Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to SMH reporter Harold Mitchell, the ignorant voting intentions of climate skeptics are frightening politicians, preventing them from acting on climate change.
The reality is we just don’t care enough about climate change
By Harold Mitchell
24 October 2018 — 11:19pmMy dear old dad used to say: “Son, always listen carefully to people who are smarter than you.”
…
The key point is that we have little more than 12 years to stop increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It’s now 26 years since the first Rio earth summit when the world agreed to avoid dangerous climate change. Sachs argues we are not doing enough.
But why aren’t we? Well, it’s all about our politicians being re-elected. Even though many of them believe that action is required, many feel they will not lose their seats if they support inaction. Louise grimaces, “A double negative,” but still correct. Power prices today are more important to them than a liveable world for the children of tomorrow.
…
Plainly real leadership is required and Sach’s favourite president was JFK, because of his resistance to “dumbing down” important issues for a few votes. Sachs quotes the great president’s inauguration speech: “For man holds in his hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life”. He was speaking of nuclear war but could have added our ability to destroy millions of species including ourselves.
I’m also an admirer of JFK and I agree with him when he said: “The ignorance of one voter in democracy impairs the security of all.”
And I’d add climate change sceptics as well.
Thankfully its not up to comfortable upper middle class elites whether energy prices skyrocket thanks to forced introduction of renewables.
Though I will say one thing – perhaps true ignorance is taking the predictions of alarmist climate scientists at face value, after decades of failure, and all the tricks, bullying and downplaying of adverse data revealed by Climategate.
President Obama admitting Democrat plans for more green energy would make electricity prices skyrocket.
When the argument for AGW is sufficiently rigorous, I will support it.
Currently, it simply is not.
These guys should be very careful of who they label as ignorant.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealandand.wordpress.com
“The ignorance of one voter in democracy impairs the security of all.”
Yep, and when there are millions who have been taken in the pseudo-scientific BS, that has become a BIG problem.
Winner!
“Ignorance” is a word for a condition of lack of knowledge.
What is the word for knowing things that aren’t true?
Democrat . See President Reagan
You need both sides of the argument – informed argument is needed at this time is impossible due to vested interests and politicisation and scaremongering by parpicipents aided by a compliant and biased press.
Richard, informed decision making is easy in this case. You ignore the politics and look at the science (the actual reports, not he media reporting on them) which clearly says there is NO catastrophic increase in global temperature or its effects (like mean sea level). By the way, you also ignore the models but look only at the data compared to the predictions of the models. Models alone are not science and ate meaningless
& anyone who doesn’t get brainwashed into believing ccarbon dioxide/climate change nonsense being labelled as belong to the “fake news”* brigade; *( in my day this used be called “the underground press)
The issue is NOT that the argument for AGW is not sufficiently rigorous.
It isn’t. But that is not the important issue. The important issue is that even if you concede it, the alarmists are not advocating any sensible actions. They either advocate doing things that will make no difference, like Paris or wind turbines. Or they condone actions which they should think make the problem worse – like Chinese increases in emissions, or coal generation plant building programs.
This is why the alarmists want to argue as much as possible about the theory and talk as little as possible about the policies they want to see to deal with the supposed problem.
The way to get to this is to ask: who is this ‘we’ who are not doing enough. Make the speaker get very specific about this. What countries are not doing enough, what do you want them to do, how much will this reduce emissions globally?
If we elect the right sort of politician in America, what exactly will they do? How much difference will that make to global emissions.
The whole argument is complete nonsense. Even if you concede the theory, the actions advocated make no sense at all.
And as for what the IPCC claims to believe is necessary, several hundred percent price rises in gas and heating oil and all kinds of fossil fuel energy, fine. The thing to ask about this is, if the US did it unilaterally, how much differrence would it make?
Basically close to zero.
And if you are advocating that the whole world do it, how does electing X Y or Z make this any more likely?
The alarmists need to be brought face to face with the fact that the US is a minor player in emissions. No unilateral action is going to make any difference. And the US has squandered its moral leadership in the endless pointless military adventures, so its example and urgings have zero force. It does not matter who the US elects or what it does, its powerless in the face of rising emissions by the world as a whole.
Get used to it. I don’t think it will lead to disaster, but if it is going to, its impossible for the US to avert. The only thing to do is prepare.
“This is why the alarmists want to argue as much as possible about the theory and talk as little as possible about the policies they want to see to deal with the supposed problem.”
That’s just it. They desperately want to get their “hypothetical BS”-based policies codified into law before people figure out just how bad and economically ruinous those policies will be for them personally. The useful idiots have absolutely no concept of just how fruitless the “climate change” policies will be, and how economically destructive they will be, and how much pain, suffering and death they will bring if the Climate Nazis get their way.
“Climate change” blather is nothing more than a poor excuse to CONTROL ENERGY USE and must be resisted at every turn, or there’s going to be a lot of people starving and freezing to death in the dark.
Michel:
I agree with much of what you say but I don’t think that those supporting AGW want to argue theory. How many times lately have we heard that scientists and reporters/editors have been told not to debate, not to report, and not to engage on the scientific merits of this issue? Why? That debate is very close to being lost, if not lost already. And that’s why their “scientific” argument has turned to personal attacks, a sure historical sign that any argument on the merits has been lost. They do want to promote the “effects” (not the cause) because that’s where the “scare” is and detracts from the scientific merits. Policies? Maybe some they wish to offer if tied to a “sky is falling” projection but I don’t think they want to debate all, such as President Obama’s “electricity will necessarily skyrocket” quote.
