Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Tannin]

What about those on very low, fixed incomes, such as retirees relying on interest.

I already deal with that in an earlier post. You could try reading it.

But, just for you, that problem only applies where the person on the fixed income does not pay any tax even under the old, higher-tax system. Those people - not all that many of them it is true, but certainly some - are worse off. But most fixed income earners are significantly better off because they no longer have to pay income tax. That's a huge saving.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

I have huge doubts that this went anywhere, but perhaps OWG can provide an update?

Lol...I have huge doubts that many alarmists here are sane.

Happy to answer questions on the status of the legal challenge for persons who have a legitimate interest. Folks can pm me.

At a high level: agreement was reached between the parties that climate science contains fraud and misleading information. Now that the carbon tax is here and is based on admitted fraud the next process is about to commence under notary seal that uses the prior admission to create a foreign judgement, followed by a claim for damages.

The learning curve is significant, but well worth the effort

 

[OzWaveGuy]

This is interesting. UN climate scientists pleading for immunity from criminal prosecution - do they know they haven't been truthful? Can't see why else they would be begging for immunity which surely should not be given?

Read more: UN Climate Scientists Plead for Immunity from Criminal Prosecution

Something was up when I saw this post about the basilio's so called incorruptible "experts" whining for immunity from prosecution, something is indeed unfolding. Perhaps the IAC report on IPCC processes and procedures is causing some at the center of the AGW scam to suddenly realise they may be actually accountable....something is indeed heating up...

July 16, 2012
IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk
By Joseph L. Bast

On June 27, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a statement saying it had "complete[d] the process of implementation of a set of recommendations issued in August 2010 by the InterAcademy Council (IAC), the group created by the world's science academies to provide advice to international bodies."
....
The "recommendations" issued by the IAC were not minor adjustments to a fundamentally sound scientific procedure. Here are some of the findings of the IAC's 2010 report.

The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give "due consideration ... to properly documented alternative views" (p. 20), fail to "provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors" (p. 21), and are not "consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses" (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.

The IAC found that "the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors" and "the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents" (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and "do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications" (p. 18). In other words: authors are selected from a "club" of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.
......


​

 

[wayneL]

I already deal with that in an earlier post. You could try reading it.

But, just for you, that problem only applies where the person on the fixed income does not pay any tax even under the old, higher-tax system. Those people - not all that many of them it is true, but certainly some - are worse off. But most fixed income earners are significantly better off because they no longer have to pay income tax. That's a huge saving.

Thank you you are truly a generous individual

 

[Logique]

Reappearance of the shameless old catastrophist on We're All Luvvies Together tonight, which some people know as The Project.

Steve Price said to Dr Flannery, 'that sounds like more scare mongering to me'. What, daring to question accepted dogma? Charles and the panel could not have looked more surprised had it been revealed that Julia Gillard was actually a Martian in disguise.

Later on there was a story about about UFO sightings. Ah, now here, the panel had an open mind.

 

[wayneL]

Data Manipulation... interested in comments from the catastrophists

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/15/ushcn2-cheating-our-socks-off/

Interesting this has been ignored.


Still interested in your comments ladies.

Bumpity bump.

Also a new addition to the 'Hansen has lost the plot' file. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...ates-again-that-he-is-completely-incompetent/

 

[wayneL]

Steve Goddard is really doing some excellent sleuthing.

History Of How The Hockey Stick Was Manufactured

Once again, I'm interested in comments from the MIA warmists.

 

[Calliope]

Lucky Greenland. The real estate people will be rubbing their hands in glee.

A crescent shaped crack (C) is pictured in the Petermann Glacier in Greenland

 

[sails]

Lucky Greenland. The real estate people will be rubbing their hands in glee.

A crescent shaped crack (C) is pictured in the Petermann Glacier in Greenland

Seems it is a normal 150 year event (on average) - so not something warmists can claim as part of AGW - these melts has been going on before we became so industrialised.

According to glaciologist Lora Koenig, who was part of the team analyzing the data, melting incidents of this type occur every 150 years on average.

"With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," Koenig said.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/world/304091/satellites-pick-up-unprecedented-greenland-ice-melt

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Steve Goddard is really doing some excellent sleuthing.

History Of How The Hockey Stick Was Manufactured

Once again, I'm interested in comments from the MIA warmists.

Perhaps they are following the theme of this thread?

As usual, there's a growing list of substantial questions being left unanswered or insufficiently answered by the agw team, but plenty of opinions without hard evidence.

 

[Knobby22]

I'm going on holiday but the answer is I don't believe your sources. Where are the graphs coming from? No sources are provided.
There are groups out there deliberately lying and have stated it is their policy to do so to slow action on climate change and are paid to do so. It is just propaganda.

I prefer Japanese, European and USA sources.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-climate-records.html

 

[wayneL]

I'm going on holiday but the answer is I don't believe your sources. Where are the graphs coming from? No sources are provided.
There are groups out there deliberately lying and have stated it is their policy to do so to slow action on climate change and are paid to do so. It is just propaganda.

I prefer Japanese, European and USA sources.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-climate-records.html

I don't believe your sources... boom boom!

Goddard is a proper scientist with no vested interest, he deserves more than a passing disrespect.

