t raise the hackles of the electorate?
    And this doesn’t even address the anti-scientific nature of such a “seminar”.

  2. We’ve entered another er,…arms race?
    We deny their statements.
    They build bigger, longer ranged statements.
    We present open science and invite debate.
    They build multiple Meme re-entry wordheads, capable of injecting a dozen memes from low orbit.
    We offer a middle ground to discuss, even debate publicly our points.
    They build stealth memories, capable of flying under concious RADAR, right into ones long term memories. Undetected! And then they use it on Kids!.
    We provide DATA, methodology, and self critical appraisal of our own scientific approaches.
    They weaponise language and sell it on the green market, to banana republic dictators for use in schools, churches and nature clubs.
    Finally we launch a web based rebutle to each and every point they raise.
    And then they have to admit, they have the money, but…we have the tenacity.
    Keep up the good work WUWT. You’ve got them [SNIP]ing themselves.

  3. How apt!
    Paul Holper (CSIRO) will present on ways to approach climate change denialism in a Victorian context.
    Victorian times were proverbially puritanical and hypocritical.

  4. I registered. Here is the content of my email:
    ===================================
    You must be really worried about all the non-peer reviewed literature in IPCC report if you have to resort to propaganda meetings to support your political position. Did Tony Blair donate any of the 5 million pounds a year he says he needs to live in the style to which he has become accustomed? Did Al Gore? How bout the WWF or Greenpeace? Or are you just ripping off your local tax payers to brainwash them with unsubstantiated power point slides? Maybe you could invite Lord Monckton or Bjorm Borg to bring some rationale discussion to your circus.
    From Wayne Delbeke from the Great White North (Canada) …. and getting whiter … forecast is for snow in Alberta this Friday. Where is that Global Warming that is supposed to increase my crop production? Oh yeah. That’s just weather.
    Enjoy.

  5. So they are having a seminar on how to talk to folks who don’t believe. What do they call that? Can’t remember. Apologetics? No. Hermeneutics? That’s not it. Exegetics? No.
    Oh. I remember.
    Evangelism!
    Do they have a book?

  6. Gandhi remarked to the effect of:
    “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
    He also said this too:
    “An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.” — Mohandas Gandhi

  7. “Popular opinion on climate change often waivers wavers, particularly when the media focus on denialist views and encourage “debates” with climate change scientists.”
    “The Victorian Government, along with other governments in Australia and across the world, rely relies on the scientific community for advice on climate change and its likely impacts.”
    Mechanics: D
    Content: F

  8. Somewhere over the rainbow…
    Dealing with Climate Change Ignorance, with Captain Tuttle
    (Commonwealth Scientific Ignorance Research Organisation)
    Key themes:
    *Why using the word “attribution” is stupid
    *How the stupidity spreads
    *Is Real Climate to blame?
    *Difference between “Science” and “Scientists”
    BBQ Lunch!

  9. “Dealing with climate change denialism with Paul Holper”
    Funny. Since Holper et al are the ones truly in denial, this really should be about self-counseling.
    Anthony I sure hope there’s a way you or a contributor can report the contents of this seminar, or seance, or whatever term best fits it, because that would no doubt be a real hoot.

  10. Readers, please help me. Although I live in Melbourne and worked for CSIRO as a young graduate, I cannot go to the “BYO lunch” because I am not now a public servant.
    But are there restrictions in some countries that legally prevent public servants from offering opinions that might impact upon election results? I seem to recall browsing some comment from the USA where there was mention of a law by name.
    This is not our only problem. Here is a report from the Federal Department of Treasury, which I will repeat verbatim from the think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs. Do open the graphs. I do not know if this is cherry picking because I do not know if there was a requirement to report on all G20 countries. But it looks a bit like selective misleading.
    From John Roskam | Thursday, 13 May 2010
    This graph was in the Budget Papers on Tuesday night. It compares the size of stimulus packages against growth projections made by the International Monetary Fund.
    http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii14/sherro_2008/2010/Handpicked.jpg?t=1273752359
    Treasury claims the graph demonstrates the bigger the stimulus, the bigger the difference between what the IMF predicted would happen and what actually happened (ie the bigger the stimulus the bigger the recovery).
    But the IPA’s Professor Sinclair Davidson asked himself – why are there are only 11 countries in the graph??? The original IMF document Treasury got the data from was a list of all the countries in the G20. (There’s 19 countries in the G20 plus the European Union.)
    Sinclair plotted all 19 countries. And guess what? THERE’S NO STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE between the size of stimulus packages and economic recovery. Sinclair explains it here.
    http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii14/sherro_2008/2010/full_data.jpg?t=1273752423
    Why did Treasury include China in their graph but not Russia? or Brazil but not Mexico? … mmm … have Treasury officials learned statistics from the folks from the University of East Anglia?
    Institute of Public Affairs | Level 2 | 410 Collins Street | Melbourne | Victoria | 3000 | Australia

  11. And this total waste of my taxes and state duties just after I had been praising DSE on the fantastic package of data that they had sent me on duck hunting!
    I guess it must be wabbit season now! Or is this related to their worries about the visit of some significant members of the skeptic community to Melbourne shortly? We will know if you have really scared them if they are running this presentation in all states prior to Anthony and David’s appearances.

  12. Show valid data and everyone will shut up and get on with resolving the problem, if any.

  13. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is recognised as the international authority on climate change science and denialist views often lack rigor and credibility in comparison.
    Often? OFTEN?
    GOOD Lord!

  14. The NZ government seems to be beginning a new PR campaign to justify our ETS, because their own coalition partner ACT has begun making some headway in convincing farmers of its true cost and stupidity. There was an article in the paper attempting to rubbish ACT’s claims and spouting the same old ‘compelling evidence for AGW’. They even accused ACT of scaremongering, imagine that. I couldn’t find an electronic version unfortunately. We recently had a goods and services tax increase (GST) and the public seems to have forgotten about the ETS coming into effect on July 1, most are probably still unaware of it.

  15. “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is recognised as the international authority on climate change science and denialist views often lack rigor and credibility in comparison.”
    This is a joke …… I am going to register and suggest they read Montfords book “The Hockey Stick Illusion” …… sometimes I think these guys just do not hear what they are saying …..

  16. Mechanics: D
    Content: F

    As much as I’d like to ding them for mechanics, it won’t do.
    Outside the US, English collective nouns take the plural, not singular. As in, “The crowd are loving it.” Or, “The government are crooks.”
    Popular opinion on climate change often waivers
    You do have them there, though.

  17. I see the poster says “BYO lunch!”
    They forgot to add “Kool-Aid will be served.”

  18. A couple of things come to mind:
    1. I guess we will soon all be sent off to re-education camps.
    2. Alarmists are usually too scared to debate the issues and have their bad science exposed – is this a change of strategy?

  19. And there I thought the CSIRO had previously chastised their employees for speaking out on policy-related issues. Here I sit corrected and embarrassed for Australians at large.

  20. evanmjones says on May 26, 2010 at 11:02 pm

    Mechanics: D
    Content: F
    As much as I’d like to ding them for mechanics, it won’t do.
    Outside the US, English collective nouns take the plural, not singular. As in, “The crowd are loving it.” Or, “The government are crooks.”