The problem with the discussion of the science for both sides of this debate, which I think you are implying, is that successfully communicating that to the public is difficult and that its easier to spew policies than science. Agree with that! But, over time (emphasis: over time!), the public is always smarter than given credit and just needs the data presented appropriately, such as the comparison of the models to actual data that is so compelling.
Apparently the rest of the world– aside from W. Europe– basically feels he same way. CAGW is seen a a propaganda/psy-war tool in the hands of Financial Elite Malthusian ideologues. Only they and their benighted petite bourgeoisie myrmidons want a New Dark Ages led by worthless Green Energy schemes. In the end, the Western Malthusians will be buried by the rest of the world led by the Russian-Chinese Axis.
That’s cause the gasses don’t trap heat, we aren’t releasing them by the billions of tons and the first law of thermodynamics is a bunch of BS. LALALALALA . . . . .Can’t hear you scientists. More rigor please.
I’ll bet he shuts his lights off once a year for an hour…
It is far worse than not rigorous. It is overtly corrupt. If they admit to adjusting the data for presentation purposes to even the slightest degree I have a right to demand all their work is subject to external verification. Given the tiny variations that no engineer would accept is significant compared to the errors and uncertainties in the measurement those with a practical as well as academic training have a right and a duty to reject their findings until that external verification has been done.
Yet another warmista who yearns for a totalitarian state.
“Plainly real leadership is required.” Heil the Fuehrer!
(Fuehrer means ‘leader’ in German). Down with elections!
Yep, clearly democracy only works until one person disagrees with your agenda, then it becomes ” a danger to security” . Doubtless another fool who thinks we should take China a role model for government.
The lead refers to JFK human poverty. China brought 700 million out of poverty in 10 years, has less poor than the US with 4 times the population. In those 10 years Bush and Obama bailed out WallStreet – same in the EU.
Witness now a mass strike against the establishment EU and US – it’s not rocket science…
It’s quite a stretch to claim that China brought 700 million out of poverty. There is still poverty in China that exceeds anything found in the US.
Regardless, China was mired in poverty until they started to abandon communism for capitalism.
Not that long ago, the US was creating wealth and eliminating poverty faster than any other nation on earth. Then we abandoned capitalism and started adopting socialism.
PS: Bailing out Wall Street is an example of the type of socialism that you usually advocate.
poverty. China brought 700 million out of poverty in 10 years
Yeah, but look where they started poverty-wise (their communist form of government first forced greater than 700 million into poverty before their adding of limited capitalistic economic systems help lift 700 million of them back out of poverty), and even if we take your numbers as gospel, the fact remains that the poverty rate in China is still greater than that in the US.
“At least China isn’t putting up a pretence of being democratic” : my Mother 10 years ago at the age of 81!
Curious George ;- We in the UK know how little elections mean when our judiciary can ignore the meaning of referendum used in a respected dictionary and delay implementation by demanding Parliamentary approval as the result didn’t comply with the view of what is right by our leadership. This with a view of forcing a rerun after implementing a policy of misinformation blaming problems on exit when they were predicted as problems of the interim period of worst of both worlds coupled with uncertainty.
We already have a totalitarian state in reality if not overtly. The attacks on Trump for defying the climate lobby show you have the same problem in the US. A whole presidential dynasty have had a worse sexual record than Trump who is a monk compared to one particular family with never a word spoken against them.
And here they are, once again, demonstrating the ‘civility’ of the alarmist side …
All while cleverly concealing the real agenda, that being the sharp reduction in the number of “children of tomorrow” by ensuring the massive death-by-energy-poverty of the potential population of “parents.” Except themselves and their cronies, of course.
AGW is not Science. The new scare of plastic pollution is preparation for if AGW scare falls apart. I hope it was fake news but I read that eco scientists are creating plastic eating bugs. If this is true the we can expect the release of all the samples of previously eradicated or near eradicated mass killers like smallpox and anthrax. All containment systems use cooling and plastic seals.
with no plastic there is no insulation so no electrics. All our gas pipes a now plastic so mass explosions. No running water. No sewage systems.
Welcome stone age and energy poverty will be the least of our worries.
This suggest that eugenics really did not die out with the Nazis
+1
Power prices are important to the children of tomorrow.
The liveable world suggests the author believes in catastrophic CO2 warming, but fails to show there’s a consensus we’re heading for it and have means to avoid it. On the other hand, high energy price would be ‘certain death’ for many children.
So that’s just inconsistent babbling. Nothing new in that, though.
Saw a kid the other day wearing badges one of which says ban fur use Faux fur and another saying ban plastic. She didn’t like me laughing at her and very aggressively demanded why.
I nearly wept when she told me they were her teacher’s two hobby horses after I explained the reason and told her to look up what faux fur is made of. I also pointed out to her she could throw away her mobile when she got out her mobile to look it up as no plastic equal no insulators and no electricity. These are the children of tomorrow but can you blame them when they have teachers who are so ignorant?