 

[DB008]

Just saw this and thought it would be good to post in this thread.

Climate-change denier changes his mind

THE verdict is in: Global warming is real and greenhouse-gas emissions from human activity are the main cause.

This, according to Richard A. Muller, professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, a MacArthur fellow and co-founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of other climatologists around the world came to such conclusions years ago.

However, the difference now is the source: Muller is a longstanding, colourful critic of prevailing climate science, and the Berkeley project was heavily funded by the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, which, along with its libertarian petrochemical billionaire founder Charles G Koch, has a considerable history of backing groups that deny climate change.

In an opinion piece in Saturday's New York Times titled The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic, Muller writes: "Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming.

"Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct.

"I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."

The Berkeley project's research has shown, Muller says, "that the average temperature of the earth's land has risen by 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) over the past 250 years, including an increase of 1 degrees Fahrenheit (0.55 Celsius) over the most recent 50 years.

"Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases."

He calls his current stance "a total turnaround."

Link - http://mobile.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/climate-change-denier-changes-mind/story-e6frfkui-1226438454547?from=public_rss

 

[wayneL]

LOL Dannyboy

Muller has never been a sceptic, much less a (and there's that obnoxious word again) a denier.

Re Muller's BEST: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/why-the-best-papers-failed-to-pass-peer-review/#more-68366

Watts' paper, re suface station data: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

Read it and weep.

 

[wayneL]

...and Pielke Snr's comments: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...ork-temperatures-and-temperature-trends-by-w/

 

[Julia]

Professor Muller's contrived research has been receiving saturation coverage on ABC Radio in the last 24 hours.
Of course.

 

[wayneL]

Professor Muller's contrived research has been receiving saturation coverage on ABC Radio in the last 24 hours.
Of course.

We all know the ABC's political bias.

I perused the various news outlets for their reportage on these two papers (Muller et al and Watts et al) and noted that the more left leaning, the more Watts is ignored. No surprises there , but certainly shows a political motivation and intellectual dishonesty.

I am coming to regard the 'War On Terror' to be the battle against catastrophic climate change fear mongering.

 

[wayneL]

Just saw this and thought it would be good to post in this thread.

Climate-change denier changes his mind



Link - http://mobile.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/climate-change-denier-changes-mind/story-e6frfkui-1226438454547?from=public_rss

Re Muller's "skepicism", It appears that is yet another ruse encased in camel dung.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/06/truth-about-richard-muller.html

Richard Muller has never been a skeptic, at best he had a moment of intellectual honesty towards skeptics when he acknowledged Steve McIntyre's debunking of Mann's Hockey Stick, only to later dismiss this as irrelevant to the global warming debate, "This result should not affect any of our thinking on global warming". Hardly surprising, as Muller considers the carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels to be, "the greatest pollutant in human history" and likely to have, "severe and detrimental effects on global climate". The future outlook for global warming according to Muller is that, "it’s going to get much, much worse" and thus advocates that the United States immediately pay China and India hundreds of billions of dollars to cut back their carbon emissions or, "it'll be too late". No wonder he endorsed "The Earth is the Great Ship Titanic", Steven Chu as "perfect" for U.S. Energy Secretary and Al Gore's hypocritical alarmism,

"If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion - which he does, but he’s very effective at it - then let him fly any plane he wants."
- Richard Muller, 2008

"There is a consensus that global warming is real. ...it’s going to get much, much worse." - Richard Muller, 2008

"Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate." - Richard Muller, 2003

 

[Julia]

I was going to use your above quotes from Prof Muller, Wayne, to send in with a complaint to Radio National's "Drive" program last night where Walid Ali interviewed the good professor. I don't think I've ever heard anything so contrived in my life.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/drive/climate-sceptic-gets-cold-feet/4164634

However, after finally receiving a reply from ABC Complaints in response to an email I sent a couple of months ago, I doubt it's worth the bother. My irritation back then was Jon Cleary, host of late Sunday night talk program where he always has ultra Left guests. They attract the predictable following. One of these acolytes asserted that "98% of asylum seekers ended up in Australia anyway when the Libs were in charge" and there was no attempt by the host to correct this.

The following is the ABC's justification of this for anyone who can be fussed wading through it:
I'll put it in a separate post as, once again, the system is not accepting the full text when I click on Submit.

 

[Julia]

Oh dear, now I'm being told that the post I have entered is too short. Hopefully this extra will cure the sensitivity.

Thank you for your emails to the ABC.

In accordance with the ABC's complaint handling procedures, your correspondence has been referred to Audience & Consumer Affairs, a unit which is separate to and independent of program making areas within the ABC. The role of Audience & Consumer Affairs is to investigate complaints alleging that ABC content has breached the ABC's editorial standards. In the course of doing so, we seek comment from the relevant division, in this case, ABC Radio.

We understand your concerns to be centred on the accuracy of statements made by a talkback caller during the 'Chat Room' segment of the 'Sunday night with John Cleary' program at approximately 1.45 am on Monday 9 July. You are concerned that neither John Cleary nor his guest corrected the caller's assertion that "...98% of those people in Nauru were made Australian citizens...". You provide some alternate figures in your email which we acknowledge and have passed onto John Cleary for his information.