Scientists study shifting attitude to climate change

Steven Mosher

by Moshpit

The hubris apparent in the notion that the climate is something we can control has found its match in the thought that climate scientists can now understand how to sell a message to the public.   Somehow moshpit found himself photoshopped in the middle of this conversation……

From ABC

ELEANOR HALL: Some of Australia’s top scientists are gathering in Sydney today trying to work out how to “shift public attitudes” on climate change.

MOSHPIT: We do science during the week and PR on our weekends.

The aim, according to organizers, is to publicize the facts of climate science in the face of a so-far highly successful campaign by climate skeptics.

The closed door meeting is being attended by Australia’s Chief Scientist as well as representatives from the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, as David Mark reports.

MOSHPIT: Ya no press allowed or anybody else who understands communicating with the public

DAVID MARK: There’s nothing new about the greenhouse effect.

MOSHPIT: Perhaps we should sell a greenhouse effect with retsin! that worked for certs.  And we need to sell the message with penguins. Polar Bears are so passe’

KARL BRAGANZA: The first sort of credited person with formulating that the earth has a greenhouse effect is probably a Swedish scientist known as Arrhenius. I think that’s how you pronounce his name and that’s in the late 1800’s.

DAVID MARK: That’s Doctor Karl Braganza, the manager of climate monitoring at the Bureau of Meteorology’s National Climate Centre.

MOSHPIT: Dude you butchered his name, the Swedes won’t go for treaties now.

KARL BRAGANZA: But if you actually look back. It was earlier than that, probably in the early 1800’s that European scientists were first proposing the idea that, you know, the earth’s atmosphere does trap heat and warms up the surface.

MOSHPIT:  Ya, this one time in band camp…

DAVID MARK: By the middle of the 20th century, scientists were linking the greenhouse effect with measured increases in carbon dioxide.
KARL BRAGANZA: People started actually recording CO2 in the atmosphere at places like Mauna Loa in Hawaii and that was in the late 50s and it was probably by the late 60s that we really realised that yeah, CO2 was really ramping up in the atmosphere.

MOSHPIT: Psst don’t talk about short trends. After 10 years we couldn’t tell anything
DAVID MARK: And as Doctor Braganza explains in the following decades more empirical evidence of rising temperatures firmed up the theory.

KARL BRAGANZA: The science itself is quite basic and quite straight forward and that’s why within scientific circles you’ll often hear people say that there is no debate within the science about the enhanced greenhouse effect and the reality of it.

MOSHPIT: Talk about the ice. Cue the Penguins.

DAVID MARK: And yet there is a debate and many would argue it’s a debate the scientists are losing to so-called climate sceptics.

CATHY FOLEY: What’s gone wrong is that I think scientists have probably had a lot of different people speaking.

MOSHPIT: Worse than that, they had British accents and funny names like Gavin. We need one credible spokesperson. Like Al Gore, only knowledgable. Or like Phil Jones, only credible. How about a talking Penguin with  James Earle Jones’ voice!

DAVID MARK: Doctor Cathy Foley is the President of FASTS – the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies.

CATHY FOLEY: There’s been a bit of mix as to how do you believe one person as opposed to another and in the areas where scientists are talking with people who are well funded sceptics who aren’t necessarily, well aren’t definitely leaders in their field.

MOSHPIT: Maybe we can get those guys who did the polar bear photoshop job to photoshop McIntyre talking money from Shell Oil? Use one of the pictures of the CRU guys with Shell and just graft on McIntyre’s head.  If you have problems just ask Mike, he knows the grafting trick

The general public just don’t know, who do I believe in the end if I read a book, which has some supposed specialist as opposed to a peer-reviewed researcher who’s been working in the field for a long time.

That subtlety is not picked up by them and they find it hard to say what’s right and what isn’t.

MOSHPIT:  Let’s declare the debate is over so they don’t even get the chance to understand for themselves. The public is so dumb they will never see through that!

DAVID MARK: So today Australian science is hitting back.

MOSHPIT: Psst, you hit like a sheila, mate.

FASTS is holding a closed-door one-day climate change summit to quote “shift public attitudes in support of climate change action.”

MOSHPIT: Penguins. Teenage mutant ninja penguins.

CATHY FOLEY: I think that scientists really do need to try and get their collective might together to make sure that we have a clear and articulated voice that allows us to make sure that the general public actually understands what it is that we’re trying to achieve so that good decisions are made.

MOSHPIT: Penguins. With a clear voice like James Earl Jones.

DAVID MARK: But as we’ve heard, the science has been around for 100 years, so why is it the scientists haven’t been able to convince the lay people in all that time?

Doctor Cathy Foley.

CATHY FOLEY: I think the scientific community has been putting it out in a way, which they are scientists. They put out the information, which is the facts as they understand it. Scientists are focusing on that and trying to make sure that they put things across in a way which isn’t alarmist and I think that there always trying to tread that very delicate pathway.

MOSHPIT: and so like they put it out there in a way that is like factual as they like know it and they never used penguins to sell the message and like penguins are these funny creatures,  not like scary polar bears, and so like that. Did I make sense? is this the conference on communicating with the public? I think I’m at the wrong convention. Can I get my teeth whitened here for free?

DAVID MARK: Could it be then that scientists are too focused on the facts; constrained by the scientific method and perhaps not passionate enough to have their message heard through the static of modern media?

MOSHPIT: Angry Penguins. That’s the ticket!

Doctor Karl Braganza.

KARL BRAGANZA: It’s probably been true that what we’ve been best at is giving a science lecture and no matter who we speak to whether it’s farmer groups or community groups or government, our mode of communication is to sort of give more information. If someone doesn’t understand something, well throw even more information at them and that might not be the best way to communicate issues to the general public at large.

MOSHPIT: Ya we need to stop this giving information thing right now. Lets bring in Mann and Jones, they did pretty well with that hiding information thing. People don’t want facts. They want… Penguins. Passionate Penguins.

Read the rest here…ok not that much more

Advertisements

122 thoughts on “Scientists study shifting attitude to climate change

  1. MOSHPIT: Worse than that, they had British accents and funny names like Gavin. We need one credible spokesperson. Like Al Gore, only knowledgable. Or like Phil Jones, only credible. How about a talking Penguin with James Earle Jones’ voice!

    C’mon Mosh, you’ve read the emails. How much of an orchestration role do you think Mann and Hansen had in it?