In a totalitarian state, he would be assassinated by opponents who don’t have access to rule of law.
Who then assassinated JFK in broad daylight, pray tell?
The most reliable sources put it as a group of husbands and not political at all.
The imbecilic brain-deadness of AGW and its drone-followers is so monstrously stupid that it is endangering humanity’s recent evolution of sentient consciousness itself. It risks putting into reverse the expansion of intellect – it’s entire narrative is a mockery of intellect and logic – and risks adding momentum to the un-evolution of sentience and a headlong retreat to chimpanzee-like shrunken brains and loss of language and rational thought. Good for the environment though. At least there’s logic to that. It seems that spirit, creativity, curiosity and intellect come with too high an environmental price tag. If that’s your value system, that is.
At least he called us skeptics, not deniers. We’re making progress.
“At least he called us skeptics, not deniers. ”
True, but he said “climate change sceptics” and I don’t know of anyone that believes that the climate doesn’t change
Comic rays may be linked to cardiac issues…
https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/10/24/atmospheric-radiation-increasing-from-coast-to-coast-in-the-usa/
—-
If this is the case, could the brain also be affected?
Could be a case for dying laughing.
“I don’t know of anyone that believes that the climate doesn’t change”. The same ones who believe that “carbon” is the scourge.
Not unusual. I don’t have any personal data on Harold Mitchell, but usually when someone makes this sort of claim, they actually turn out to have less documented claims on scientific knowledge or education than the people they are attempting to insult. It doesn’t really count for anything, and there is always a bigger fish, but I am willing to bet that mine is bigger than his when it comes to science. I’d also bet that that is true for a lot more commenters at WUWT.
michael hart
As a layman, I find enough information to convince me that AGW isn’t real.
I take some comfort when confronted by an alarmist that whilst they know every reason to support the AGW claims (97%, media reports of accelerating sea level rise, predictions of worse weather events, global famine, mass migration, wars etc.) I have taken the time to assimilate all that and examine the other side of the coin.
I therefore know at least twice as much as them and can make an informed decision on climate change based on the evidence available.
For that reason, it’s not climate sceptics who are the ignorant one’s, it’s the uninformed, incurious MSM adherents who are ignorant of climate change.
At least we sceptics got off our arses and made the effort to establish at least some facts.
Twice nothing is still nothing. 😉 You gotta come up with a better description than that of your knowledge base!
Hotscot, that is indeed something I try to impress on all who say “I’m only a layman…”
In any field, it is always the case of “How do I assess what these experts claim, given my own lack of time and/or competence?”
You assess them on their ability to be right, by their own metrics. If an investment adviser promises almost guaranteed annual returns of x % and, after a few decades, has only produced x/3 % then you know they were full of BS. If they then proceed to make excuses, continually try to re-adjust the figures to make them look better, or quibble about what promise they actually made, then you know they were worse than just bullshitters. That is essentially the situation climate science finds itself in. No expertise in science is needed.
Yup. When what they SAY (over and over again) is “It’s worse than we thought” at the same time they are REDUCING (over and over again) their estimates/predictions/projections of the amount of warming (because, despite all the data manipulation, the real world just isn’t providing any confirmation for their ridiculous claims), you know they’re just a bunch of highly educated, but ignorant, bullshit artists.
That “9” should be a “(“. Need that edit function back!
[You’re welcome. -mod]
The Harold Mitchell that I usually see in the SMH made a motza out of advertising. If this article is by him, then I am not aware that he has any science background although he sure can add up his money! I suppose that makes him vaguely numerate.
I keep reading “SMH” as “Smack My Head.” I don’t know what it stands for (undefined acronyms and abbreviations are a personal pet peeve), but it seems to fit perfectly to the vacuous idiot that wrote that stupid “AGW is fact but we’re just being held back by the ignorant unwashed” twaddle.
Michael, he is a founder of a large communications company in Australia and sits on all sorts or boards etc.
Bet he lies awake at night wondering where the extra 300 bucks is coming from to pay his electricity bills!
http://haroldmitchellfoundation.com.au/#!/about-us/our-founder/
Well his Wikipedia article looks like he wrote it himself.
I did like the claim that he has ‘battled alcoholism’, then adding he has been a teetotaller since he was 23.
Given that he is now 72, one might suggest that if he ever did truly battle alcoholism (as opposed to simply making a fool of himself a few too many times during his impressionable years) than this war has been long won.
The big point is that he is clearly not short of a quid and probably has had his power bills on direct debit for the last 12 years.
Anyone who takes the green blob at face value is either quite young, has no knowledge of their history, or is a green themselves.
The one consistent thing about scary scenarios from the greens since the late 1960’s has been that all the falsifiable claims have been falsified. From the cancer epidemic caused by industrial chemicals, global cooling, to global warming, the same “remedy” was demanded, the destruction of industrial society.
One rather gets the impression that is what they actually wanted all along.
Isn’t it kind of self-defeating to destroy industry? Those numbskulls depend entirely on technology to promote and disperse their message of fear, but as it is a product of industry, if they destroy “industry”, they’ll have no technojunk to rely on. Back to the cave, so to speak.
Have they even thought about that? No?
I didn’t think so. Just asking. They are so unutterably dumb.