    Hmmm, I grew up in Australia, and I would say: The crowd is loving it. As for the government, while I agree with the sentiment, I would probably say “The government is a bunch of crooks.”

  21. Popular opinion on climate change often waivers

    I didn’t sign a waiver on my opinion.
    How much did they pay for this publication? Maybe it passed peer review, but it snuck past all the editors.

  22. Richard Sharpe: May 26, 2010 at 11:40 pm
    Hmmm, I grew up in Australia, and I would say: The crowd is loving it. As for the government, while I agree with the sentiment, I would probably say “The government is a bunch of crooks.”

    Canadians say things that way too – particularly the last sentence. ☺
    /dr.bill

  23. Unfortunately my taxes at work…
    The quote “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is recognised as the international authority on climate change science and denialist views often lack rigor and credibility in comparison.” – just about had me snort coffee…

  24. A recent Sydney Morning Herald survey about climate change, not the best source I’ll admit, but the results were that of those who responded, 84% believed that humans were causing climate to change through emissions of CO2.
    The mind boggles!

  25. I can certainly bring them a sack….er um….lunch. LOL
    What a horrible waste of Aussie Taxpayer money.
    Knowing those guys and gals down under…I am sure they will take care of business, as they know how to do.
    It is not nice to cross paths with Jo Anne Nova…she will eat you ALIVE…so watch out.
    This just shows how desperate the CAGW propaganda machine has become.
    I say let them play themselves out, and the longer it happens, the bigger fools they become.
    Good bl**dy riddance!!
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  26. “Dealing with climate change denialism with Paul Holper, CSIRO”
    Denialism? As in Holocaust Denialism? You know by neo-fascist groups? Hey, what’s the difference? Every one should know that to doubt that CO2 is “pollution” is just like denying 6 million Jews were systematically exterminated by the Nazis. Right Paul Holper?
    Dehumanization through contemptuous labeling is a technique reserved by authoritarians to oppress ‘the other,’ by distinguishing them from the tribe, it’s meant to legitimise brutish rhetoric and coercion…leading to… That’s why slanderous labels for minorities – religious, racial or ideologically – is called hate speech.
    There’s little difference in the reason that Paul Holper uses the d-word to describe CAGW scepticism than a demagogue politician in 1954 Atlanta, Georgia used the n-word at a city council meeting. It’s all about hate, invidious labeling and intimidation. One difference is that Holper is using hate on the Internet – the greatest free market of ideas ever created – where he will be named and judged by history.
    A government funded agency engaging in the hateful labelling of a legitimate and rationally plausible interpretation of scientific data as equivalent to Nazi denialism of the Holocaust is an act of government oppression of (what they imagine is) a minority opinion.
    To Aussify Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit, “They told me if I voted for PM Howard that minorities would be targeted and my civil liberties would be violated. And they were right!
    Bit surprised, though, that the CSIRO now qualifies as a hate group under the UN Charter of Human rights.

  27. I guess Mr. Holper would believe anything for $15 million, even is he has to bring his own lunch.

  28. As a Victorian I am aghast at this anti scienc totalitarian mind set. Time to revisit Karl Popper’s ‘Open Society and its Enemies.’ I intend to spread the word. I look forward to Anthony Watt’s visit in July.

  29. The words “Dealing with” are quite Orwellian. Truly evil.
    Some of these sad buggers need to get a life.

  30. Our Australian Parliament has a scrutiny process called the Senate Estimates Committee. This is televised but not widely. Today Senator Penny Wong and the Dept. of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency were being questioned by the Opposition about the recent ‘deferment’ of the CPRS.
    Will Stephan from the ANU ,as an advisor was giving his opinion, bagging Carter and Plimer “they are only Geologists and do not have a good grip”,CO2 stays up there for 100 years, all volcanic CO2 emissions are “tiny” compared to man. Lindzen and Paltridge are wrong with their CO2 sensitivity estimates, and on and on it went.
    I must admit they are very fluent and forceful as if they are on a mission. I guess that this was not the place to have a forum on the IPCC report, but the Liberal Senators seemed lost for words.
    Shame, this is quite a battle.

  31. The organisers of this seminar might care to read this, from today’s Express:
    http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/177422/Climate-change-battle-wastes-billions-of-pounds-
    ____________________________________________________________
    CLIMATE CHANGE BATTLE “WASTES BILLIONS OF POUNDS”
    Thursday May 27, 2010
    By John Ingham
    BILLIONS of pounds of taxpayers’ money is being “wasted” in fighting climate change as other nations are hell-bent on development, a new book claims today.
    Engineer Christian Gerondeau says in “Climate: The Great Delusion” that cutting carbon dioxide emissions in the West will not reduce them globally because of the expansion of China, India and Africa. He said yesterday: “The money being spent by our governments to reduce our emissions is being wasted.”
    And another new book, “Climate: The Counter Consensus,” by Australian scientist Professor Bob Carter claims computer models used by the UN to forecast climate change are “wrong, and flipping a coin would be just as accurate.”
    The books were launched as the European Commission unveiled a feasibility study into increasing the EU’s cut in CO2 emissions from 20 per cent of 1990 levels by 2020 to 30 per cent, putting the extra cost to Europe at £28billion. But yesterday the director of the Energy Intensive Users Group, Jeremy Nicholson, said that a unilateral move “would damage the European economy at a time when we can ill afford it”.
    However, Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne said Britain has to fight climate change.
    The Met Office, one of the world’s leading climate modelling centres, said it rigorously tests predictions.
    Its head of climate change advice, Dr Vicky Pope, said: “We all know that climate modelling is difficult but we have very strong confidence in the key results such as that the warming in the last half of the 20th century is very likely due to man’s activities.
    “We are able to test the predictions of our computer models by comparing them with past events. We are also constantly checking our computer models by using a wide range of data including that from satellites.”
    ____________________________________________________________
    Of course, Ms Pope left out mentioning the only climate model that matters, the Earth itself, which is getting steadily colder.

  32. Recently a UK court ruled that climate change belief is the same as a religion. The UK Telegraph says “The ruling could open the door for employees to sue their companies for failing to account for their green lifestyles, such as providing recycling facilities or offering low-carbon travel“.
    In Australia religious freedom is meant to be safeguarded by section 116 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits the federal government from making any law establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. Individuals are meant to be free to express a diversity of views, as long as they do not incite religious hatred.
    Yet the K Rudd rant against climate skeptics could be called anything but peaceful.
    The current Labor Government in Australia has on their website … “The Australian Government is also committed to encouraging mutual respect, understanding and tolerance among different religions” …
    Yet we see Labors climate change competition – only one view allowed – the indoctrination of our children continues! and also public servants trained to ‘fight climate skepticism‘. Surely this is the most appalling abuse of truth, of freedom and of free will!

  33. To deny implies refusing to change views which are not compatible with the evidence.
    Scepticism means only accepting what can be supported by the evidence.
    On the whole the sceptics are just that: sceptics just as all scientists should be. In contrast those who simply deny their views should be changed just because there isn’t any evidence to support their view are those who believe in the doomsday scenario of man made global warming.
    So whilst I think it is a good idea to try to reduce denialism amongst the believers … where would you stop? Because all religions are essentially denial of the “truth” as supported by the real evidence – and as so many people find religion to be an essential and usually benign part of their life I think we should just live with the variety of life and let the believers believe what they want. So long as they don’t force their nonsense on the rest of us!