  2. Too bad Barbara Boxer wasn’t on this panel. she could have raised the spectre of climate induced nuclear war, and hordes of climate refugees fleeing catastrophic flooding, hurricanes, heat waves topping 150F, etc. – http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/15/boxer-claim-climate-change-leading-cause-conflict-questioned/ ” Terrorism. Nuclear weapons. Corrupt and oppressive regimes.

    Sen. Barbara Boxer said last week that climate change — not any of that other stuff — will stand as the “leading cause of conflict” over the next two decades. “

  3. To Braganza’s understanding of early climate science and CO2 . . .

    1824: Joseph Fourier calculates that Earth would be far colder if it lacked an atmosphere.

    1859: John Tyndall discovers that some gases block infrared radiation. He suggests that changes in the concentration of gases could bring about climate change.

    1896: Svante Arrhenius publishes the first calculation of global warming from human emission of CO2. He wrote “warm is better than cold.”

    1897: Thomas Chrowder Chamberlin produces a model for global carbon exchange including feedbacks.

    1899: Nils Eckhol (another Swede and friend/colleague of Arrhenius), an early enthusiastic spokesman for anthropogenic climate control believed that by controlling the production and consumption of CO2, people would be able to “regulate the future climate of the Earth and consequently prevent the arrival of a new ice age.”

    1900: Knut Angström concluded that atmospheric CO2 and water vapor absorb infrared radiation in the same spectral regions and the any addiional CO2 would, therefore, have little or no effect on global temperature. It was thought that atmospgeric CO2 had already absorbed all the long-wave radiation; thus any increases in CO2 wold not change the radiative heat balance, but might augment plant growth.

    1920: Chamberlin’s (and other’s) CO2 climate hypothesis falls out of favor. Chamberlin writes to Charles Schuchert (Yale’s Peabody Museum), “I greatly regret that I was among the early victims of Arrhenius’ error.”

  4. “Sen. Barbara Boxer said last week that climate change — not any of that other stuff — will stand as the “leading cause of conflict” over the next two decades. “
    Strangely, that is close to being correct, but it will be all the decisions based on the fraudulent premise of “climate change” that causes the conflicts.

  5. Heh. As funny as SM’s commentary was, it still didn’t match the (unintentional) humor of the article.

  6. So to summarise (reading between the lines):

    “We AGW scientists are smarter than the public, or those experts we kept out of the peer review process through dodgy and unethical schemes.
    We need one really simple scary slogan and a bullet point presentation those dumb smucks can understand.
    Instead of focusing on facts, or science and stuff, we need to speak the common gibberish of the demented tax paying peon.
    If it weren’t for those satanic-jihadist-oil-backed-eco-terrorist-sceptics, we’d of had this in the bag ages ago.”

    Stay tuned for the ABC’s next big geek speak fest, where we discuss culling the common herd of useless eaters and give ourselves a tax-payer funded raise for being so much more ruthless,condescending and callous than the simple ape-like-proto- homonids we like to call the electorate.
    If you’d like to subscribe toABC’s totally unbiased propaganda and ranting, deposit your common sense and discernment in a doggy doo-doo bag and post to the “Getting richer by the second Carbon Traders ASS.” No.1 Main RD, The Bahama’s.
    All payments to “The Internet Bank of Nigeria”.

  7. They have it backwards. If they had actually been constrained to tell just the scientific facts, rather than alarmist rhetoric, among other things, people wouldn’t think they were full of crap. HINT: When you try and mislead people, they don’t take it well when they find out!

    These people are like the boy who cried wolf, but imagine if he said “You know, I couldn’t just say “wolf” when there wasn’t one [But you did] but I probably should have because people would have been more concerned about wolves [You made them ignore you when you actually were telling the truth, by lying earlier]” If there actually did turn out to be an AGW problem, these people, not “the enemy” would be the ones to blame for people not listening to them-they have blown much of their credibility overselling their points.

  8. To Hunter @ 3:33: No link as it is part of my lectures on the topic. It was pieced together from a variety of sources. I saved the sources, but would have to dig to find them. If important, I’ll start digging.

  9. uhhh, how about I offer a simple answer … the truth is easy easier to sell than a lie.

    Nowhere near the need for tricks, mathematical obfuscation and in general phony theory. Maybe you should start by briefing the people on the Stefan-Boltzmann calculations that NASA hid for 40 years, which blows the whole global warming nonsense out the window. Oops, that might not work for you.

    Hey just saying, truth is an easier sell.

  10. Once again we observe that they can’t see their real problem. That AGW is a hypothesis, far from proven. These people attending this closed door “war cabinet” can’t even see that this event just further highlights that there is something to hide and that the last days of this panic may be at hand.

    The real things to note in this interview are the between the lines messages. There is this big conspiracy of faceless men dealing out brown paperbags of money to sceptics to derail the AGW gravy train. That our alarmist scientists are obviously more intelligent and hold higher standards of ethical professionalism than mere sceptical , obviously senile old scientists who are way behind the pure absolutes of the undisputable AGW laws of nature. Our methods to smear, denounce, marginalise and insult our fellow scientists must ramp up to even higher levels with even better propaganda to assault the senses of the unwashed.

    Perhaps they need to start a crusade. Put the hybrid into gear and charge off into the sunset in search of those pesky sceptical scientists. Flush them out and challenge them to debates ( whoops sorry we don’t debate AGW, it’s settled) put them in brand new labour camps manufacturing solar panels and wind turbines to appease the green gods of Pope Albert Gore, St James of Holy Hansenism and Brother Michael of Mannadjustments.

    Keep up the good work everyone. Truth and common sense will win out in the end.

  11. Poor silly Cath Foley – doesn’t she realise that almost all of us who are speaking out against this little hypothesis are scientists ourselves? Communication isn’t the problem, Cath – it’s the weak science.

  12. Mosh, you’ll have to explain that ‘Angry Penguins’ bit to non-Australians. Please let them in on an excruciatingly funny literary hoax. My favourite was the ‘poem’ which was plagiarised from an army manual for mosquito control. And the subsequent obscenity trial, where one of our literati heroically defended the artistic merits of a forgery. You’d think the ‘towers of enteric substance’ would have given it away – but our hero trod firmly into the centre of it.

  13. “Could it be then that scientists are too focused on the facts; constrained by the scientific method”

    Fantastic. Back to post-normal thinking. Again.

    Yep, I hate to be so evil – obviously funded by big oil – and demand this, but I’d like facts with my big-mac please, if you don’t mind!