I actually wish they were ‘dumb’… as in unable to speak.
I believe the correct term is ignorant or stupid.
@ Rocketscientist,
Ignorance is that you have never been aware of something. Ignorance is not terminal.
Stupidity is that you’ve been told and are still ignorant. Which perfectly describes AGW supporters, no matter how many predictions fail, they are too stupid to acknowledge that it’s not science.
Rishrac, you are neglecting laziness and fanaticism. For most of the general public, it is laziness. For many of the advocates for the green blob, it is either fanaticism and/or pursuing their own interests, financial or social.
If the True Believers were all stupid, they would be much less of a threat.
That’s why we call them parasites. They destroy the very economy that supports and feeds them.
No Sara, they have thought about it and as most are young and have never lived through a war or a major recession, they think that the climate fairy will bring them the rewards they deserve after they have destroyed our industries and brought about a one world government run by the Chinese most likely.
I’m not a big Ayn Rand fan. That said, she was right about many things. In The Return of the Primitive she points out that the environmentalists are basically against humanity and think removing it from the Earth’s surface would be a good thing. She made that point just when the new left was beginning to get up steam. She was very perceptive.
My ex was a former Randite, so I know rather too much about Ayn Rand. Aside from seriously needing an editor, she was the Marxist equivalent of a Satanist. Rand mostly followed Marxist economic theory, but cheered for the other side. “Atlas Shrugged” has enough plot holes to fill Albert Hall (why was Dagny not pregnant in eight years of an affair?, with pre-Pill tech?) and her understanding of the economics or technology of transportation was seriously deficient. As the obvious case that oil transport is better accomplished by pipeline,, not rail.
My conclusion was that Rand wrote the novel in the 1920’s or early 1930”s, and did a cursory update before it was published.
Tom she ended up taking a pension from the government. Poetic justice some may say..
Abortions were not unheard of back then, but what has pregnancy got to do with a primer on catastrophic annihilation of a nation?
It is more of not making the characters seem like real people, acting in a plausible way. I sorta agree with some of her politics, but she sucks as a novelist.
In my experience the only people who read Ayn Rand are Lefties who do so in the mistaken belief that all Righties live and swear by it, and are reading it to attempt to understand why Righties are so ‘Wrong’.
Most Righties I know, even the very well read ones, have only a vague passing knowledge of it.
Personally I haven’t read it and would not be able to summaries the plot without DuckDuck.
What I have read is Nordenholt’s Million, which is 1923 post apocalypse/political fantasy. Rather bland to be honest but interesting from a historical context that it is written post Great War and strongly plays on the theme that Governments are too useless to lead. In the novel a plot device has destroyed all plant life and only wise, successful, tough but fair business man can save humanity which he does but hand picking a million workers and effectively becoming his own state in Scotland (and to hell with everyone else). Given the rise of the ‘strong leader’ leading up to the Second World War the fact that this man is seen as the hero is a tad disturbing, as is – now I think about it – the fact that the plot is about a harsh but fair (and to hell with everyone else) solution to an ecological problem.
Hmmm… Happy reading 😀
“why was Dagny not pregnant in eight years of an affair”
I would not, repeat not, call that a hole in the plot. I can out of straight hand give several reasons for such a state, including, but not limited to, infertility of either side, genetic incompatibility of the two, or sexual practices either alone or in combination with others.
Now I haven’t read the book and never will, but I would not think that was an odd detail at all.
(Should I mention I’m married, third decade)
it is more of an observation that Rand’s characters do not behave like real people. It is more a plotline to hang political speeches onto.
Yes, as I like to point out in any discussion with “true believer” types, “When the “climate catastrophe du jour” about faces 180 degrees (from “we’re heading into a new ice age (and it’s our fault)” to “we’re heading into a runaway warming (and it’s our fault)” and YET the supposed cause (human fossil fuel use, though by slightly different pseudo-scientific mechanisms) AND the supposed “solution” (the control/forced reduction of fossil fuel use or “de-industrialization”) remain EXACTLY THE SAME, you know YOU’RE BEING CONNED.
Well pack yours bags and head to China then because by your reckoning they are the dumbest of all. China adds more co2 than the US and EU combined and almost as much as the other nine of the remaining top ten. Poor little Australia is a member of what’s left (nine tenths of bugger all).
When Your successful by stopping China adding more C02 in a year than Oz contributes totally come and see me! I might start listening!
‘Climate change ‘ is ranked as 9th on the list of issues that voters in Australia consider important. And that ranking does not list power & gas prices, which as an Australian I know we consider very important.
Ummmmm ?
And the proposed solution ? Get rid of the politicians ! So experts like the economist Sachs can take over ? I studied economics decades ago at Uni. It is another version of faith based BS.
Yes, the climate extremists don’t like democracy.
“‘Climate change ‘ is ranked as 9th on the list of issues that voters in Australia consider important. And that ranking does not list power & gas prices, which as an Australian I know we consider very important.
Ummmmm ?”
If the drafters of “lists of issues” for voter “polls” didn’t include “climate change” in THEIR “lists,” it wouldn’t even MAKE the “lists” of MOST people AT ALL. The mere inclusion of it biases the “polls” by suggesting any significant portion of the voters/population gives a rat’s ass about it!
