Note: raw footage, some typical Aussie slang and language
Tornadoes are a rare event in Victoria, however a series of powerful storms and mini-tornadoes have devastated hundreds of homes and injured at least 20 people:
At least 20 people were taken to hospital, two in a critical condition, after two tornadoes cut a path of destruction across Victoria’s north-east last night.
A severe storm moved across an area stretching from Cobram to Rutherglen just after 7.00pm (AEDT), ripping roofs from houses and uprooting trees.
Ambulance Victoria says a man in his 50s was flown to the Royal Melbourne Hospital with head, pelvic and abdominal injuries, while another man in his 50s was flown to the Alfred Hospital with serious head injuries.
Spokesman Paul Bentley says another man, who suffered spinal injuries when a tree fell on his vehicle, will be taken to Melbourne this morning.
The images that are emerging are stunning:
The above shows a caravan park in Denison County turned into a “bomb site”.
More raw footage here:
Note: raw footage, some typical Aussie slang and language
Watching the Deniers 
OMG, the first tornado ever in Australia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Southern_Hemisphere_tornadoes_and_tornado_outbreaks
Eric, it’s not the first. However the destruction of property and injured people is a tragedy. Whether the first or last, it does not diminish the suffering of those caught up in the recent outbreak.
I agree, the destruction of property and injuries is no small matter. Sorry I jumped the gun here and assumed you work working this event into your narrative of “the new normal”, I see you said no such thing.
37 prior to the year 2000 going back to 1837, many would be missed, accepted but
38 since 2000
and you dismiss it
[…] Tornadoes devastate Northern Victoria: hundreds homes destroyed, dozens injured. […]
see graph
This graph has been dubbed the “wheelchair.” Compared to the past, what’s happening in the present is scary. The future is scary as hell
Tamino’s critique of Marcott
KR comment at tamino
| March 22, 2013 at 2:44 am | Reply
Yes, right through the Anthropocene, and heading straight up into the Dumbassic
Thanks John, I’m keen to read this.
I’m a big fan of tamino, this in particular. I love such paragraphs:
“…As for the entirety of the Marcott et al. reconstruction, two points cannot be overemphasized. First: the point is to reconstruct temperature change over the entire holocene, especially the past. This is hardly the final word on that subject, but it’s a good first step and a very strong indication that past changes didn’t happen as fast as what’s happening now. The exaggerated uptick in the “Standard 5×5″ reconstruction is its least interesting feature, but it’s the most annoying to those who have an ideological reason to deny man-made global warming.
Second: we already know what happened in the 20th century.”
Makes McIntyre’s efforts rather paltry. Tamino is usually well reasoned, without the obvious nastiness of Stevie Mc playing to his baying audience.
Eric, I’m curious what’s the point with your snide “the new normal” comment?
Do you think what’s happening to our ‘global heat distribution engine’ is a comedy
or that it’s just not happening?
Let’s look at the WIKI record
March 2013 = 4
2012 = 5
2011 = 8
2010 = 5
2010 – March 2013 = 22 (looking at the distribution of months seems you could say 2010s seem to be aiming at a total figure of around 60 tornadoes.
Let’s compare that with the historic record.
~ ~ ~
2009 = 0
2008 = 2
2007 = 5
2006 = 2
2005 = 2
2002 = 2
2001 = 1
2000 = 1
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
2000 – 2009 = 15
1990 – 1999 = 7
1980 – 1989 = 1
1970 – 1979 = 6
1960 – 1969 = 2
1950 – 1959 = 1
1940 – 1949 = 0
1930 – 1939 = 0
1920 – 1929 = 2
1910 – 1919 = 2
1900 – 1909 = 3
==========================
Yes, this is just a rough thumbnail assessment of the WIKI tornado record for Australia. Still do you see a scary as heck pattern emerging?
So I’m wondering why the cynicism?
Is your source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Southern_Hemisphere_tornadoes_and_tornado_outbreaks?
Eric will figure that there were just over thirty tornadoes last century and just over thirty this century so nothing has changed
Eric is not stupid enough to take a Wiki article as a definitive source of tornado frequency data. I posted the link simply to show that tornadoes occur quite frequently – I had no idea you guys would go silly season with it.
hehe
I disagree with Eric’s last post.
According to the alarmist ABC, Australia sees around 16 tornadoes per year.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/06/04/2918660.htm
While we are getting better at recording tornado activity, there’s no evidence to show an actual increase in the number of tornadoes around Australia, says Hanstrum.
So I put it to you the Wiki article is a little incomplete.