  14. Once again, the heart sinks, reading the desperate outbursts of these “scientists.” Everything is just so disingenuous, so false, so self-delusional, and so utterly superior and vain, it’s difficult to know where to begin. It’s a classic case of “if we keep repeating the lie enough, it’ll become truth.” But it also reads like they’re desperately trying to convince themselves, never mind convince everyone else. Here’s my take on these cringe-making comments:

    There’s been a bit of mix as to how do you believe one person as opposed to another and in the areas where scientists are talking with people who are well funded sceptics who aren’t necessarily, well aren’t definitely leaders in their field.

    Here we go again. Well-funded skeptics. There was nothing “well-funded” about the Climategate revelations; those emails came free, and they’re utterly priceless. But of course if you’re not one of the “leaders in their field” then just who do you think you are to present opposing evidence? How dare you! You have no authority!

    The general public just don’t know, who do I believe in the end if I read a book, which has some supposed specialist as opposed to a peer-reviewed researcher who’s been working in the field for a long time.

    Yeah, “peer-reviewed.” Like that’s a concept that hasn’t become a joke. And again, who cares if someone puts out opposing evidence. It’s not the evidence we should be swayed by; it’s the authority of the “researcher who’s been working in the field for a long time.”

    Could it be then that scientists are too focused on the facts; constrained by the scientific method and perhaps not passionate enough to have their message heard through the static of modern media?

    “Focused on facts” and “Constrained by the scientific method”!!! Constrained!!! By the scientific method!!! As if that were true, and as if that would be a bad thing! Oh Jeez, pass me the bottle, I can’t stomach this sober.

    These people just don’t get it; they don’t see that it’s this kind of blind arrogance and disdain for the scientific method that has got them into this mess in the first place. The answer to gaining the public trust is so damn obvious. Just present your evidence, put it our there, with all the raw and cooked data for all to see and scrutinise, admit to doubts and uncertainties where they exist, stop appealing to authority and consensus, drop the politics, and just be totally honest! It’s THAT simple! PLEASE!

  15. MOSHPIT: Angry Penguins. That’s the ticket!

    That is one ominous suggestion Mr Moshpit.
    We have already tried that one Downunder, and the Angry Penguins sure did come a cropper.
    (My great uncle was one of them.)
    They were the victims of a hoax, from which one Angry Penguin atleast (Max Harris) never really recovered.

  16. At this point, I don’t think they’re ever going to grasp it. They already decided they know who the sceptics are and what they need to do to “win the fight” against them. They got it wrong. Arrogant people always think they know what you think. They absolutely never, ever, stop to ask. Foolish, arrogant idiots.

    The people they need to convince are people like me. Just because I’m not a scientist doesn’t mean I’m stupid. Treat me like I am and you’ve lost me. Give me an Oxburgh enquiry report and tell me the Climategate scientists are therefore vindicated, you’ve lost me. Hide your data, you lose me. Deny a lawful, reasonable FOI request – I don’t care who from, or for what – and you lose me. Tell me (once again, I dare you!) that the science is settled because “the consensus” says so and you lose me. But most of all, if you throw your science at the wall and it doesn’t stick, you lose me.

    They think that their message is failing because it’s not been “sold” well. Perhaps they think that they need a Billy Mays (RIP that bloke) to shout louder at us.. and louder still, until we buckle under the pressure to believe in what they tell us, JUST BECAUSE they tell us, because they know best. Nuh uh.

    Show us the science. And we mean SHOW us the science – warts an’ all. Science that isn’t filthied with spin, that ain’t packed with an agenda, that withstands scrutiny and that shows that CAGW is a reality. And we don’t mean a theoretical possibility, or a computer modelled probability based on Hansen-kissed GISS and the like, we mean an actual, demonstrable, credible reality.

    Can’t do that? You lost us.

  17. Sung to the tune of
    “Its My Party And I’ll Cry If I Want To”

    Apologies to Lesley Gore (no relation to algore)

  18. Well we don’t have any disagreement on the cause Mate; sure the “Greenhouse effect”; which of course isn’t how green houses work; is what is warming up the planet.

    But you’re blaming the wrong molecule; IT’S THE WATER !!

    If there was no other GHG in the atmosphere besides the obvious one; H2O I doubt that we would notice much difference in Temperature. We might just have a little less cloud cover; but not so’s you’d notice.

  19. “”” Smokey says:
    June 15, 2010 at 4:52 pm
    National Geographic isn’t all bad: “””

    Hey Smokey; they are just Fur Bags on the hoof; that’s all.

    Maybe he should try getting in the water with a half a dozen 8 foot long Humboldt squids. They would show him how to feed out in the ocean alright. Serve him right too.

  20. On behalf of gnu/linux, please–give the penguins a break. (They’re all in favor of openness, anyway.)

  21. “”” Ed Caryl says:
    June 15, 2010 at 3:29 pm
    “Sen. Barbara Boxer said last week that climate change — not any of that other stuff — will stand as the “leading cause of conflict” over the next two decades. “
    Strangely, that is close to being correct, but it will be all the decisions based on the fraudulent premise of “climate change” that causes the conflicts. “””

    Well it wouldn’t surprise me one iota, if it turns out that World War III is fought over climate change.

    Neither Communist Red China; nor overpopulated India is going to pay any attention to carbon footprints. China Puts a coal fired plant on line about every week, and India has a whole lot of sacred Cow chips to burn up.
    And sooner or later; the developed countries; who are being asked to return to the cave age; over a non issue; are simply going to come out scratching.

    If I was China or India; I wouldn’t be paying any heed to carbon footprints; but I might think about cleaning up coal in other ways; but eventually; the greens are going to end up with bloody noses; and that will be thoroughly deserved.

    The world can only tolerate a limited amount of criminal insanity.

  22. FASTS cries out for a sister-society in Europe. I propose: Luxembourg Organization for Outrageous Scientific Exaggeration, or LOOSE.

  23. “If someone doesn’t understand something, well throw even more information at them and that might not be the best way to communicate issues to the general public at large.”

    I love that one! Someone please tell Karl, if someone doesn’t understand something and the someone is at least of average intelligence then either the message isn’t articulated properly and more information is necessary(if one can’t convey an idea properly after several years, one wonders how it is they can understand complex ideas) or the message is errant. There are no other alternatives.

    The answer, of course, is both of the above. It is painfully obvious the message requires more information, more information than the messenger is able to give. This is illustrated by that wonderful pie chart that has occasioned this site. “What we know we don’t know, vs. what we don’t know what we don’t know.”(Hope I got that right.) And, the message is also errant. Even though no one can articulate the AGW or CAGW, or man caused climate change hypotheses with any consistency, all the while swearing there is a consensus, there is still a claim of necessary draconian measures to stop the ensuing doom. Further, as many are beginning to see, even if every bit of the alarmism is true, the cure is worst than the disease.

