Peace Legacy

We voted (clearly!) against a carbon tax when we elected Tony Abbott as our PM is 2013. But now our plain-speaking, introvert, somewhat politically clumsy, but honest, devoted to the welfare of his country, courageous protector is now an ex-PM. In his place we have a populist waffler who knows how to say all the right things (meaning the things that will get him fine sound-bites on the ABC) and who says nothing of importance until he works out the "popular" thing to say - and who, under no circumstances, ever takes a decision on principle.

Apparently "The Turnbull government will “probably” allow emission reduction permits to be bought from overseas, giving Australia flexibility to increase the targets it pledged at the Paris climate conference..."

The more I see of this man, the more I am convinced he is a willing member of the kleptocracy that seems to be in universal rule throughout the western "democracies". Let me explain why an ETS is infinitely worse than a merely impoverishing carbon tax...

"Our", "Your", whatever, ABC has just shown another beatup interview to attack the Abbott government, this time with the President of Kiribati, Anote Tong. The trigger was a joke told by Immigration minister Peter Dutton: "Time doesn't mean anything when you're about to have water lapping at your door."

Now before we get to point of this post, let's just think about that for a microsecond or two: Does anyone really think - really, really think - that if a labor/green politician had said it, it would even be reported, let alone blown up into a national issue when we are involved in a war to stop one of the world's most evil movements ever from beheading people, crucifying them or enslaving and raping them? Seriously? Then get your head examined.

But what does "Our" ABC do? This:

This is one of the most disgraceful alarmist smears ever. In brief, the Smithsonian signed contracts obligating its researchers to not disclose certain funding arrangements. Dr Soon, as he had to, did what he was told. Then the smears started: Dr Soon was improperly hiding funding. Instead of explaining the fact that the Smithsonian was the cause of the hiding, they agreed to "Investigate" Dr Soon - thereby making it look as if Dr Soon had, or possibly had, done something wrong - when they knew all along that what he did, he did only in obediance to their direct orders!

NOAA's climate.gov PR effort is designed to deceive us, but it would be nice if they would at least try to do so by twisting the truth, rather than tell outright porkies. On the page https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/global-warming-frequently-asked-questions under "What is the 'greenhouse effect'?" we find this audacious display of dishonesty:

While it's not a perfect analogy, some say the atmosphere works like a greenhouse. The sun's rays (shortwave energy) enter a greenhouse through its glass ceiling and walls to warm the interior. The glass makes it hard for the heat (longwave energy) to escape, and heat builds up inside the greenhouse until the heat can escape fast enough.

Certain naturally occurring gases in Earth's atmosphere have a similar warming effect on the surface. This warming is referred to as the "greenhouse effect," and the gases that trap heat are called "greenhouse gases." The most important greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone. Earth's surface must warm to an average of about 59°F (with present-day concentrations) until enough energy can be emitted by greenhouse gases and escape to space to balance the energy being absorbed from the Sun.

Though these important greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere in varying concentrations, human activities are directly and indirectly increasing their abundance. In addition, other greenhouse gases not normally found in nature are being added to the atmosphere. The net result is to intensify Earth's greenhouse effect, causing Earth's surface to warm.

Let's pull it apart in detail:

I've been trying to get raw temperature date from the BOM website. Remember, this is data whose collection we as taxpayers have financed over the years: from thermometers behind old post offices in one-horse towns in the 19th century, all the way to modern computerised weather stations. But we paid for it, just as we pay the salaries of the alarmists who populate what is laughingly called a bureau of "meteorology".

So let's see what the site looks like:

I came across this utter howler of a quote today:

There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean warming faster than the earth’s atmosphere. Sea level is rising. Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected…we must continue efforts to reduce the climate-altering pollutants that threaten our planet. The only uncertainty about our warming world is how bad the changes will get, and how soon. What is most clear is that there is no time to waste.” - WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, LEE M. THOMAS, WILLIAM K. REILLY and CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN (heads of the EPA under Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and George W. Bush), NYTimes, 8/2/13

The planet is awash with nonsense like this, but this one got my goat, probably because the collective bunch of shysters who penned it have taken a whole lot of taxpayers' money to come up with this dangerous pack of lies. It needs to be taken apart, piece by piece.

Scott Adams is trying to figure out which side of politics is less rational. But he assumes the answer to his question before he even gets started when he wrote:

Climate Change Claim 1: Human activity plus natural factors are changing the climate in ways that could be calamitous.

Verdict: True. The overwhelming majority of credible scientists agree.

Scott needs a lesson in science. I replied:

Your climate change claim 1 verdict assumes that one side is right and the other wrong, and it does so on the basis of popular consensus, which plays no part in science (so I won't mention the 30,000 scientists who signed a letter saying otherwise). Science is built, not on consensus but on evidence, hypotheses, and testing. Let me illustrate by summarising the entire global warming debate in a few sentences..