  34. The entire scientific basis for the position of the CSIRO (Climate Sensationalism Ignorance & Recidivist Orthodoxy) on climate change will be summarised on a new postage stamp to be issued next week, part of a series designed by the Darwin Regional Office for Non-Governmental Organisations (DRONGO).
    Other stamps in the series will be sponsored by:
    Society for Climate Alarmism and Mann-made-warming (SCAM)
    International Panel for Carbon Credits (IPCC)
    Proponents of Anthropogenic Nihilism International Committee (PANIC)
    Organisation for Monitoring of Glaciers (OMG)
    Sea Level Estimation And Zoned Ecologies (SLEAZE)
    Third International Treaty Arctic And Iceberg Convention (TITANIC)
    Illustrations will feature stranded polar bears, shrinking glaciers, Australian drought, corrosive oceans, a collapsing ice-shelf, and a researcher sun-bathing at the South Pole.
    A design submitted by the CAmpaign for Real Data, Instrumentation And Climate (CARDIAC) was rejected during peer-review.

  35. It seems to me that the establishment has rallied and is now returning to the attack after the various -gates, convinced that the same old arguments and outright lies will do as well as they always have done. Repeat it enough and people will believe again – which, sadly, I suspect may be the case. When the entirely discredited UK Met Office is asking us to believe their predictions for 100 years in the future, when they can’t even predict the weather for next week accurately, that may well indicate that they are entirely undeterred by the progress us crazed denialists have seen in the last 6 months. The general public have a short attention span, have very little interest in what constitutes good science and are willing to accept the authority of these organisations. How utterly depressing it all is.

  36. Reading the comments it struck me how many governments are now embarking on schemes to “shore” up the support for manmade global warming hysteria.
    There seems to be this worldwide phenomena whereby the “political elite” have got themselves into a position of planning for eco-policies based on strong public support which no longer exists.
    Paradoxically the strong support that peaked in 2007 has now created a huge section of the political elite whose jobs rely on the continuation of eco-politics which now isn’t supported by the public and now they have little choice but to embark on these desperate attempts to restore public interest in the hope this will justify their continued employment.
    But this downturn in support couldn’t have happened at a worse time with much of Europe embarking on budget cuts and looking for saving where ever possible.
    My advice for anyone thinking of attending these conferences: Don’t use the time to find a job … before the rush!

  37. Jack Simmons says: May 27, 2010 at 12:51 am
    “Only way to stop me from questioning AGW is to break my thermometer.”
    Soon the only thermometers available will only have coloured bands that say hot, warm, cool and cold. The paint will only last a couple of years, you will frequently need a new one to know the temperature. Only one company will be licensed to make them. Older thermometers will be baned because thay contain harmful chemicals.
    You will be conditioned over the years to feel warm when you now feel cool. They need only change the frame of reference, remove the past and control the present.
    If you still fell hot when the themometer says warm, then you will be deemed to have a chill and need medical intervention.
    Once that is done, it on to the rain gauges.

  38. The CSIRO will be remembered in history for
    – Authored the Australian government Climate Change information pages which included the graph preserved here:
    http://enthusiasmscepticismscience.wordpress.com/global-temperature-graphs/
    – Censorship of its staff’s attempt to publish a peer review article that was not ‘on message with the governments policy at the time:
    http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2009/s2733688.htm
    We note a distinct revival of alarmism on the Oz scene after a long lull. Professor Steffen, the executive director of the Australian National University’s Climate Change Institute, who has been out of the news since quiet for a while, is now back in fine form calling the climate change debate ‘almost infantile’ and like arguing about if the world is round or flat:
    http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-debate-almost-infantile-20100524-w81e.html
    Curious to see how much traction this kind of approach will attain this southern winter.

  39. Note the patronizing quote marks: “debates”. They just can’t help it, can they, they are so far gone?
    Naughty, naughty! The press are encouraging “debates” with climate scientists! Whatever is the world coming to? Oh, the very idea that the press should try to present both sides impartially and should do proper investigative journalism is just so abhorrent to these politico-religious fanatics.
    Of course, for the brainwashed, it couldn’t possibly be a debate, it would have to be a “debate”. Clearly this shows a religious and partisan zeal. It reminds me of the Communist Chinese English language newspaper that refers not to the Taiwanese government, president or republic, but to the “government” and “president” and “republic”, giving the readers the impression that such things cannot exist in actuality.
    This shows that such people (including Paul Holper and the Victorian Government) are the real denialists. Because they dislike the reality, they deny its actual existence, and their use of words and punctuation betrays them.

  40. Foibles:
    1)Popular opinion
    ie public freedom of thought,
    2) “Often waivers”
    ie Good people are allowed to cvhange their mind, adn havent been brainwashed.
    3) “Media focus”
    ie when Media reports agw hodgepodging
    4)”Denialist views”
    ie Different perspectives
    5) “encourage debates”
    what our society is built on
    6) “scientific community”
    which ones?
    7) “denialist views often lack rigor and credibility”
    A democratic government is supposed to represent public opinion, but here they are saying certain poplar public opinion lacks ‘credibility’, meaning they are not representative. Also I suppose Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 is credible and rigorous?
    8) “ways to approach climate change denialism in a Victorian context”. Victoria is a democratic state, so dissenting views should be encouraged and tolerated and sorted out by due process. Also, he claims to be speaking on behalf of the Victorian people, but at the same time opposes “popular public opinion”.
    Any I missed?

  41. With so much money on the table why am I a denialist when I could be a climate change activist and have all my bills paid for by the taxpayer?
    Or rather, why did I not remain a rabid climate change activist?

  42. They can’t hold any water with their argument, so they resort to declaring State Religion.

  43. Just Unbelievable !. But understandable as the Ozzie public is becoming more and more skeptical by the hour.
    Well what do you do when your funding is threatened. But more frightening – what does it say when you truly believe what your preaching.

  44. Well I live in Victoria, and I have worked for the government as a contractor; to declare my interest. It is our job to inform people of the risks involved in climate change. We would be negligent in our duty not to do this.