  24. P.F. :
    1896: Svante Arrhenius publishes the first calculation of global warming from human emission of CO2. He wrote “warm is better than cold.”

    I think Al Gore missed that all-important last sentence.

  25. “in the face of a so-far highly successful campaign by climate skeptics.” (who are well organised and coordinated and funded by Big Oil)

    Oh they must be struggling. Just think how successful we could be if we were organised, coordinated and funded by Big Oil.

  26. I listened to this drivel live on the ABC’s flagship current affairs radio programme “The World Today” and could not believe either the ridiculous level of content from those supposed to be scientists (especially Cathy Foley) or the soft questioning by the reporter. I think Mosh has captured the only way to respond, perhaps being lampooned in this way may wake them up – but I doubt it.
    By the way, I am one of those “evil” geologists who have a slightly longer perspective than a 1951-80 base year period and so see the current changes for what they are- natural not anthropogenic.

  27. So, today, the commisariat is rounding up the bourgois irredentist anti-Lysenkoists. So today Australian science is hitting back.

    Allow me to correct that phrase:

    So, today, the corrupted scientific institutions are rallying around their poltical paymasters to continue funding.

  28. Funny stuff.

    But communication is the real problem here.

    The failure to communicate how the 3.0C per doubling actually occurs that is. They complain that the public doesn’t understand the science so they should dumbdown the communication even further but the real problem is they have never outlined the steps it takes to get global warming in the first place. I’m not willing to accept the simple statements that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and then it will cause further feedbacks. I want every step outlined, calculated and then measured to see if it is happening. I imagine the vast majority of climate scientists do not know how the whole system produces the 2.0C to 4.5C warming either. They are just expected to parrot the party line or they don’t get invited to any more great global warming parties.

    There has been far too much exagerration and dumbing down already. Occam’s Razor says it is either far too complicated to explain (which means there can also be errors in the theory) or they just don’t want people double-checking them.

  29. Curiousgeorge says:
    June 15, 2010 at 5:40 pm

    “Watched BO’s speech a little while ago. BOHICA , y’all.”

    I don’t think we’re buying what he’s selling anymore. I believe it gets broke of in him come November. I could be wrong, I didn’t think he’d get the insurance scam through the back door, but he proved that with the proper lube, even something as limp and lame as him, can be shoved through. Even still, the tide is turning.

  30. FASTS is holding a closed-door one-day climate change summit to quote “shift public attitudes in support of climate change action.”

    WERME: Dang, I was walking down the street and suddenly my attitude shifted. At least I know why now.

    MOSHPIT: Penguins. Teenage mutant ninja penguins.

    CATHY FOLEY: [blather omitted]

    MOSHPIT: Penguins. With a clear voice like James Earl Jones.

    DAVID MARK: But as we’ve heard, the science has been around for 100 years, so why is it the scientists haven’t been able to convince the lay people in all that time?

    WERME:
    1) The science has improved over the last 100 years.
    2) Warming? Where? Talk to me this weekend (forecast high of 90°F 32°C).
    3) James Hansen and Michael Mann are your spokesmen. Or blather like CATHY FOLEY.
    4) Replace them with a penguin. One with a clear voice like James Earl Jones.

  31. OMG!!! Is that really Steve? That looks like MY picture. I thought it was at first glance. Separated at birth.

  32. Smokey @ 4.52, that reminds me of a dive buddy who, some 10 years ago now, was diving in a neoprene dry suit in the South Pacific(don’t get jealous, it was the cold South Pacific, South of New Zealand.

    A Sea Lion kept him trapped (on the surface) in kelp for 30 minutes until rescued by a RIB. His dry suit had two LARGE holes from the bulls fangs in them. The bull thought he was a competing male, being large and black and in the water.

  33. I am beginning to wonder about that dummy down the info attempt: “give em cake instead of gourmet” line. Maybe they don’t actually HAVE the gourmet information, which is why they are trying to default to the mac and cheese version.

    And what the hell is with the idea that I am highly funded???? I’m a special ed teacher under severe budget constraints due to the downturn in the economy. Had to eat nothin but trout and fresh veggies for 2! count 2! months just so I could get me a Marlin (oh the sacrifice).

    Astounding isn’t it. I understand weather pattern zonal variation, oceanic oscillations, solar (non) influence related to temperature anomalies, and lever action Marlins. .35 Remington that is.

    Now ‘scuse me while I dine on my cheap-ass rainbow trout stew so’s I can afford the ammo on my “highly funded” salary.

    Pass the Parmesan.

  34. nothing like a “whale of a story” to appeal to the public:

    remember this one?
    22 April: ABC: Whale poo reduces carbon levels
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/22/2880461.htm

    here’s a new one:
    16 June: ABC: Sarah Clarke: Whale poo fights climate change: study
    A separate study at the Australian Antarctic Division in Hobart this year found that whale faeces could be crucial in reducing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/16/2928240.htm?section=justin

    ABC gives us two versions in case we miss it:
    16 June: ABC Science: Anna Salleh: Sperm whales more than offset their carbon
    http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/06/16/2927491.htm

    Richard never misses a trick:
    15 June: BBC: Richard Black: Sperm whale faeces offset CO2 emissions
    They note in the Royal Society journal Proceedings B that in the end, this also provides more food for the whales
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10323987.stm

    The French have it:
    15 June: AFP: Faecal attraction: Whale poop fights climate change
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gbD9G11LX_QG7QM-NmmQ7C-Gny4A

    New Scientist also:
    16 June: New Scientist: Zoologger: Michael Marshall: The biggest living thing with teeth
    Poop power
    Earlier this year it was shown that Southern Ocean baleen whales help keep this process going by releasing huge amounts of iron in their faeces.The Southern Ocean is short of iron, limiting the amount of life it can sustain, but these injections of iron help out.
    Now Trish Lavery of Flinders University in Adelaide, South Australia, and her colleagues have gone a step further…
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19046-zoologger-the-biggest-living-thing-with-teeth.html

    top story, homepage:
    16 June: Discovery: Jennifer Viegas: Diarrhea-Like Whale Waste Cleans the Environment
    Since carbon has been linked to greenhouse gases, sperm whales likely reduce global warming. ..
    http://news.discovery.com/

  35. “I think the scientific community has been putting it out in a way, which they are scientists. They put out the information, which is the facts as they understand it. Scientists are focusing on that and trying to make sure that they put things across in a way which isn’t alarmist and I think that there always trying to tread that very delicate pathway.”