And at the same time, as you point out, they leave OFF the “list” ACTUAL concerns like energy prices, because revealing how big a concern THAT is among voters wouldn’t serve the political agenda of those drafting the “polls.”
So, Mr. Mitchell, when is your flight to China to tell them how they should be reducing their Co2 output? And did you get a round trip ticket? If you did you probably wasted your money.
“The key point is that we have little more than 12 years to stop increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”
…and yet, the UN/IPCC has declared the majority of countries developing…and they can increase their emissions
The USA has dropped emissions back to 1992 levels…CO2 was ~350ppm in 1992
Left up to the USA, CO2 levels would be back down to ~350ppm from 400ppm
…where do they think that increase has come from
CACC conference attendees air travel, lavish dining, and 3 sigma above average hot air blowing.
I sincerely thought that we are heading toward a cooler period in this business. What did I miss?
The illogic of these guys bothers me most when they try to make it into simple stuff, and it isn’t. They should be concerned about things like increased spread of diseases and revivals of what are (now) considered “dead” (but really just dormant) diseases that can incubate and lie dormant in the soil for hundreds to thousands of years, and then revive just because the permafrost is melting.
Smallpox, anyone?
Anthrax already sent up alarm bells in 2005-2006 when excessive rains in the Plains states like the Dakotas left the soil so wet that dormant anthrax spores were being picked up by grazing cattle, when those spores had been dormant for over 100 years. Remember all those anthrax scares? Yeah, that’s where it started. I worked at an agribiz company and was able to talk to ranchers out there who were quite worried about it because they had never before had to vaccinate their cattle against anthrax. And then, BOOM!
Rising seas? Piffle. How about swamps and bogs increasing in size and depth, drawing clouds of mosquitoes, increasing the spread of encephalitis and meningitis? Oh, there’s more where that came from. Just a few things to point out how dumb people like Mitchel and Obama and the rest of them are.
CO2 won’t be the issue. Malaria, typhus, plague and contaminated drinking water will be the real issues. :–)
Ooops! Don’t mean to be so dismal, mods, but sometimes I think those know-it-alls need some time with real science, with something that will overwhelm their idiot notions about what is really important.
Sara
You raise an important issue: not the diseases, but the problem of holding that attributability means avoidability.
If those diseases are real, and the effects known, and the current paradigm correctly characterised, then one can make certain statements about attributability: this causes that. No problem, really.
However, claiming that a certain action of set of actions will avoid such consequences does not follow automatically. If I attribute the rise of anthrax to something, and I can demonstrate that vaccination avoids the consequences, there is a causal and avoidability case.
When it comes to ‘swamps’ and the several diseases you mention, there may be no avoidability at all. The first reason why is that the spread of those diseases is not dependent on the existence of swamps. Rising sea levels may not create additional swamps, and there are treatments, real or potential. We cannot say now what will not be invented in future.
Do you catch on? Attributing something as a cause of what happened, doesn’t mean avoiding or eliminating the attributed cause assures that we will avoid the attributed consequence. Consider volcanoes and human sacrifice.
In the case of adding CO2 to the atmosphere, which increases both the back radiation and the radiation to space, is unlikely to ’cause malaria’ nor to ’cause it to spread’. Malaria used to be widespread throughout the northern hemisphere. It was not reduced to its present extent by reducing CO2 emissions because it is not caused by an increase in temperature nor reduced by cooling.
Something we know for sure, an absolute certainty, is that reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere will reduce the global food supply, and that might be avoidable because it is attributable with absolute certainty.
Crispin, you’re talking about coastal swamps. I’m referring to inland bogs and swamps.
I live about 30 miles from one of the last quaking bogs in North America. It is nothing but a deep and somewhat stagnant pool of water left over from the last glaciation. Its source of replenishment is rain and snow, not a local creek or spring. It is that bog, and the boundary of the waters of Lake Michigan, that I’m referring to.
The shores of all the Great Lakes were much, much further inland 20,000 years ago than they are now. When the Great Lakes drained into the Mississippi River valley and thence to the Gulf of Mexico, and out to the Atlantic through the St. Laurence River (it all had to go some place), it left behind massive wetlands that eventually dried up and became drier land, but there are still remnants of it around here where I live, like the Volo Bog.
Bogs and swamps are breeding grounds for mosquitoes, one of the vectors that carry some of these diseases. I went to the north unit of a popular state park in June to get photos of the tradiscantia and blue flag iris, both of which like damp places as spots to grow. They were in full bloom and the air was full of clouds of mosquitoes. And that particular unit is part of a wetland/dune complex that is full of marshes and bogs. Great places for water birds to raise their young, as is another marsh that has low and high cycles, depending on rain levels. Waders and divers love that place.
There are plenty of marshy and boggy places like these inland, with no connection to coastal waters at all, unless they drain to one of the local rivers that hook up to the Mississippi River on a southbound branch.
Don’t forget the Typhus already in Los Angeles!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcrsK3pKDuM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RszkiasE1_U
Roger
Sara, this is a bigger deal then all of the above, because the people that are in charge of our health are responsible for this. Sara do you trust this persons story or not?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhZETbXCqCM
Even though this was published yesterday at the SMH, it was not front page news. Something has changed as usually articles like this will be full of comments by now and I see only 3 right now.