Your article is from June 2010. I put it to you that it is a little out of date. Looks like a clear wiki win from here.
You put it up, did not show what you wanted so now refute your own link
whatever it shows it shows that you are a typical denier
Let this repudiation from Eric of his own chosen reference stand forever as an indication of how thoroughly he researches his comments here before making them.
There is very little in the lit about trends in all season tornadoes is Australia.
A 2009 paper explores cool season tornado climatology here and can identify where they tend to form and under what conditions. But trends are not established or tendencies going forward.This is not surprising. Modelling showed there was a negative correlation found with the Southern Annular Mode. The stronger the mode the fewer tornadoes potentially,as the conditions that potentiated their formation became rarer. Hanstrum also co-authored a paper on the subject in 2002.
Hanstrums comments reveal we have too little observational consistency to make observations about all-tornado trends over the last century. Or likely change. So we could be seeing and increase…or not. Maybe a few BOM interns need to comb the vast archives and report back in a few years. . The possibility of a step change in activity cannot be absolutely ruled out,given AGHG emission is ongoing and earth system response is full of lags of different lengths.
The statement you quote was in fact made by Barry Hanstrum, NSW regional director of the Bureau of Meteorology.
So I put it to you, your comprehension skills are lacking.
But we already knew that didn’t we.
My point was to debunk the nonsense you guys were posting, based on the Wiki article I posted, purporting to show that tornado frequency is increasing.
I’m surprised I have to explain this. Then again I should have expected it – as fanatical alarmists, you jump on anything which supports your narrative, no matter how silly, and reject evidence which contradicts your beliefs.
How is the climategate3 app going,?
making much out of your stolen email business.?
.
No, I’m not on FOIA’s mailing list, so I don’t have the password. In any case, easier to let other people do the spadework, then collate all the good stuff into a new release.
I think I’ll have to do a “best of” for CG3 – its too big.
A “best of” should add about 0KB to your apps’s useful payload of 0KB.
Dear Eric, Tornado frequency almost certainly is increasing. What you call nonsense, most people call statistics. Population density and observational capacity have not changed that much in Australia in the last 120 years. Therefore your position does indeed appear to resolve down to… “just over thirty tornadoes last century and just over thirty this century so nothing has changed”, which is utterly ridiculous.
Martin, the chief meteorologist of NSW Barry Hanstrum disagrees with your suggestion tornado frequency is increasing. But what would he know?
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/06/04/2918660.htm
Why would Eric suddenly trust one scientist, yet distrust so many others? His inner Lew is showing.
As far as I know Hanstrum didn’t write any emails boasting about using Mike’s nature trick to hide the decline. But I admit I haven’t checked.
Nine times loser comes up trumps!
Mike’s nature trick was a bit of brilliance. It annoys deniers too.
nearly the last comment as WUWT CG3 disappears up its own recce
MikeB says:
March 23, 2013 at 7:35 am
To paraphrase lightly: “And so it ends, not with a bang but a whimper”
read this online opinion piece
see what is missing in the logic?
In 1978 three friends and I spent six weeks camped in a valley in Spitsbergen. The possibility that we would meet a polar bear there, even in winter, let alone summer, was far-fetched and we slept soundly in our tents without taking any precautions. We used a nearby hut for shelter from the weather. Last year I enquired about using that hut again and was told that it was no longer habitable: “due to damages made by polar bears”.
The west coast of Spitsbergen is now thickly inhabited by bears in summer, as it was not then. In recent years they have killed all the eggs and goslings laid by barnacle geese on offshore islands: breeding success has been near zero. Something similar has been happening on Cooper Island off Alaska, where bears have predated black guillemot nests in recent years. In both cases, scientists are attempting to explain these changes in terms of bears being stranded on land by the loss of ice, but there never was summer sea ice (and rarely winter ice) on the west coast of Spitsbergen.
Nobody with local experience is in any doubt that bear numbers have boomed in the region, thanks to the cessation of hunting in the 1970s, and that this rather than any change in ice cover locally is the chief reason for their more frequent encounters with bears. Yet the Polar Bear Specialist Group calls the trend in the Barents Sea bear sub-population “unknown”.
I see – your theory is the starving remnants of the group are desperately attacking human habitation in West Spitzbergen, in a last ditch quest for food.
sudden negative population levels polar bears
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12009/abstract
so while the scientists are telling us to prepare to feed polar bears to keep them going through the ice free months we are claiming that they are not under any threat.
without planning now we will be caught out when it happens
Yawn. Let me know when they’re all dead, and I’ll apologise for not believing they were endangered.