    So, in other words, “we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have…. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” Stephen Schneider, Discover Magazine, 1989. But, that was over 20 years ago and it isn’t working, so obviously the problem is that they’ve been “too honest”, and need to concentrate more on effectiveness. In short, they need to be less scientific, and more alarmist, and exaggerate and lie more. Hahahahahaha!
    They’ve truly lost the plot. Game over. The jig is up. It’s been fun.

  36. Always worrying about the ‘cold’ climate animals. Spare a thought about our poor heat affected Death Adders, or our cooked Crocs and fried Bungarras, (big lizards to the non Aussies out there).

  37. Next Ban dihydride monoxide, #1 cause of our climate.Not penquins, we must save the polar bears, strand the AGW twits out with the bears. Polar bears don’t discrimate against any source of protein.Our big oil supported spokesthings, ravenous arctic bears showcasing the tarsands, where canadians are cleaning up Gods oil spill. Just a sample of how we might employ the bedwetters methods. Our politicians have fallen strangely silent on climate change of late. As for these communicators, sorry climate scientists, um truth has the advantage of being easy to remember and cross reference, hysteria and opinion are not science, hence hard to communicate as such.

  38. KARL BRAGANZA said: “People started actually recording CO2 in the atmosphere at places like Mauna Loa in Hawaii and that was in the late 50s and it was probably by the late 60s that we really realised that yeah, CO2 was really ramping up in the atmosphere.”

    Er, then how come Global Cooling was the science of the 70’s?

  39. Cathy Foley said, “Scientists are focusing on that and trying to make sure that they put things across in a way which isn’t alarmist and I think that therealways trying to tread that very delicate pathway.”

    It should read, “Scientists are focusing on that and trying to make sure that they put things across in a way which isn’t alarmist and I think that they’re always trying to tread that very delicate pathway.”

  40. pat says:
    June 15, 2010 at 6:40 pm
    nothing like a “whale of a story” to appeal to the public:

    remember this one?
    22 April: ABC: Whale poo reduces carbon levels
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/22/2880461.htm

    ______________
    …. and the effects of whale snoot on the climate are not very well understood either and need many more $cientific $tudies to make both of my Porsche payments every month! :)

  41. drudge has this story, but not the AP version with the Lindsey Graham mention:

    15 June: AP: EPA: Climate bill costs less than postage stamp
    “The dimensions of the tragedy in the Gulf demand that the president and Congress act boldly to pass legislation that will place a price on carbon which is the only path to reduce our dependence on oil and also create desperately needed clean-energy jobs,” Lieberman said…
    “There’ll be some people who will want to demagogue that politically, but that’s less than $1 a day,” Lieberman told reporters. “Is the American household willing to pay less than $1 so we don’t have to buy oil from foreign countries, so we can create millions of new jobs, so we can clean up our environment? I think the answer is going to be yes.”…
    The bill’s sole Republican backer, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, withdrew his support last month, saying it is impossible to pass the legislation in the current political climate…
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jgtia8XJDhtzR-ed3ZzuVOLC4DvQD9GBVB4G0

    as we know, what Graham said was:

    “I think they’ve oversold this stuff, quite frankly. I think they’ve been alarmist and the science is in question,” Graham told reporters. “The whole movement has taken a giant step backward.”
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/10/quote-of-the-week-sen-lindsey-grahams-180%C2%B0-view-of-climate-science/

    so many careers riding on a carbon bill:
    MUMBAI, India, June 15 /PRNewswire/ — Tata Consultancy Services, a leading IT services, business solutions and outsourcing firm, and Xynteo, a strategic advisory firm specialising in low-carbon growth, announced a collaboration to jointly create solutions for a low-carbon economy. These solutions will be initially built and deployed in the Nordic market…
    A part of the Tata Group, India’s largest industrial conglomerate, TCS has over 160,000 of the world’s best trained IT consultants in 42 countries…
    Xynteo is an international strategic advisory firm that equips business leaders with knowledge and tools they need to achieve low-carbon growth. Its clients include some of the world’s most respected companies from across a range of industries, among them oil and gas, financial services, shipping and IT.
    Xynteo is the founder of the Global Leadership & Technology Exchange, a business consortium engaged in the pursuit of low-carbon innovation and growth. GLTE partners span three continents and include both Tata Consultancy Services and Tata Sons, along with Acergy, Det Norske Veritas, Deutsche Bank, the Electric Power Research Institute, Gazprom, General Motors, Hess Corporation, PG&E Corporation, Siemens, Statoil, Unilever, Wilh. Wilhelmsen, World Trade Centers Association and Yara.
    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tata-consultancy-services-and-xynteo-to-collaborate-on-solutions-for-a-low-carbon-economy-96379069.html

    15 June: Global voluntary carbon market tumbled in 2009
    Value of deals dropped 47 pct, volume fell 26 pct
    Stalled US, Australia climate plans hurt demand
    http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN1422267220100614

  42. @P.F.

    “warm is better than cold.”

    Fancy a Swede coming up with that. Wonder where he got that idea? Or do we have a Jan/Feb publication date associated with that statement? Go figure that as a Canadian (who has also lived in two tropical countries) I concur.

  43. pat says:

    Lieberman told reporters. “Is the American household willing to pay less than $1 so we don’t have to buy oil from foreign countries, so we can create millions of new jobs, so we can clean up our environment?

    The answer to that pinhead is : Here’s an idea, let us allow entrepreneurs spend the money to make the money. We could leave government to do what they should without taxing the public to death. BTW, someone should call him on his $1/day bs. Where did he get that number? We can’t subsidize a service industry for less than $1 trillion over 10 yrs. Witness the “Health reform” package. Off topic, but if the insurance industry was so evil, why did we mandate a purchase from every individual in the country? We sure sowed them!!

  44. By George, I think I’ve got it!

    What they really need is a study on the credibility anomaly of climate science/scientists.

    The trend-lines are appallingly all veering downwards at a shocking rate and the correlation between the different data sets is apparently very strong. While this correlation was not demonstrated by the originally measured data, data which is no longer unavailable as it was eaten by the new K9 Super Computer, nonetheless after the K9 finished processing its meal it produced several independent and very reliable homogenized data sets that demonstrated nearly identical trends which form the basis for the current consensus.

    Even worse, however, is that according to the latest PIPS2 (Pontificating International Pseudo-Scientist) measurements of credibility mass, so far this June’s shrinkage is the worst on record. Which is really unfortunate news for men of a certain age as the consensus view is that these effects are also irreversible.