Patrick MJD
As with the UK MSM (other than the BBC of course) they are largely ignoring everything since that insane IPCC report was published.
That’s a serous blow to the climate faithful as they need the red tops to spread their fears/lies to the common man.
Falling off the front page is a big deal because, as we know, laymen look at the gory headlines, then immediately turn to the sports pages at the back.
Anything in between only justifies itself because it’s useful for wiping a builders arse on.
I used to get in to trouble for ignoring the front page and turning to Page 3 of The Sun and never “looking” further! *GRIN*
Sports page! What’s that?
Harold Mitchell seems to be advocating higher energy prices, bit of a sensitive subject in Australia – especially as the opposition sometimes seems to imply renewables will reduce energy prices.
I tried to comment and was not allowed..Bizarre !
Up to 33 comments, rare that any posts not conforming to the narrative don’t get posted. But you can see the usual alarmist, media lead, posts about melting ice yadda yadda yadda!
Comments gone made, almost all pro-climate change, 95% GBR gone, acidic oceans, melting ice etc etc etc without any evidence.
He needs to follow his dear old dads’ advice ! We skeptics ARE smarter than he is !
His dear dad must have known that he was pretty dumb.
So, his loving dad gave him a clue.
The Dunning Kruger effect in all its glory. Mr Mitchell grossly overestimates his own competence. Because he himself is ignorant.
He almost got it right, except that it is the Climate Belief voters who impair security with their ignorance.
BoBo BS! The Climate Scientologists and their True Believers are the problem.
I thought the Pope led the Church of CO2 with his latest remarks… Although its a toss up with Orthodox Bartholemeu and the Royal head of that other church. Oh no, another Schism!
Typical “you are ignorant if you do not believe as I do” blah, blah, blah, blah
Consensus voters risk conflation of logical domains, inference in lieu of deduction, models in lieu of evidence, and forcing catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, including: gross economic misalignment, divergent development, and green blights that obfuscate and shift environmental disruption.
I love that line about always listen to people who are smarter than you. Just exactly how can I tell if someone is smarter than me? Should I listen to people who claim to be experts? No, I should question what they say. Experts do not have a good track record of getting it right, especially when it comes to predictions. In fact they have high failure rate in that respect. Even when it comes to looking back in history, experts disagree with each other in many cases. Which one should I listen to, the one who says that painting is a Picasso, or the one who says it’s a forgery?
SMH = smack my head.
A daily occurrence in the Age of Alarmism.
“It’s now 26 years since the first Rio earth summit when the world agreed to avoid dangerous climate change. Sachs argues we are not doing enough.”
Who agreed? I was on this world back then and I didn’t agree to a damm thing. So, which other world was this and why do they get a vote?
When the deluded “agree” they hold the mistaken belief that their “agreement” applies to all of us by extension. You know, just like that “Paris Climate” non-treaty they believe the U.S. “agreed” to, just because the Eco-Nazi POTUS Obama signed it (and never submitted it to the Senate as required for it to be “agreed” BY THE COUNTRY, as opposed to BY HIM).
The data indicates that climate skeptics have had nearly zero influence.
Believers refuse to debate skeptics.
Skeptical scientists are publicly attacked by believers, and frequently pressured to either shut up or leave the scene.
Media treats skeptics rudely and not one documentary about why skeptics believe what they believe has honestly been made.
World orgs refuse to fund skeptical research.
Yet dkepyics are do powerful they derail the might settled science.
Amazing tripe from yet another true believing twit.
Relax Harold as the company directors are getting frightened, no doubt because they’ve heard about kiddies climate lawsuits and know our courts are full of dimwit lefty judges that will take them seriously-
https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/company-news/why-australian-company-directors-have-started-caring-about-climate-change/ar-BBOPk4n
First it was the shrink professions and now it’s the lawyering classes butchering science and the scientific method. If you can’t fool democracy with your unscientific drivel then go over their heads with political lawyering.
The data indicates that climate skeptics have had nearly zero influence.
Believers refuse to debate skeptics.
Skeptical scientists are publicly attacked by believers, and frequently pressured to either shut up or leave the scene.
Media treats skeptics rudely and not one documentary about why skeptics believe what they believe has honestly been made.
World orgs refuse to fund skeptical research.
Yet skeptics are so powerful they derail the mighty settled science.
The article you wrote is amazing tripe from yet another true believing twit.
Actually I enhance “security” through my refusal to acquiesce to their mentally retarded horseshYt. Now, the major point is how to get our money back from these lie spewing c7nts.
Yet another in his ignorance of AGW skeptics, and the associated sciences, assumes that skeptics are skeptics out of ignorance. In my experience AGW skeptics are more knowledgeable about the subject and its associated issues than most.
“The key point is that we have little more than 12 years to stop increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”
Rubbish! You know as well as I do the booga booga tipping points keep getting pushed out to suit the doomsdayers and their failing political and economic narrative-
https://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/25-years-of-predicting-the-global-warming-tipping-point/
An open reply to Harold Mitchell (Harold, you are welcome to respond here):
You say “The key point is that we have little more than 12 years to stop increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.“. Note that he does not say that we have to stop increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere now. We’ve got 12 years before we have to start. You don’t explain why, but it does tie in nicely with China’s commitments under the Paris Accord – they are free to increase CO2 emissions until 2030, and it’s pretty obvious that this agreement wouldn’t have been accepted by other nations if delaying until 2030 was a genuine threat to the planet. So, logically, it must be perfectly OK for us lesser nations to do the same.