Did facts confuse you again?
I find repeated predictions of imminent demise of polar bears a little tedious, given they’re not true.
I’ve posted this before. I shall post it again. The population is declining. http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html
I’ve posted this before. According to the Nanavut wildlife people, the population is stable.
Click to access foxe_basin_polar_bears_2012.pdf
Given that lies are being peddled about the population studied by the Nanavut government, I don’t see why I should take any other nonsense about polar bears seriously.
You cite a paper on one region, Foxe Basin. I cite a summary of 19, including Foxe Basin. Your cherry has been picked out of your hand.
Actually your quote from a propaganda site doesn’t include the study I cited – the table was last updated in 2009, with “some updates” from 2010. The Nanavut study was performed in 2012.
But using out of date or incomplete data to push a narrative seems to be normal practice in the alarmist community.
You cite one area. I cited a summary. Thank you for being such an ingracious loser. 9TL.
Your shout of “Squirrel!” has been noted.
Lets talk again when your propaganda site updates their study. 4 years out of date for a site which claims to care is stretching things just a little.
You classify IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group as a propaganda site, you who cite Watts, Jo Nova and the Oregon Petition?
No wonder you’re so furious at Lew!
You’re like a moth, caught in the net, knowing his future is being pinned to a wall in a the museum of denial, being stared at as an exhibit.
The so called propaganda site is also cited by all of the “polar bears are just fine” blogs such as polarbearscience
you make this up as you go,
Hilarious – Buzz Aldrin, one of the first Astronauts to walk on the Moon, is a climate skeptic.
Does this also mean he believes the Moon landing was a hoax? How does Lewandowsky explain Buzz’s climate skepticism, given that he probably doesn’t think the moon landing was a hoax? Or is Buzz a closet moon landing conspiracist?
not sure how walking on the moon relates to climate science but if you say so,
he is a bit of a dill really,
“In 2009, Aldrin said he was skeptical that humans were causing current global climate change: “I think the climate has been changing for billions of years. If it’s warming now, it may cool off later. I’m not in favor of just taking short-term isolated situations and depleting our resources to keep our climate just the way it is today. I’m not necessarily of the school that we are causing it all, I think the world is causing it”
so he seems to agree that it is happening, .
WTF – how can you possibly read that and conclude Buzz is an alarmist?
I’m not necessarily of the school that we are causing it all, I think the world is causing it
In other words, Buzz thinks 20th century climate change is natural.
eric “Eric Worrall says:
March 24, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Edward Teller and Freeman Dyson signed it.
I’m still laughing about the PBS / Edward Teller incident – they pulled his name at random out of the Oregon Petition signatures, while pontificating about all the nobodies who signed the petition. I mean, what are the odds?”
if you knew anything about it you would know that the odds were even,
It’s not just Buzz, of course. http://denialdepot.blogspot.co.at/2012/04/global-warming-hoax-say-7-dwarfs-7.html#comment-form
if you knew anything about it you would know that the odds were even,
Are you trying to say the Oregon petition is stuffed full of high profile signatories?
Check out the dwarves!
The OISM is bollocks, only pulled out by deniers when they’ve completely lost. They’re in a gunfight, with AK47s, run out of bullets – and pull their half-empty OISM water pistol in out in a last ditch attempt not to admit they’re wrong. Oh, and their pistol leaks anyway. http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project-intermediate.htm, as used by Yale.
If he is not a conspiracy theorist then that only leaves a fundamentalist christian.
So following on eric’s adoration and confidence in buzz he should now devote his life to the supreme power same as buzz baby
According to Wikipedia, Buzz is a Presbyterian.
The Presbyterians were one of the first religious groups to challenge the power of the Pope, to question that which they were forbidden to question. They believe in education, and rationality, and have a long track record of funding education charities. Although in the past they’ve had a few issues with the theory of evolution, the modern church presents the following eloquent theological defence of the theory of Evolution, and admits its past mistakes:-
http://www.presbyterianmission.org/ministries/theologyandworship/evolution/
So not exactly a bunch of bible thumping fundies determined to defend a literal interpretation of every word of scripture.
Why do you feel such a strong need to find an excuse to medicalise opposition to your beliefs? To find a reason for dismissing people who disagree with you as mentally defective?
The Soviets used to do that – in their view Communism was so evidently the scientifically perfect form of government, that anyone who disagreed with Communism was either a criminal or a madman.
And Hansen is a registered Republican.