  45. Luke, the ice is melting …. because of the Force …. I am your father …. Luke, pay attention!

  46. They’ve been caught trying to peddle an information Ponzi Scheme, and now they are trying to put lipstick on their Bernie Madeoff image.
    Suddenly, the little cups of Kool-Aid don’t sound so hot.

  47. lol, damned drunk….instead of “We sure sowed them!!” Should read, “We sure showed them!!”

  48. “Some of Australia’s top scientists are gathering in Sydney today trying to work out how to “shift public attitudes” on climate change.”
    “The closed door meeting is being attended by Australia’s Chief Scientist as well as representatives from the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology…”

    Sneaky closed door meetings… that’ll shift attitudes.

  49. Pamela Grey: you reminded me of the winter we got trapped in a very small town in Prince William Sound. Alaska. Had to live on rock prawns, halibut and king crab. It was kind of nice when breakup came and we could go to the city and get junk food. ;-)

  50. Gary Hladik says:

    Heh. As funny as SM’s commentary was, it still didn’t match the (unintentional) humor of the article.”

    Ya That was tough to beat. In all fairness to these guys I just want to say please go back to the science. This stuff has entered the world of PR and politics and its not pretty, its not fair, and if you wrestle with pigs.. well you know..

  51. kuhnkat says:
    June 15, 2010 at 7:15 pm (Edit)
    And Moshpit still looks the same!! ;>)

    I put that up there so somebody could take an easy shot at my childish humour. I went a little bonkers reading all this stuff trying to pick out stuff that people would like. My feelings were deeply hurt that folks didnt like the astronomy stuff. So I figured.. what would moshpit do.

  52. Nick,

    “you hit like a shelia”
    Mosh, you’re butchering the language!

    Sorry I learned all my australian from the 1984 australian water polo team.
    LA, the malibu inn. I weep for the brain cells destroyed that night.

  53. remember the butterfly “story” the media loved and which was ‘associated’ with australia’s david karoly? read the extracts:

    Herald Sun: Andrew Bolt: Butterfly broken
    The Age was very excited in March by the latest research of climate alarmist David Karoly….
    In fact, the study that so pleased The Age was so dodgy that some PhD student, Marc Hendrix, now comes along and blows it to pieces with a quick letter that the Royal Society considers so convincing that it’s obliged to publish. The main charge is cherry picking. Some extracts: ….
    of course, the correction will receive none of media publicity that Karoly’s original scare did.
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/butterfly_broken/

  54. Dr. Cathy Folley: “… we believe that it’s important to get the facts [about AGW] out in a way that allows the general community and the politicians making decisions to make good decisions.”

    Have you considered a Folley Catheter?

  55. Sorry Jason (First comment) “it’s match” is correct, the match belongs to it, the apostrophe s implies ownership

  56. david elder.

    hehe.

    I ended my career in literature studies by writing a program that constructed
    modern verse using some rather rudimentary rules. The poems, posted on my office door, would sometimes bring great comments from people. The philosophical point I was making was about intentions and the ability to discern the ghost in the machine or…not. and also the point I suppose that a text is produced as a series of choices under constraint.. Sometimes the language makes you say things.. or rather only certain things are sayable.. and so our notions of creativity..blah blah blah blah….Angry penguins.

  57. Great quote from the Wikipedia article from the the “Angry Penguins” hoaxers about the clique they pwned:
    “Our feeling was that by processes of critical self-delusion and mutual admiration, the perpetrators of this humourless nonsense had managed to pass it off on would-be intellectuals ….”
    Hmmm, what does that remind me of?

  58. This is just as silly as left wing “scientists” proving that those that don’t agree with them are mentally ill. Frankly, it is obvious who is disturbed.

  59. You guys realize that Lucia is in the hoax poems..
    (a months supply of quatloos if you can spot the under currents
    of this poem )

    I have been noted in the reading-rooms
    As a borer of calf-bound volumes
    Full of scandals at the Court. (Milord
    Had his hand upon that snowy globe
    Milady Lucy’s sinister breast . . .) Attendants
    Have peered me over while I chewed
    Back-numbers of Florentine gazettes
    (Knowst not, my Lucia, that he
    Who has caparisoned a nun dies
    With his twankydillo at the ready? . . .)
    But in all of this I got no culture till
    I read a little pamphlet on my thighs
    Entitled: “Friction as a Social Process.”

  60. are you guys still arguing over apostrophes.

    juanslayton says:
    June 15, 2010 at 5:26 pm (Edit)
    On behalf of gnu/linux, please–give the penguins a break. (They’re all in favor of openness, anyway.)

    (Psst.. thats my diabolical plan.. get AGW to adopt the penguin… and then they HAVE to open source stuff.. )

  61. anomaly time?

    15 June: WashingtonTimes: Kerry Picket: (John) Kerry: Spain’s failed green job program was an ‘anomaly’
    I asked Senator Kerry about Spain’s own failed experience in the area of subsidizing alternative energy, and the Massachusetts Senator’s response sounded similar to someone saying Marxism or Stalinism never succeeded, because it was never implemented correctly. AUDIO
    “If you look at other European countries, it depends entirely on exactly how committed they were and how far they were willing to go in terms of the breadth of the program,” he said.
    “You have some anomalies in some countries where they began slowly. They didn’t have the right incentives, they over-subsidized a couple of different things– we’ve learned something from some of those mistakes, but I’m confident that the way we’re approaching this is really private sector determined. That’s the key here.” (All emphasis is mine.)…
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/jun/15/senator-kerry-spains-failed-green-job-program-was-/

  62. ELEANOR HALL: Some of Australia’s top scientists ….?????

    Wrong – right there!

  63. Steve in SC says:
    June 15, 2010 at 4:56 pm

    Sung to the tune of
    “Its My Party And I’ll Cry If I Want To”
    ………..

    Bill Illis says:
    June 15, 2010 at 5:55 pm

    They are just expected to parrot the party line or they don’t get invited to any more great global warming parties.

    The “Pee Party”? (bedwetters)

    Keith in Perth says:
    June 15, 2010 at 9:58 pm

    Sorry Jason (First comment) “it’s match” is correct, the match belongs to it, the apostrophe s implies ownership

    Duck!

  64. Paul @ June 15, 2010 at 7:35 pm: Fancy a Swede coming up with that. Wonder where he got that idea? Or do we have a Jan/Feb publication date associated with that . . . ?