So I’m with you on this, Harold. But 12 years is quite a long time, and many things may change in the meantime (how many accurate 12-year forecasts have you ever seen in your lifetime?). So I suggest that a more reasonable approach would be to re-assess the situation in 2030, rather than committing now – 12 years out – to cutting CO2 emissions in 2030. If the rest of the world has not cut CO2 emissions like the USA has, and if today’s climate model predictions prove to have been accurate, and if there is reasonable evidence (greater warming in the tropical troposphere fir example) that that warming was indeed caused by CO2, then I doubt that you will have any difficulty in getting across-the-board agreement to reducing CO2 emissions. Obviously I can’t speak for everyone here, but I really do think that the readers of this blog would be the first to agree. That’s because they are on the whole evidence-based people, ie. they tend to judge issues on their merits (Nullius in Verba).
Here’s an opportunity for us all to get on the same page and work together. Are you with us, Harold?
Indeed!?
And just how did Harold Mitchell decide that the politicians finessing specious climate claims and doom predictions are smarter than him?
We’d also like to know how his Father avoided devious charlatans who are likely all smarter than Harold?
All Harold does is prove Hannum’s “There’s a sucker born every minute” in reference to P. T. Barnum. Barnum, the Prince of humbug, said “The people like to be humbugged”.
Or as Abraham Lincoln is alleged to have stated, “You can fool some of the people all of the time; you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can never fool all of the people all of the time”
I suppose, Harold falls into the first category, fooled all of the time, by people he believes are smarter than him. And he like being fooled.
But..
The Emperors magnificent new apparel is just so beautiful,such a wonderful weave,texture so fine..
You have to be a real ignoramus,totally unfit for positions of authority if you cannot see the fabric.
Pretty sure Hans Christian Anderson was writing a precautionary tale, but there again who knew that Monty Python would become a training manual for the bureaus?
Sure I listen,but bafflegab does not convince me that the speaker is “smarter”.
So how did Harold Mitchell decide who was smarter than himself?
Or does everyone qualify?
Here in Aus it’s fondly known as The Silly Morning Herald!
“It’s now 26 years since the first Rio earth summit…”
Indeed. In all that time you have not proven your case. Just saying “experts say” is not enough. How many times has your hypothesis’ failed during those 26 years?
Jeffrey Sachs is the main reason we did not renew our subscription the Scientific American.
Harold Mitchell is just a SMH reporter. Be advised, a REPORTER ! He should have taken his dear old Dad’s advise and listened to somebody that is smarter than him but therein lies the problem any and everybody is likely smarter than him, what a conundrum he faces !
I understand what we all exhale contains 40,000 ppm CO2!
These over-zealous carbon cycle haters can hold their breath for as long as they want! Forever would be ideal!
I have a daughter, 50 years of age, highly intelligent, works at a Domestic violence refugee. Gets home tired and does not have much spare time.
She sad to me that she felt that the climate was changing. So I wrote a very long and detailed report, covered everything, but the result was that she did not find the time to read and then understand it.
That is the problem. So perhaps we need a very simplefied explanation, say “71 % of the is water. The Sun heats that up and the wind then moves that warm and moist air all over the globe. That is weather .”
But with the Media looking for scary stories, and politicians always in search of votes, all we need are a few colourful graphs and most people seem to accept it as true.
Because the other way, the truth, is just too hard.
MJEi
“See above, 71 % of the planet is water” Sorry.
MJE
From piece above : “A recent survey by The Economist ranked Jeffrey Sachs as one of the three most influential living economists of the last decade. Time magazine ranks him as “probably the most important economist in the world”. ”
Jeffrey Sachs, the Harvard punk economist, cocaine legalizer (Bolivia being his baptism) , sent by Soros to Poland, Then off to Russia with “shock therapy”.
This is not an expert, rather an economic hitman. I’m afraid dear Prof. Feynman might not have recognised the punk for what he is.
Its a real shame Feynman is longer with use to chew up and spit-out people like Men and their BS ‘science ‘
“We have met the enemy, and he is us!”
“Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the Problem!”
It is quite clear from our human history that the governments we often most empower are the source of most of our misery and human atrocities. Governments that have very limited power over individual choices are the most benign and generally beneficial. Governments that try to control most aspects of human life quickly become the most evil!
No government or groups of governments can control the climate. The notion that they can control the climate is stupid beyond belief!
We are being told to surrender our freedoms for a security that does not exist to governments with no immunity to the diseases of corruption and malfeasance. No thanks! And a pox on all of those ignorant idiots who argue for it!
My dear old dad used to say: “Son, always listen carefully to people who are smarter than you.”
Problem is that dear old dad failed to teach Harold Mitchell how to recognize people smarter than him.
The idea that ANYONE on that side of the fence is preoccupied with security is laughable – and frankly the only reason they try this angle is that they believe others respond to buzz-words the way they do.
Nice insight
I guess “ignorant deplorables” is the new campaign slogan and con job from the Party that sees election loss as a temporary setback by mistaken voters in supporting the only legitimate leadership of elite message managers.
