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:
Thanks to David Archibald for the tip.
Evangelism!
I deny it!
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.
Canadians say things that way too – particularly the last sentence. ☺
/dr.bill
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…
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!
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
“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.
I guess Mr. Holper would believe anything for $15 million, even is he has to bring his own lunch.
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.
Edit:’science ‘ with an ‘e’.
The words “Dealing with” are quite Orwellian. Truly evil.
Some of these sad buggers need to get a life.
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.
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.
Only way to stop me from questioning AGW is to break my thermometer.
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
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!
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!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?