    In the 1880s, Krakatoa went off and cooled much of the planet. With the depths of the Little Ice Age not that far back in history, the concern in Europe (especially Scandinavia) was a return to those devastating times. This launched investigations into the climate and what might have brought the world out of the LIA. Hence Arrhenius’ research and quote.

  65. MOSHPIT: Psst, you hit like a shelia, mate.

    Shame shame shame sargeant Carter. Some of our sheilas can hit pretty hard Mosh. I’d put ’em up against a soft pom anyday. (pom = an Englishman)

    p.s. My exes grandfather was Albert Tucker (of the Angry Penguins mob) Weird bloke, never liked me

  66. Ed Caryl says:
    June 15, 2010 at 3:29 pm

    “Sen. Barbara Boxer said last week that climate change — not any of that other stuff — will stand as the “leading cause of conflict” over the next two decades. “
    Strangely, that is close to being correct, but it will be all the decisions based on the fraudulent premise of “climate change” that causes the conflicts.
    _______________

    My thoughts exactly. It might even come to a point where the war on CO2 will end up with a war with China. It’s a bad omen that even military organziations in the US seem to agree with Boxer. Well, the warmists will get the cooling they want then, via a nuclear winter.

  67. “DAVID MARK: Could it be then that scientists are too focused on the facts; constrained by the scientific method and perhaps not passionate enough to have their message heard through the static of modern media?”

    Oh damn that pesky scientific method! When scientists are “constrained” by the scientific method and only say the things that they are certain of, then they cannot be alarmist as they cannot back alarmist predictions up with definitive empirical evidence which unambiguously and definitively places CO2 as the sole cause and driver of global climate change.

    Without that certainty, they have to “dress-up penguins in sun hats and factor 50 suncream!”

    “Constrained by the scientific method” OMG! if that phrase right there does not cut to the heart of the weakness in the CAGW theorem, I don’t know what does!

    It makes me think of Scooby Doo. “The mystery machine stopped and Fred, Velma, Shaggy, Scooby and Daphne get out to confront the evil Catastrophic Anthropological Global Warming monster. Fred pulls off the CAGW’s mask and underneath there was nothing!!! All they could hear was a distant voice proclaim, “I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn’t for that pesky scientific method”

  68. Sheila is Australian slang for girl.

    Mosh – Don’t be a such a whingeing sheila. You only lost 5 brain cells which was the payback for our five goal loss to USA.

    BTW delicious irony that Anthony’s venue for Canberra is the Canberra Labor Club which is owned by the ACT Branch of the ALP (Australian Labor Party). The ALP is in power federally and Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister, has stated “climate change is the greatest moral, economic and environmental challenge of our generation”.

  69. This is not “science” hitting back. This is a very small group of non-scientists using non science to spread their own beliefs about the climate using the good name of the rest of science and scientists to spread their hysterical belief.

    The big swing since climategate has not been amongst the general public who have seen so many other scares in the name of science that they are generally sceptical anyway. The big change has been amongst professional scientists and those with scientific training for whom the disclosure of the highly dubious practices during climategate severely undermines the claims by the climate people that they are applying the appropriate scientific standards.

    And the irony, is that the more they try to use PR to “persuade” the gullible public, the more they portray themselves as people obsessed by PR to the masses at the expense of good vigorous science.

  70. Paul says: “Even worse, however, is that according to the latest PIPS2 (Pontificating International Pseudo-Scientist) measurements of credibility mass, so far this June’s shrinkage is the worst on record.

    And it’s far worse than we thought.

    And my hens have gone broody …. yet more evidence that the rise in the credibillity mass index is having profound effects even at the micro-economic level!

  71. Its all right for you northern hemisphere folk to mock “our ABC”, but we have to live with them (and pay for them with our taxes = salt in the wound). But the story was a good giggle – thanks, Mosh.

    P.S. “shelia” should be “sheila”

  72. The closed door meeting is being attended by …

    I think I may have discovered the problem. A private echo chamber where we can all nod our heads at the idea that “sceptics” can’t follow quantum mechanics or statistics and even if they could are too busy living it up on oil funding to care.

    Perhaps a better idea would be to at least take the time to study “the enemy” before formulating a new battle plan.

    Scientists are focusing on that and trying to make sure that they put things across in a way which isn’t alarmist

    With a straight face too …

  73. I have just been in a motion tracking studio in Sydney and seen Happy Feet II in production. So many tap dancing penguins…Steve, stop giving these fools ideas!

  74. In other news, a conference of yoga teachers gathered to discuss why is it that, if all that the world needs to solve its problems is love, people are not being more loving?

    They conclude that cold intellectual science is the problem.

  75. IPCC lays and hatches it’s first egg…

    Nature:
    ‘IPCC for biodiversity’ approved after long negotiation
    http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100612/full/news.2010.297.html

    … In essence, that means the IPBES will specialize in “peer review of peer review”, says Nick Nuttall, a spokesman for the United Nations Environment Programme, which has so far hosted the IPBES birth process. Its organizers hope that its reports and statements will be accepted as authoritative …

    Peer review of peer review? Hmm…. how else to keep out any undesirable peer reviewed science.

    Also see in Nature: Biodiversity: Putting a price on nature.

  76. Where is MY big oil money??? I DEMAND MY SHARE OF THE BIG OIL MONEY!!!

    Seriously, I am skint!

  77. Look, I’m one of those Angry Penguins, an Angry Aussi Penguin. We have a right to be heard. It’s friggen freezin’ down here and that’s only Melbourne… even worse down at Mawson Base, Antarctica. You think you’ve seen Albido, this is ALBIDO …

  78. Ha ha ha! Pretty funny!

    Clear policy advocacy by Australia’s science establishment. Not good.

  79. Here’s a link to The English release of Rescue from the Climate Saviors, a lay explanation of the physics underlying the fictitious dogma of climate alarmism. KE Research GmbH, a German public policy consultancy firm, prepared the report based on interviews and editing assistance from noted German theoretical physicists Ralf D. Tscheuschner & Gerhard Gerlich, authors of the peer-reviewed paper Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics, and numerous other German climatologists, physicists, and scientists. KE Research encourages all to freely distribute the report by any means (in unchanged form) and is forwarding copies to all members of the US Senate and House of Representatives, and legislators worldwide.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/rescue-from-climate-saviors.html

  80. val majkus says:
    June 16, 2010 at 4:49 am
    Here’s a link to The English release of Rescue from the Climate Saviors…
    ———Reply:
    By ignoring the solar activity trend line in the link you’ve provided, that graph might get Global Warmers to switch from a CO2-warming to a CO2-cooling theme. They could pursue this avenue until the next uptick in global warming, at which time they could revert back to their current interpretation. Where is their imagination when such “flexibility” could be swallowed by the gullible global masses?