Claim: Climate Skeptic Voters “Impair Security” With Their Ignorance
Okay, here’s my counter-claim:
Claim: Climate Alarmist Elected Officials “Impair Security” With Their Stupidity
“Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century
He who protects freedoms (Liberties) with security (force) has neither.
If everybody pulled their heads in and focused on their own behaviour and not on other peoples opinion , opinions are like buttholes , everybody’s got one. Life’s like a mirror, we get back what we put out .
Personal development, learn to understand yourself before trying to understand others.
Think, Emote, Seek&Search, Action, Knowledge, is the 5 step process behind ever thought. Most people live their lives not getting past the first two steps. They get a thought , rap it in emotion and run with the wolves and dribble on and on. If only they could give the same advise to them selves as they give to others. When making decisions, most will emotionally take the path of least resistance and follow their leader and the money. Because your leader will sack you and there will be NO money. I should not have used the word “MONEY” because the real tern these day’s is “CURRENCY” and there’s a big difference.
https://curiosity.com/topics/the-difference-between-money-and-currency-curiosity/
Carbon Dioxide’s ability to create heats is Logarithmic. The planet is circa 6.4bn years old. Life started only 500 million years ago. CO2 comes from Volcanoes and was at 4,500ppm back then.
So how come Earth did not burn up?
Simple…CO2’s ability to create heat is Logarithmic.
Double today’s CO2 at 400ppm = 80ppm…you may get a degree of heat. Double it again?….about 1/10th degree C and so on.
The Greens, media et al have never understood the Logarithmic heat creation.
Please note:
Through Oxygen isotope ratios we have been able to look at ice cores over thousands of years we can clearly see that we have been much warmer in the past.
“The key point is that we have little more than 12 years to stop increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.” Could you be more specific, to two decimal places? I want to pop the drop-dead date into my calendar…
“The ignorance of one voter in democracy impairs the security of all.”
And I’d add climate change sceptics as well.”
There is nothing worse then someone ignorant who thinks science shouldn’t be based on scepticism.
Nearly equal a strawman that argues something that scepticism isn’t even based on. Nobody is sceptical of climate change, but the contribution towards it.
Put these both together and we then have political climate change, exactly like the person this article is based on.
Matt G, “The ignorance of one voter in democracy impairs the security of all.”
What gets me, IS when people think that not voting is a type of protest. If you don’t vote and are registered to vote, your vote goes to who is in power at that time. People don’t get the power of voting has over our future. The only way the masses can create change in a social democracy IS to put yourself out for one day and VOTE. “The president-elect came second in the popular vote in November but the biggest bloc in the US electorate was those who for different reasons did not vote.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/18/american-non-voters-election-donald-trump
We should be governed from the bottom up, not the top down. Get someone of the street to govern. There’s a good chance they wont be corrupted by capitalists.
“The depression was caused by a number of serious weaknesses in the economy. Although the 1920s appeared on the surface to be a prosperous time, income was unevenly distributed. The wealthy made large profits, but more and more Americans spent more than they earned,” Are we repeating the same steps as back here.
What was the Great Depression and why did it start in the USA?
https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/what-was-great-depression-and-why-did-it-start-usa
People don’t get the power of voting has over our future. The only way the masses can create change in a social democracy IS to put yourself out for one day and VOTE
and in many locales, it’s even easier than that. You can fill out a form at your leisure in the comfort of your own home and the drop it in the mailbox.
So Richard Feynman said “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts” without showing any verifiable proof.
Pah! So much for scientists.
Harold Mitchell
24 October 2018 — 11:19pm
My dear old dad used to say: “Son, always listen carefully to people who are smarter than you.”
Harold, what dear old dad failed to make clear to you was that most everyone is smart than you (if what you wrote is any indication)
The key point is that we have little more than 12 years to stop increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Those people that are smarter than you that dear old dad said you should be listening to recognize that if you truly believe that to be the case (hint: it really isn’t) than you shouldn’t be giving a pass to countries (like China) that are greatly increasing their emissions while attacking the countries (like the US of A) that have been reducing their emissions
It’s now 26 years since the first Rio earth summit when the world agreed to avoid dangerous climate change. Sachs argues we are not doing enough.
again, if you believe that then you should, first and foremost, be going after the countries that are greatly increasing their emissions rather than the few that are actually reducing theirs.
But why aren’t we?
because you are giving a pass to the countries that are greatly increasing their emissions (see a pattern yet? those people that dear old dad told you to listen to would have)
Well, it’s all about our politicians being re-elected. Even though many of them believe that action is required, many feel they will not lose their seats if they support inaction.
and despite the “inaction” of US politicians to do what you want them to do, the US has been reducing their emissions. Perhaps your “actions” aren’t needed after all.
Power prices today are more important to them than a liveable world for the children of tomorrow.
That would be because being able to live in the world today is also very important. Skyrocketing energy prices make the world very difficult to live in for the poorest among us while there is no evidence that skyrocketing energy prices today will have *any* impact whatsoever on the livability of the world tomorrow. You are asking for harm to those living today in exchange for virtually no added benefit for the future, those people dear old dad told you about, they realize how unbelievably stupid that is.