  45. Several posts have remarked on how Western governments have embarked on a strategy of ignoring the climate science, and have become deaf to anyone who disagrees with their “climate change” policies. This is the implementation of Obama’s latest strategy which was leaked in March:
    A leaked document has revealed the US government’s strategy in the UN climate talks.
    Titled “Strategic Communications Objectives” and dated 11 March 2010, it outlines the key messages that the Obama administration wants to convey to its critics and to the world media before the UN climate talks in Cancun, Mexico in November.
    Top of the list of objectives is to: “Reinforce the perception that the US is constructively engaged in UN negotiations in an effort to produce a global regime to combat climate change.” It also talks of “managing expectations” of the outcome of the Cancun meeting and bypassing traditional media outlets by using podcasts and “intimate meetings” with the chief US negotiator to disarm the US’s harsher critics.
    But the key phrase is in paragraph three where the author writes: “Create a clear understanding of the CA’s [Copenhagen Accord’s] standing and the importance of operationalising ALL elements.”
    [….”operationalising”? What’s that?]
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Text of the leaked document:
    Strategic communications objectives
    1) Reinforce the perception that the US is constructively engaged in UN negotiations in an effort to produce a global regime to combat climate change. This includes support for a symmetrical and legally binding treaty.
    2) Manage expectations for Cancun – Without owning the message, advance the narrative that while a symmetrical legally binding treaty in Mexico is unlikely, solid progress can be made on the six or so main elements.
    3) Create a clear understanding of the CA’s standing and the importance of operationalising ALL elements.
    4) Build and maintain outside support for the administration’s commitment to meeting the climate and clean energy challenge despite an increasingly difficult political environment to pass legislation.
    5) Deepen support and understanding from the developing world that advanced developing countries must be part of any meaningful solution to climate change including taking responsibilities under a legally binding treaty.
    Media outreach
    • Continue to conduct interviews with print, TV and radio outlets driving the climate change story.
    • Increase use of off-the-record conversations.
    • Strengthen presence in international media markets during trips abroad. Focus efforts on radio and television markets.
    • Take greater advantage of new media opportunities such as podcasts to advance US position in the field bypassing traditional media outlets.
    • Consider a series of policy speeches/public forums during trips abroad to make our case directly to the developing world.
    Key outreach efforts
    • Comprehensive and early outreach to policy makers, key stakeholders and validators is critical to broadening support for our positions in the coming year.
    • Prior to the 9-11 April meeting in Bonn it would be good for Todd to meet with leading NGOs. This should come in the form of 1:1s and small group sessions.
    • Larger group sessions, similar to the one held at CAP prior to Copenhagen, will be useful down the line, but more intimate meetings in the spring are essential to building the foundation of support. Or at the very least, disarming some of the harsher critics.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    You will notice a number of important elements that are missing in this strategy. For a start there is no science involved, and no scientific justification for all these new global warming (carbon dioxide) taxes. Then there is the blatant disregard of any democratic processes. Nobody outside of the political and bureaucratic machine will ever get a say in any of this process. I don’t recall anyone from the WWF or Greenpeace seeking or winning any sort of democratic mandate, yet they are at the heart of this process as are Lord Stern, George Soros and Maurice Strong. Also missing is any idea that carbon dioxide taxes might be morally wrong, be counter-productive, inflict massive pain on the poorest people, lead to unimaginable levels of fraud and corruption, and all without “tackling climate change” in the slightest.
    The only “climate change” will occur in our financial climate, and the suffocating bureaucratic climate under which we will all have to live in order to regulate every aspect of our lives so that these carbon dioxide taxes can be extorted from us in the first place.
    The document reveals five key objectives:
    1.) Brainwash the public about the urgency of the coming climate change disaster. If the MSM won’t play ball, then sideline them and use the internet to carry this message to the public.
    2.) Set up a bureaucratic framework to monitor and regulate all activities that generate carbon dioxide.
    3.) Set up a mechanism to tax all carbon dioxide-generating activities, worldwide.
    4.) Work out an international agreement on how the trillions of dollars generated will be dispersed, and to whom.
    5.) Embed this mechanism into a UN Treaty, which will legally bind all countries and their governments to the mechanism for ever. No future elected government will be able to stop paying carbon dioxide taxes because of the Treaty which was entered into by a previous head of state or representative.
    By the way, a whole series of inter-governmental meetings are scheduled this year to try and ram this down the public’s throat before too many of the public realise that they are being lied to and swindled on a gigantic scale by their own government.
    ____________________________________________________________
    …Any similarities between the actions described in this document and what you are experiencing at the hands of your Government are purely deliberate.

  46. The “expert” speaker at this conference, who is billed as “the manager of the CSIRO’s involvement in the Australian Climate Change Science” is actually an ex school teacher who works as a CSIRO “Communications Manager”.
    “Having a science degree and having taught in a secondary school for some years, Paul became interested in describing and explaining science to a range of people and got a job at CSIRO as a communication manager.”
    http://www.csiro.au/scope/profiles/Enviro.htm
    If they lie about his title … expect lots more lies.
    One would think that as a school teacher and professional communicator he should at least know the meaning of the word “waiver” in his promo.

  47. I had a friend who worked at CSIRO. He was a computational physicist
    who loved doing physics.
    He had a job at CSIRO. He quit in 1989 (actually I spoke to him in 1989 on
    this topic) because there were certain results in this field that more desirable
    than others.

  48. RichieP
    “The general public have a short attention span, have very little interest in what constitutes good science and are willing to accept the authority of these organisations. How utterly depressing it all is.”
    The public probably has no interest in this, but there is one thing they have a great deal of interest in – the economy and how it effects their wellbeing. None of these fantasy CO2 mitigation schemes will ever be completed without destroying the economy completely. Give Chris Huhne the rope to hang himself with, I say, and he will bring down the AGW movement with it.

  49. They have cause to worry for even the MSM are beginning to hedge their bets (They would call it balanced reporting). In todays UK Daily Telegraph, Louise Gray the Environment Correspondent has a big page 3 piece “Met Office predicts a summer of ’76 (i.e. hot) every decade”. So far business as usual for Louise but at the end she has a comment from Jonathan Powell of Positive Weather Solutions “Not long ago the Met Office were saying summers would be wet and cloudy over the next 80 years so it seems like a complete reversal, I would take anything they say with a pinch of salt.”!

  50. The climate change “battle” reminds me somewhat of all those other battles, which will never really be won, but which money and resources will be thrown at hand over fist, because nobody has the strength of purpose to declare them unwinnable, and just walk away – Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan spring readily to mind. How much has all that cost so far, with no real discernable result?

  51. “Friday 18 June 2010, 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm (includes question time)” ??
    Is this a “seminar”? Only one and a half hours? And it includes question time!
    So that guy has not much to tell…

  52. Sir Rodney to the King of Id “Sire many of the peasants refuse to accept out consensus”
    The King “What! Impossible, what do they know?”
    Sir Rodney – scratching his head “Many of them appear to have gained knowledge sire.”
    “Rubbish – make them accept, I want my taxes – or your head.”
    Sir Rodney (light bulb moment) “I’ll organize more seminars, push the media.”
    The King “You’d better do something – take it out of the education budget – those damn deniers don’t know what’s good for me.”

  53. National Academies Press put out this paper, which can be downloaded:
    ‘On Being A Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research: 2009’
    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12192#description
    ‘The scientific research enterprise is built on a foundation of trust. Scientists trust that the results reported by others are valid. Society trusts that the results of research reflect an honest attempt by scientists to describe the world accurately and without bias. But this trust will endure only if the scientific community devotes itself to exemplifying and transmitting the values associated with ethical scientific conduct.’
    It seems trust is a key issue, as highlighted in the response from Geoff Sherrington on the cherry-picked Australian Treasury Budget graph. Trust would be difficult to develop in the absence of sound debate.
    Public servants are employed under a Public Service [Ethics] Act at either State or Commonwealth level (CSIRO is a Commonwealth agency). They should provide fact [not evidence] based information for decision making.
    Australia’s National Competition Policy inquiry (2005), with changes to the Trade Practice Act for government (pg XIV) may be viewed as limiting the current energy market while allowing the government to regulate, legislate and extensively market green energy options through ‘market opinion surveys’ while receiving funds (both grants and employees) in the energy arena.
    I doubt private enterprise has the same opportunities. Let alone sending their employees to [in-house] lectures in the absence of attending broader market-based lectures.
    http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/ncp (go to Inquiry Report link as all others have an ‘error’]

  54. Interesting….
    They are inviting people from the Victorian Public Service and expect them to attend without providing a free lunch.
    Who is in denial here ?