The global warming theory is that doubling CO2 will cause something "around" a degree C warming. A bit more, a bit less, but something thereabouts.

Everyone agrees. Everyone sane, that is, both alarmists and skeptics alike.

But the alarmist theory goes on as follows: Yes, but that ~1C will cause more evaporation from the oceans, and H2O is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, so the 1C gets multiplied 2,3, 4, 6, you name it, times, causing catastrophic warming of 4C, 6C, whatever hairy scary figure you care to pick.

That's it. The difference is between skeptics who say CO2 causes 1C warming and alarmists who say it causes a multiplied amount limited only by how frightened they want you to be today.

So, how to test it?

I was watching "Catalyst" today. (For non-Australian readers, Catalyst is a science show put on by "Your" ABC - the government owned anti-government propaganda outfit).

Story 1: A fantastic new way to concentrate the sun's rays hundreds of times to generate power.

Story 2: The wonderful environmental benefits from Australia's incredible birds.

When I read People Starting To Ask About Motive For Massive IPCC Deception by Dr Tim Ball, I found much I agreed with. Tim’s argument is, IMHO, a useful contribution to the question of how the climate alarmists have got away with foisting this mistaken theory upon the world. Then I read A big (goose) step backwards, by Prof Richard Betts and Dr Tamsin Edwards.

And I’m disappointed.

What the fuss is all about:

Ball quotes Adolf Hitler’s explanation of how to successfully tell a lie and get it believed. He makes his case that the IPCC and climate alarmism as a movement, effectively puts this method of deception into practice. In that, I believe he is (1) correct, and (2) saying something that is long overdue. In fact, I include this same statement in my own book, Carbon Is Life, when I try to explain what has been happening in the world of late.

Now what would a suitable response to that argument by Ball look like? I would hope it would argue, somehow, that the publicity methods of the alarmist camp do not follow Hitler’s deception methodology. What I would not hope for is a response like that of Betts and Edwards that tells an untruth about Ball’s post in the very first sentence: “Dr Tim Ball’s blog post “People Starting To Ask About Motive For Massive IPCC Deception” – drawing parallels between climate scientists and Hitler – doesn’t do anyone in the climate change debate any favours: in fact it seems a big (goose) step backwards.”

Ball does not draw any parallels between anyone and Hitler. (If you disagree, please follow the Eschenbach principle – quote the words.) He draws the important (and IMHO, correct) parallel between the propaganda techniques of the IPCC et al, and the “big lie” technique as explained by Hitler. Are they the same? Ball states his case in detail, and Anthony has made the forum available for B&E or others to publish their best attempt to rebut Ball’s case.

But instead, B&E’s response is as far as I can see, completely fact, and argument, free. It is (yet another) attack upon Dr Ball, upon both his professionalism (“pointless, playground insults”) and his character (“Tim sink to a new low, with Mein Kampf quotes and snide misrepresentation of the IPCC reports”). Not a syllable about whether he was right or wrong!

Reposted from Wattsupwiththat

This post from wattsupwiththat.com is, IMHO, one of the most important and insightful essays about science ever to appear. It is far too important to be lost amongst the many other posts on the very popular site by Anthony Watts. In the hope that it gets seen some more, I repost it here.

Guest Post by Dr. Robert G. Brown

The following is an “elevated comment” appearing originally in the comments to “A Rare Debate on the ‘Settled Science’ of Climate Change”, a guest essay by Steve Goreham. It is RG Brown’s reply to the Steven Mosher comment partially quoted at the beginning of the essay. This essay has been lightly edited by occasional WUWT contributor Kip Hansen with the author’s permission and subsequently slightly modified with a postscript by RGB.

rgbatduke

October 3, 2014 at 8:41 am

“…debates are rare because science is not a debate, or more specifically, science does not proceed or advance by verbal debates in front of audiences. You can win a debate and be wrong about the science. Debates prove one thing. Folks who engage in them don’t get it, folks who demand them don’t get it and folks who attend them don’t get it”.

Steven Mosher – comment

Um, Steven [Steven Mosher], it is pretty clear that you’ve never been to a major physics meeting that had a section presenting some unsettled science where the organizers had set up two or more scientists with entirely opposing views to give invited talks and participate in a panel just like the one presented. This isn’t “rare”, it is very nearly standard operating procedure to avoid giving the impression that the organizers are favoring one side or the other of the debate. I have not only attended meetings of this sort, I’ve been one of the two parties directly on the firing line (the topic of discussion was a bit esoteric — whether or not a particular expansion of the Green’s function for the Helmholtz or time-independent Schrodinger equation, which comes with a restriction that one argument must be strictly greater than the other in order for the expansion to converge, could be used to integrate over cells that de facto required the expansion to be used out of order). Sounds a bit, err, “mathy”, right, but would you believe that the debate grew so heated that we were almost (most cordially :-) shouting at each other by the end? And not just the primary participants — members of the packed-room audience were up, gesticulating, making pithy observations, validating parts of the math.