  81. What these climate experts don’t seem to understand is that in any decent size audience of the “general public” there will be some exceedingly bright math/science literates in it who have no problem understanding the facts, the data, and conclusions (or lack thereof) that can be drawn from them.

  82. I have observed a general backing-away in the past few months by the MSM of the type of CAGW alarmist stories that were commonplace a year ago. Hopefully many journalists are taking a second look at their suddenly less-gullible readerships and slowly working out that Joe Public has decided, without the journalists help, that the ‘science’ behind CAGW has been been found wanting. Even the Guardian, which, a year ago, was pumping out CAGW stories one after the other, frequently runs stories such as a current one about the Olympic Committee for Sustaiablility backing away from installing a windmill. The writer, Chair of said committee, quotes health and safety problems plus supply difficulties. Installing a windmill on the Olympic site in relatively windless London would demonstrate how infrequently the things can actually generate power and be a real and self-sustaining embarrassment.

  83. Enron and BP worked together to introduce cap and trade. Now the loyal left is wondering why we don’t drink the koolaid and jump on the band wagon.
    Why don’t we sell premium electricity to only those that insist on it and let the rest of us buy the economical energy?

  84. Forget about penguins — Babymosh with James Earle Jones’ voice would be so much more persuasive!

  85. Clueless!

    Here are some clues for the Australian AGW chaps:

    It’s not what you haven’t communicated, it’s what you have communicated:

    Arrogance – “The debate is over” If your argument was good enough, it would have won by now.

    Exclusive Authoritarianism – Only those that agree with you are valid. All others can be dismissed and/or destroyed. Ad hominems don’t advance your case.

    Exaggeration – “The seas will engulf Bangladesh”, “The Arctic will melt this year”, The Maldives will be underwater soon”, “The Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035”.

    Elitism – The public is too stupid to understand. Only our experts can.

    Paranoia – “… even if we have to change the definition of peer reviewed science”. FYI, no one really believes that there is a “well funded” skeptic alliance. And do yourself a favor; drop the “big oil” crap.

    Clues are over. You take it from there.

  86. Keith in Perth: What school did you go to?

    “It’s” = abbreviation for “It is”

    “Its” = “belonging to it”

  87. Here’s my @#$% shifting attitude:

    Snow forecasted in the Oregon mountain passes (which I travel through weekly). Regulations require removal of snow tires like way the hell back in April. Travel advisories listed because “…THE SLUSHY AND ICY CONDITIONS MAY STILL CREATE A WINTRY HAZARD FOR DRIVERS WHICH IS NOT TYPICALLY EXPERIENCED IN THE MIDDLE OF JUNE.”

    “See? Attitude shift right there. Psychologize that.

  88. Peter Pond says:

    “P.S. “shelia” should be “sheila””

    I knew that. I was just err testing YOUR ability to spell. ya that’s it. Plus Charles reads everything before it posts and so I’m responsible for all the GOOD things in the post and he’s responsible for all the mistakes. And Anthony is to blame if it really sucks.

    There. I commented without making fun of your name. Is your wife named Lilly BTW?

  89. Enjoyed the humor. :)

    WRT the actual meeting, maybe this is the first time I really get the absurdity of Ivory Tower perspective, the sheer blindness of what should be very bright people for what’s really going on in the world around them.

    The reason skepticisim is gaining a foothold is that there are lots of people who don’t like…
    Activist Scientists
    Working in Secret
    Presenting “simplified” messages for the public.

    So how do Scientists respond to that in the Merry Old Land of Oz?

    Obviously, you get a bunch of Activist Scientists to have private meetings and discuss how to simplify the message so that the idiot public “gets it”.

    Snip snip here, snip snip there, and a couple of la-di-das…
    that’s how Scientists pass the day away…

    (Ok, I’m not that biased, these are just *some* scientists in Australia, and a greater generalization isn’t fair…it’s just for humor, because I’d rather laugh than cry. :) )

  90. Big oil can’t afford to pay off the growing minions of greedy money grubbing sceptics. It would be cheaper to buy up all the windmill and solar energy farms and collect all those fat subsidies. This disgraceful hysterical nonsense by AGW alchemists and ideologues marks the ‘sauve-qui-peut’ (save what you can) phase of the war by the losing side.

  91. wayne says:
    June 16, 2010 at 2:36 am
    IPCC lays and hatches it’s first egg…

    How to pretend (if your the IPCC) that you have a real job when you dont.

    “Well I design meta-frameworks for creating frameworks that can then be used to deliver regulatory artefacts…”

    Sounds like specialising in the peer review of peer review might be Very Important Work – for some people.

  92. “George E. Smith says:

    Well it wouldn’t surprise me one iota, if it turns out that World War III is fought over climate change.”

    Sparked by the crash of world banks and the finacial systems perhaps? And did we come close to it again recently? I believe we are just one step behind the brink and now with the crisis spreading to the EU, the world is hoping Asia (Read mostly China) will save us all. The Great Depression, one result of the financial crisis in the 1920’s, was one factor that lit the touch paper to events which became WWII.

  93. “Henry chance says:
    June 16, 2010 at 6:42 am
    Enron and BP worked together to introduce cap and trade. Now the loyal left is wondering why we don’t drink the koolaid and jump on the band wagon.
    Why don’t we sell premium electricity to only those that insist on it and let the rest of us buy the economical energy?”

    Enron, who was their “well connected” buddy? Al Gore of course (Oxy – the family oil company. And has a UK based emissions trading company). If it looks like a rat, smells like a rat and runs like a rat, then it is a rat.

  94. Important reasons for increasing public skepticism are that people now have experience from Europe and elsewhere to draw upon, that enough time has passed for critics and experience in the field to discredit wishful warmist promises, and that the Waxman-Markey bill is up for discussion, giving critics a justification for having a platform in the media and for pointing out:

    1. The huge cost to the populace and the economy of transitioning now to renewables.

    2. The lousy cost-effectiveness, inefficiency, and unreliability of renewables.

    3. The failure of the green crusade in Spain and elsewhere, and the overblown claims of success made for Denmark, which is an exceptional case because of hydro backup from Scandinavia.

  95. OK Mosh, I give up and forfeit the month’s supply of quatloos.

    BTW you hide the decline in brain cell destruction very well.

Comments are closed.