  55. Peter Miller says:
    ” A couple of things come to mind:
    1. I guess we will soon all be sent off to re-education camps.
    ….. ”
    _____________________________________________________
    Too late, too many beers ;-).

  56. I have actually found a copy of the agenda for this meeting:
    Dealing with climate change denialism
    1. Evidence and why it is not necessary
    2. Rubbishing and ignoring contrary evidence.
    3. How to get the most out of your temperature measurements
    4. Taking advantage of natural disasters
    5. Taking advantage of hot weather
    6. Make your own hockey sticks: Hours of fun for all
    7. Using buzz words such as: consensus, robust, peer-reviewed, unprecedented and denier.
    8. Ad-hominem attacks and how to make them really nasty
    8.1 If the denier is a scientist he is in the pay of Big-Oil
    8.2 If the denier is not a scientist he is not qualified to give an opinion
    The existence of such a seminar explains a lot. I suspect it is but one of many. It explains why there is such a regular party line amongst AGW nuts all over the world. It explains why the same insults and the same rubbish is trotted out again and again.

  57. Well, good to see another sign that the huge CAGW hoax is about to be buried. Let’s all keep up the pressure until it’s safely buried 6ft under the ground!
    However, this scam was just one arm of the octopus which is trying to get the people or the world to sacrifice their freedom in exchange for peace under a non-elected world government. We must all be vigilant in spotting the next attempt and try to nip it in the bud.
    It can get very depressing watching the way the elite try to control the world, but always remember that we are many, but they are few. Without our cooperation their monomaniacal dreams will come to nothing.

  58. So much media bias is with anything AGW but very little is reported the other way.
    Politically motivated? Yes, if they want to keep subsities flowing and being on the incrowd to access to government matters.
    Pretty hard for government and religion to be separate when the church still has a great deal to loose.
    Governments have spent a great deal in the last couple of years and NEED a new tax to help get out of the huge debts. The easiest way is to fool the public into a crisis for the sake of tax money to fight the crisis. By using inadequate and inefficient wind turbines on the excuse of helping the environment, they create a small base of “look at what we are doing to save the planet” hype. The IPCC is a big part of this propaganda machine as an excuse. Does not matter about the science at all, just the ability to have the background to back new policies.
    I had to find my own truth of science and had a great deal of garbage to sift to find the answers many of us having been looking for about how this planet was created, why we are here, and how these many systems interact together.
    It just happened that climate also falls into this and 95% of it is incorrect.

  59. As mentioned above a Google ad in this post was
    “CSIRO Survey
    Australia Coastal Survey on Property & Rising Sea Levels
    http://www.cse.csiro.au/coastal-survey
    I live in Australia – I took the survey which was fairly set out – and gave every aspect of AGW a serve – but from the point of view of someone who has had real scientific training – and never forgotten it.
    I urge all OZ citizens who frequent this site to take the survey. It often gives you a chance to take the “other” option – with explanation. An opportunity to add some sense to the usual nonsense.

  60. “Dealing with climate change denialism with Paul Holper, CSIRO”
    – – – – – – –
    Pretend and extend will be the main theme of the seminar. The “Big Lie” must be repeated loudly and often.
    I’d expect there to be many empty chairs in the theatre. Those occupied will be mostly by hard-boiled warmists seeking to learn the latest methods of psychological warfare and political chicanery that will be used against the skeptics.

  61. This rally of alarmists is entirely about taxation. The economies of
    Europe and the Union are about to go into the toilet in a way that will make the dirty thirties look like just an economic “timeout”, and in the end, most of Europe will be owned by China and a big chunk by Russia. The G20 and G8 leaders are so desperate for cash they will promote anything that will force more private wealth into government hands, and by extension, into other, but different, private hands. You are seeing the last gasp of the world’s exchequers scrambling to have the dough when every last euro still won’t be able to buy you a loaf of bread.

  62. OT, but John Stossel (Foxnews ) has a special on tonite examining the whole Green agenda/alt fuels, etc. biz. Should be interesting.

  63. As far as I am concerned, using such demonising terms as “denier” or a “denialist” against individuals, blatantly in the interest of stifling debate, and oppressing truth, openness and honesty, is fascism. Fascism has been defeated before, it will be defeated again. And that includes YOU, Paul Holper.

  64. “Opinion often waivers…” you’d think if the Vic govt was going to squander its funds on this piffle they’d at least get the poster done by someone who can spell.

  65. The spangled drongo above points to something amusing us Oz readers that northerners are likely to miss. Directly under this post Google Ads gives a promo that I first thought one of Anthony’s links. It reads:

    CSIRO Survey
    Seeking Your Opinions Questions on Property & Rising Seas http://www.cse.csiro.au/coastal-survey

    Before answering the leading questions the survey recipients are introduce to the sciences with such leading statements as this:
    “Scientists are telling us that the sea level has been rising and may continue to do so. For example a recent Department of Climate Change report predicts that the sea level around Australia may rise by about 1 metre by 2100.”
    Nowhere is the actually measured rate of sea level rise even suggested…leaving the impression it might be about 1 metre per century.

  66. I can’t see them getting the climate change genie back in the bottle, I can see them sloping off on the back of the economic downturn – never getting to the bottom of the story and coming up with another scam a couple of years from now. Expect them to have new powers to halt blogs next time around – probably on the back of anti-terror legislation.

  67. As a person born and raised in Victoria (Sandringham), a grad of U of Melbourne (civil engineering), an Australian and a Canadian citizen, resident of Canada, currently in Malaysia, I feel uniquely qualified to comment on this.
    This is complete crap – the socialists have been in power so long that they have lost touch with reality.
    “Denialists”? What about answering our questions? What about a bit of reality?
    Fortunately they will be preaching to the converted who know far less about what’s going on than the average “denialist”.
    This is something that Goebbels or Stalin might have come up with.
    It is difficult to quantify my contempt for these people.

  68. “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is recognised as the international authority on climate change science and denialist views often lack rigor and credibility in comparison.”
    I had to stop reading after this statement. Failure to see the IPCC for what is really is shows Paul Holper, et al, to be the real deniers.

  69. It is interesting that the first thing the fear mongers do is to insult the people they claim to wish to speak with.

  70. This is all you need to know…

    Paul Holper
    Paul manages the CSIRO’s involvement in the Australian Climate Change Science Program, a $15 million program supported by the Commonwealth Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.

    In other words, “Please don’t listen to those climate denialists, as I need to protect my $15 million in climate ca$h!!”

  71. juanslayton
    Too right! Bureaucrats can’t spell and know no grammar. At least, that’s the case in Australia.
    I was wondering what the 408 bureaucrats in the Department of Climate Change are doing in their brand spanking new office block now that Prime Minister Krudd has delayed acting on (read “dumped”) the “Greatest moral imperative of our time” that it would be “political cowardice of the highest order” and “display a lack of moral leadership” to delay.
    Now I know. They pay $15 million a year to Joseph Goebels’ successor to preach to the captive converted in Victoria. Then they spend the rest of the year talking about who will be the next recipient of their largesse with our money.
    Makes me want to puke.

  72. People are more sheep-like than sheep, and more lemming-like than lemmings. (Usually!)
    Next time you’re fed up with being sheered, the next time you think about running in panic and heading for a cliff overlooking the sea, vote for another idiot to represent you in the caverns of government – the warrenty on politicians is only good for 5 minutes, so why do we keep electing the same ones over and over?
    The reason politicians think they can get away with highway robbery and murder is because they can – the sheep and lemmings say nothing – so why not have fun. Sheep and lemmings never, ever, ‘really’ complain. They’re such stupid little things. Really! They are.
    Politics is a constant, even in science. It’s like the air we breath, or gravity. It’s everywhere.

  73. Our biggest mistake in science is that we use snap shot in time science. Day to day, minute by minute snap shots of readings, history, events, science, etc. All individualized into categories with very little interaction overlap.
    Many us and them mindsets have created much disputing and a great deal of mistrust. Our social structure will fail as greed and corruption for monetary gain or social status is a balancing act.
    Our food supplies rely on dependable weather that we think we can forcast and when that fails, unrest and civil disobedience will fall apart.
    We think we know how the climate works but it incorrect to what this planet has accomplished and achieved. Time travel, demonsional shifts, fiction are our crutches that have no place in science.
    Science is a joke of pick and choose the outcome and not follow the pathes that actual science has taken.

  74. I guess the thing that amazes is the rather simple way in which this all began. Two things go up, therefor it must be cause and effect. And then people with all kinds of degrees or not, from the whacky to the university professor, believed it. Worse, there are people who still believe it and are willing to stake their careers on it. Even people who live on our West coast believe it, which boggles the mind the most.

  75. Suggested Seminar Agenda:
    1. Stop calling our critics “deniers.”
    2. Freeing the data and the code so they will have less to complain about.
    3. Learning how to be nice to people who disagree with you.
    4. Stop calling our critics “deniers.” This is really important and so hard to do.
    5. Responding to FOIA requests openly and honestly.
    6. Conflict of interest: cleaning up the way we do business.
    7. Stop calling our critics “deniers.” Yeah, it’s hard, but it really makes us look foolish.
    8. Psychological projection: the unwitting act of ascribing your own faults to others.
    9. Confirmation bias: “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”
    10. Circling the tribal wagons – a guest lecture by Judith Curry

  76. How about a conference on dealing with climate change alarmists….these guys just don’t get it….it’s over..
    Ian

  77. This is circular and wrong in so many ways.
    Sort of like — pay more in taxes, so scientists paid for with government grants, can pretend to control the weather.

  78. RichieP says:
    May 27, 2010 at 1:05 am
    The UK Met Office is back on the attack too:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/7767998/Met-Office-predicts-a-return-of-the-summer-of-1976.html
    “In a report published yesterday, meteorologists said extreme droughts will be ten times more likely from 2100 because of climate change. ”
    I thought the Met Office had abandoned long range forecasts as they kept getting them spectacularly wrong but I guess this is so far ahead that I’ll be dead by then so won’t be able to point the finger at them when they get it wrong. It’s so easy to “predict” something in 90 years time, isn’t it?
    My hopes were up before I read the article as I thought I’d get a chance to swim in our pool this summer. I didn’t go in it once last summer and possibly only twice the year before. The kids are a bit hardier than me but I don’t think they went in much more than I did.
    I’ll keep an eye out for a similar seminar here in the UK. There are so many seminars organised for local government here that if you were of a mind you could attend one every day of the year. I hope the new coalition will put a stop to this sort of hanging on to the Government’s coat tails and save a few bob in the process. I’m fed up with seeing the sort of indictrination that occurred during “New” Labour’s 13 year grip on this country. Thank goodness ID cards and the Child Register are going to be scrapped. Time to smash some of those CCTV cameras and stop us being the most watched (free?) country in the world.

  79. Orkneygal and Michael Lewis on CSIRO Coastal Survey. I started answering the survey questions but stopped when I realised that they were so loaded towards giving the Rudd Government a further excuse to waste ever-increasing billions on the AGW scam led by the hapless Penny Wong and former Australian (Alarmist) of the Year, Professor Tim Flannery. Sadly, I am old enough to remember when the CSIRO stood for real science and innovation and their scientists had an enviable reputation world-wide for truth and integrity. They are now just a puppet of their political masters.

  80. I think it is about time us Denialists bit the bullet?
    At the end of the second world war German citizens were lined up and marched through the concentration camps to show the horrors fascism created. This assisted to a large extent in the German people coming to terms with the horrors of the Holocaust.
    The alarmists could line up all us Denialists and take us to areas of the world to show the effects of man made global warming, easy really, I await my invite but won’t hold my breath.

  81. Orkneygal says:
    May 27, 2010 at 3:35 am
    http://www.cse.csiro.au/forms/form-survey-sea-level.aspx
    Thanks for the link – I filled in this obviously biased survey – it’s more like a petition to justify their jobs. It does show their hand a bit regarding the scheme to have coastal property owners relinquish their land as sea levels rise. What a power grab! I made the comment in the survey that the property owners should also get the right to extra land if/when sea levels dropped.
    Deaf ears, methinks.

  82. MikeA says:
    May 27, 2010 at 2:46 am

    Well I live in Victoria, and I have worked for the government as a contractor; to declare my interest. It is our job to inform people of the risks involved in climate change. We would be negligent in our duty not to do this.

    Well, that is debatable, but not reprehensible. To stifle any dissent by teaching people how to deal [negatively] with anyone who disagrees with you is not your duty, however. That is indoctrination.

  83. Here is something how I envision their little “Seminar” as going:
    “Dealing with climate change denialism”
    Problem: Skepticism Denialism is on the rise.
    Solution: Continue with the usual tactics, but with heightened urgency. “No more Mr. Nice Guy”. Re-double the ad hominem attacks, smears, and straw man arguments. Always remember the immortal words of Stephen Schneider: “We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
    Remember, the Public are dumb, and easily led; almost child-like, in fact. Show them how easy, painless, and even fun fighting climate change can be. We can do this, people. It’s not rocket science. We simply must try harder! We are talking about our Jobs Planet’s future here! Thank you, you’ve been great. There’s plenty of klimate kool-aid punch in the back, and before we open our bag lunches, please join me in the following prayer;
    “Our Consensus, which art in…”

  84. I just filled out the CRISO’s coastal survey. Ah the irony! As I’m just about to move down to the coast, so I gave them a rather large serve while I was at it. My final comments were that I thought the survey was a sly way of implementing the global to local processes of Agenda 21.
    I can only but hang my head in shame that i live in Victoria!!

  85. I took that survey, too. Here’s an example question (to which you were to mark a series of buttons ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree:
    “Homeowners should be compensated if their property is acquired by the government due to sea level rise”
    I’m trying to wrap my mind around that one. Are they saying the government can just step in and acquire your property if the sea level rises (i.e., it becomes part of the ocean shelf and you abrogate any ownership?) Wow… how bizarre is that?

  86. Time they need a pep talk? Can they hit the road on bicycles in pairs and spread the Dogma?
    What are the consequences if the evangelism fails?

  87. Pamela Gray
    “So they are having a seminar on how to talk to folks who don’t believe. What do they call that? Can’t remember. Apologetics? No. Hermeneutics? That’s not it. Exegetics? No.”
    Pamela, maybe your first thought–‘apologetics’–was best. ‘Evangelism’ targets the uninformed; ‘apologetics’ targets the unconvinced. See also ‘escatology.’ : < )
    But I suspect the syllabus involves something less benevolent. 'Excommunication' comes to mind….

  88. Paul Coppin says:
    “This rally of alarmists is entirely about taxation.
    ….
    The G20 and G8 leaders are so desperate for cash they will promote anything that will force more private wealth into government hands, and by extension, into other, but different, private hands. You are seeing the last gasp of the world’s exchequers scrambling to have the dough when every last euro still won’t be able to buy you a loaf of bread.”
    Yes, however the end result isn’t going to be what the powers that be expect.
    They are very good about issuing “orders” but not so good at actual work, and survival is work in capital letters.

  89. “RockyRoad says:
    […]
    “Homeowners should be compensated if their property is acquired by the government due to sea level rise”
    […]
    Wow… how bizarre is that?”
    Al Gore smuggled the question into the survey.

  90. Yet in an interview with the Detroit News Monday, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.) – recently appointed to the Senate Energy Committee – made clear that fighting the climate crisis is her top priority.
    “Climate change is very real,” she confessed as she embraced cap and trade’s massive tax increase on Michigan industry – at the same time claiming, against all the evidence, that it would not lead to an increase in manufacturing costs or energy prices. “Global warming creates volatility. I feel it when I’m flying. The storms are more volatile. We are paying the price in more hurricanes and tornadoes.”
    From The Detroit News: http://community.detnews.com/apps/blogs/henrypayneblog/index.php?blogid=2041#ixzz0p9euA8aK

  91. Vincent says:
    The public probably has no interest in this, but there is one thing they have a great deal of interest in – the economy and how it effects their well-being. None of these fantasy CO2 mitigation schemes will ever be completed without destroying the economy completely. Give Chris Huhne the rope to hang himself with, I say, and he will bring down the AGW movement with it.

    It’s interesting to look a bit over the horizon. Let’s say the West carbon taxes itself. After five years of agony, CO2 will still be rising, and the South and East will still be emitting,by leaps and bounds. Our exemplary influence will have been exposed as empty, and our substantive impact as negligible. Meantime the renewable power sources will be exposed as not performing as well as promised, similar to the situation in Spain.
    When blackouts and brownouts cause deaths, the political establishment and the alarmist elite will only be able to say, “It’s the best butter.” Or maybe they’ll try, “It’s a noble experiment.” I.e., they’ll self-destruct, and destroy “movement” environmentalism along with it. Trendy types will have to find another vehicle.

  92. MikeA: “It is our job to inform people of the risks involved in climate change. We would be negligent in our duty not to do this”
    Tis a pity that no one (being paid to do so) is informing people of the economic disaster which is certain to occur because of heavily taxing carbon based fuels and wasting taxpayer money on “alternative energy” schemes which are hugely more expensive (and producing energy only intermittently) than carbon fuels. Not imaginative risks that “might happen” but a certain outcome with this foolhardy “solution” to what is at this present time certainly a total non-problem.
    It would be far easier and far less expensive to adapt to whatever climate changes might occur.
    “Doing our duty” really sounds familiar to an oldtimer such as I. Unpleasantly so.

  93. The quote “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is recognised as the international authority on climate change science and denialist views often lack rigor and credibility in comparison.”
    Gee, How can you have less credibility than outright liars caught red handed cherry picking results, manipulating the data and ignoring their own rules of conduct?

  94. MikeA says:
    May 27, 2010 at 2:46 am
    Well I live in Victoria, and I have worked for the government as a contractor; to declare my interest. It is our job to inform people of the risks involved in climate change. We would be negligent in our duty not to do this.
    ___________________________________________________________________________
    SO what are you telling people about preparing for the coming ICE AGE?
    Given the 1974 CIA report on preparations for the coming Ice Age and the simultaneous “global Warming craze, I sometimes wonder if the whole craze is just a sleight of hand. Is it a deflection of attention while the elite move the earth’s wealth into their hands and towards the equator so THEY and theirs will survive in style in case an Ice Age does happen? Or is it just greed for power?

  95. MikeA says:
    May 27, 2010 at 2:46 am
    Well I live in Victoria, and I have worked for the government as a contractor; to declare my interest. It is our job to inform people of the risks involved in climate change. We would be negligent in our duty not to do this.
    ___________________________________________
    The climate has always changed so are you going to warn them of the risks of what’s been happening for billions of years? Are you talking about man-made global warming? If yes then you miss the point being made by the sceptics who all they ask is for evidence, proper measurements, lack of bias etc. It’s our duty to tell the public what some of these climate scientists have been up to as well as the fact that what we have seen in the past 30 years of warming is within the bounds of natural climate variability. Your mistake is you assume the climate scientists must be right.
    Read these and think again:
    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/why-i-am-an-anthropogenic-global-warming-sceptic-michael-hammer/
    http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/why-i-am-global-warming-skeptic
    http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2009/12/should-you-be-global-warming-skeptic.html
    http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2009/09/14-reasons-why-anthropogenic-global.html

  96. #
    #
    Expat in France says:
    May 27, 2010 at 2:57 am
    The climate change “battle” reminds me somewhat of all those other battles, which will never really be won, but which money and resources will be thrown at hand over fist, because nobody has the strength of purpose to declare them unwinnable, and just walk away – Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan spring readily to mind. How much has all that cost so far, with no real discernable result?
    ___________________________________________________________________________
    How much has all that cost so far, with no real discernable result?
    Of course there is a discernable result. The waste of more and more federal money and the increase of the federal debt.
    ” “100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt … all
    individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services
    taxpayers expect from government.”
    -Grace Commission report submitted to President Ronald Reagan – January 15, 1984″

    The interest on the federal debt is of course paid to the private Corporation the Federal Reserve.
    As usual just follow the money trail. It is amazing how often it leads back to the same group.

  97. Keith Hill says:
    May 27, 2010 at 6:16 am
    Orkneygal and Michael Lewis on CSIRO Coastal Survey. I started answering the survey questions but stopped when I realised that they were so loaded towards giving the Rudd Government a further excuse to waste ever-increasing billions on the AGW scam…
    _________________________________________________________________________
    You should have filled it out. There are fill in the blank areas. My favorite was “does this idea make you angry?”

  98. RockyRoad says:
    May 27, 2010 at 7:00 am
    I took that survey, too. Here’s an example question (to which you were to mark a series of buttons ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree:
    “Homeowners should be compensated if their property is acquired by the government due to sea level rise”
    I’m trying to wrap my mind around that one. Are they saying the government can just step in and acquire your property if the sea level rises (i.e., it becomes part of the ocean shelf and you abrogate any ownership?) Wow… how bizarre is that?
    _________________________________________________________________________
    Not bizarre at all.
    Several miles of ocean front property worth billions is “condemned” and acquired by the government. In the first scenario the owner is paid nothing, in the second he is paid a pittance. The government then sells the land at auction and a big hotel chain acquires the land at a pittance plus bribe and build a mega hotel, the rest is turned into a wildlife park making the hotel a more lucrative investment…..

  99. >> Orkneygal says:
    Because of my location, I got a Google AD asking me to participate in the CSIRO survey.
    http://www.cse.csiro.au/coastal-survey
    Thanks Orkneygal. I filled it in an gave them my views … I loved the question about “why are you angry ?”. Obviously they just don’t get it !

  100. @Jimbo (May 27, 2010 at 1:35 pm ):
    Thanks for the linkage. Probably my most detailed writeup is this one:
    http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2009/12/should-you-be-global-warming-skeptic.html
    Or you could skip over the science analysis and jump straight to snark (the Global Warming Clippy and Blue Screen of Death):
    http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2009/11/what-happens-when-you-run-climate.html
    Not trolling for traffic (nice as that is), just these are probably a better starting place if you’re looking for climate stuff at my place. My approach is more focused on su7mmary explanation for a general audience than original research.

  101. Yes, the “Why are you angry?” question was precious.
    I told them I was angry at the waste of taxpayer money on this nonsenesical government sponsored alarmism about a non-problem.

  102. I filled in the CSIRO survey.
    I’m not the least bit worried about seal level rise but I live 2100 feet above sea level. It would be nice for to have about a 150 meter rise though! Then we could have a beach at the bottom of the hill here in Toowoomba. We could rename the town there Port Withcott( it is called Withcott now). LOL!

  103. I filled out the CSIRO survey. Particularly applicable as I live within 50 meters of the ocean and 1m above sea level.
    My final comments were ‘stop wasting taxpayers money’.

  104. We wanted to include this as part of a piece on recursion (and politicization) in science but the links on this are all … recursive. The theater has no web link and no one answers the phone number, the DSE has no record of it and CSIRO doesn’t list it as being an event.
    It’s nice that it has an element of truthiness to it but has anyone actually confirmed this beyond a poster everyone links to?

  105. “particularly when the media focus on denialist views”
    The Australian media try hard to suppress any sceptical views, and push every pro-AGW story hard.
    And what’s all this nonsense about AGW putting private money in public hands? It is a scam to transfer private money of the the many into the bloated bank accounts of the few.
    http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/05/will-elites-ever-stop-pushing-global-warming-hype-nope-the-desire-to-enrich-themselves-is-too-great.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Climatescam+%28ClimateScam%29
    All the carbon trading schemes are just another rip-off by Finance companies. The young sharpies with nasty haircuts and their fat bosses were looking forward to big takings.
    And it is sad to see the CSIRO has fallen so low. I remember when they did useful things like invent the CSIRO-set process for permanent creases in wool trousers.

  106. Victorians refer to the DSE as Department for Smoke and Embers as a reference to the Black Saturday bushfires.
    Others say its Department of Scorched Earth for the same reason.
    I think its Department for Social Engineering.

  107. “MikeA says:
    May 27, 2010 at 2:46 am
    Well I live in Victoria, and I have worked for the government as a contractor; to declare my interest. It is our job to inform people of the risks involved in climate change. We would be negligent in our duty not to do this.”
    I need a Govn’t to tell me the risks of wearing my speedos during the climate of June? LMAO

  108. Nick Stokes – “This isn’t a CSIRO seminar”
    Correct, but the flyer mentions CSIRO four times and it is made clear that Mr Holper is an employee. Is the Department of Sustainabilty and Environment paying for this presentation and if so, how much and to whom. Mr Holper as a private citizen or CSIRO as his employee? Is it in his own time or work time? Perhaps if these questions are answered and CSIRO are shown to have no involvement whatsoever then you may be a little more entitled to bleat “This isn’t a CSIRO seminar”

  109. I urge all Australians reading this to fill out the CSIRO survey. I also urge them to email the appropriate Shadow Ministers in the Australian Federal government and inform them of your disgust.
    We must make the politicians know that there are a lot of people out there who care about good science and hate seeing it used in this manner. We expect them to take the government to task over it and we expect them to produce policies preventing them from doing it should they win the next election.

  110. “JohnB says:
    May 28, 2010 at 7:08 am
    I urge all Australians reading this to fill out the CSIRO survey. I also urge them to email the appropriate Shadow Ministers in the Australian Federal government and inform them of your disgust.
    We must make the politicians know that there are a lot of people out there who care about good science and hate seeing it used in this manner. We expect them to take the government to task over it and we expect them to produce policies preventing them from doing it should they win the next election.”
    It matters not, the “decision” has been made…tax tax tax to “save” our planet. Has anyone told old “SOL” that?

  111. Wayne Delbeke says:
    May 26, 2010 at 10:22 pm
    I registered. Here is the content of my email:
    ===================================
    You must be really worried about all the non-peer reviewed literature in IPCC report if you have to resort to propaganda meetings to support your political position. Did Tony Blair donate any of the 5 million pounds a year he says he needs to live in the style to which he has become accustomed? Did Al Gore? How bout the WWF or Greenpeace? Or are you just ripping off your local tax payers to brainwash them with unsubstantiated power point slides? Maybe you could invite Lord Monckton or Bjorm Borg to bring some rationale discussion to your circus.

    The Swedish former Wimbledon champion?

  112. Paul Holper (CSIRO) will present on ways to approach climate change denialism in a Victorian context.

    I just returned from this seminar, renamed “An analysis of the Climate Change debate.”
    It was no such thing, and it was extraordianary for what was not said. No mention of…
    – The hockey stick debate
    – Climategate or glaciergate etc
    – Other factor influencing climate change except CO2 and Methane.
    – No mention of a non-human sources of CO2 or methane (methane not rising now due to patching soviet pipes)
    – No discussion of mechanism of warming except that of CO2/Methane as greenhouse gas.
    – No discussion of any of the arguments put by sceptics
    – No polar bears
    The main graphic feature was a global surface temp map animation time series from 1880s to 2006 showing huge red areas spread across the top of the page – massively distorted by the map projection.
    A new line seems to be:
    The science is simple, it was discovered by Arrhenius 100 year ago
    (But the science is also complex and that is the problem of communication with the public.)
    It looks like poor old Tyndall has been dropped for Arrhenius – perhaps because Tyndall emphasised the role of water vapour.
    The guy introducing the talk admitted that his career and investments are tied to AGW – he is a director of a carbon offset company.
    The speaker, Paul Holper, gave his background as a teacher, and it did feel like a highschool lecture. Someone asked whether he should show how the scientists came to their conclusions. He said folks are usually only interested in the results. I cut in – but the sceptics are – and isnt the problem [as he had stated] that the people are listening to the sceptics?
    It is hard to called the mood of the audience, but there was a polite but distinctly sceptical tone to about 1/2 the questions. I am not saying by this that the questioners were sceptics – but that they were sceptical. These questions were unconfortable, especially because they regarded what that should have been addressed in this talk, ie, dealing with denialism/scepticism. In otherwords the talk was pitched badly. By this questioning it was clear the attempt at a whitewash had failed. I haven’t been to anything much like this before but the guys on stage look troubled by the lack of unanimous gushing approval.

Comments are closed.