Buzz Aldrin is just another ideologically prejudiced denier of science. It may be because he is a Christian who thinks God will not allow us to screw-up the planet or it may be because he is a neo-conservative who believes that we should not screw-up the economy to solve a problem he thinks we don’t have. Either way, he is suffering from a severe case of willful blindness to the limits of his own expertise.
Buzz Aldrin is hardly alone.
Edward Teller and Freeman Dyson, two of the 20th century greats, signed the Oregon Petition.
And a number of other NASA people have signed several other letters protesting NASA’s unscientific treatment of climate issues:-
Perhaps Lewandowsky thinks they’re all moon landing deniers as well?
As for “idealogical denial” of climate change, I’ve already said what I would do if I thought anthropogenic CO2 was having a dangerous impact on the planet. i would become a strong advocate of decarbonisation through nuclear power – I’d ditch all the stupid wind turbine “change our ways” social engineering nonsense, and demand that society decarbonise without affecting my freedom to use profligate amounts of energy, by replacing fossil fuels with nuclear power.
Given a clear route to decarbonisation exists which does not involve curbs on energy use or economic activity, the argument that some people are “idealogical” climate deniers, because they don’t like curbs on energy use, is weak as piss.
I signed the Oregon Petition. That’s how credible it is.
Edward Teller and Freeman Dyson signed it.
I’m still laughing about the PBS / Edward Teller incident – they pulled his name at random out of the Oregon Petition signatures, while pontificating about all the nobodies who signed the petition. I mean, what are the odds?
Yawn, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition. You aren’t credible both pushing the Oregon Petition and criticising Lew in the same breath.
Watts is spam. You’re a 9TL.
Are you suggesting Watts is lying about the PBS / Edward Teller incident? Or are you suggesting people should ignore Watts, even if what he says is true?
Watts is overwhelmingly noise. He’s spam. When the noise dwarfs the signal the best course of action is to ignore the channel. There are lots of factual sites out there. I’d rather read Nature or Science – and mock the odd delusional whilst I’m at it.
I see – so you don’t actually care whether what I say is true, because you don’t like the fact I cited Watts.
Watts is spam. If you want to waste your time digging in his dustbin for the odd scrap of fact please do so. There are more fruitful sites to study than his Church of Inanity. Your call. But I suggest you’d be better off reading science than reading about science from an anti-science propagandist.
Like I said, you don’t care if the items I cite are true – you want to ignore Watts because you don’t like his POV.
You guys used to get away with shutting down the debate by dismissing “deniers” before Climategate, but since Climategate enough doubt has been raised so its not quite that easy anymore.
After nine investigations it’s easy. Only the religious deniers still bring it up. If yesterday’s non-news is the best you’ve got you’re toast.
Your fanaticism is showing – after the holes I kicked in one of the inquiries, you should be saying “8 inquiries and one dodgy one”. But thats not as compelling as a nice tidy story about 9 inquiries, is it?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/24/climategate_oxburgh_globe/
Nine. Not just the one. Not just the two. Nine times loser. And you built an app for it too! And then you fall for CG2 and CG3! That’s special.
So you are defending the Oxburgh Inquiry as fair and balanced, despite the fact Oxburgh forgot to declare that he is an executive of GLOBE, a powerful climate alarmism lobby, and that Oxburgh stands to make a lot of money personally if the recommendations of alarmists are implemented?
Like I said, 8 inquiries I haven’t looked at closely, and one extremely dodgy one. What are the odds I’ll find something wrong with the other inquiries?
Nine times loser, trying to justify the time he spent on building a crap app. Sheesh.
SciAm blocks Watts as propaganda. You demonstrate why.
More details about the Watts-blockage here: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/a-blog-around-the-clock/2013/01/28/commenting-threads-good-bad-or-not-at-all/ (emphasis added if the tags work):
Excerpt:
If I write about a wonderful weekend mountain trek, and note I saw some flowers blooming earlier than they used to bloom years ago, then a comment denying climate change is trolling. I am a biologist, so I don’t write specifically about climate science as I do not feel I am expert enough for that. So, I am gradually teaching my spam filter to automatically send to spam any and every comment that contains the words “warmist”, “alarmist”, “Al Gore” or a link to Watts. A comment that contains any of those is, by definition, not posted in good faith. By definition, it does not provide additional information relevant to the post. By definition, it is off-topic. By definition, it contains erroneous information. By definition, it is ideologically motivated, thus not scientific. By definition, it is polarizing to the silent audience. It will go to spam as fast I can make it happen.
————————
Now, *that* is how you give Watts and his followers the respect they deserve.
John, are you suggesting Watts is fabricating his story about Buzz Alrdin’s skepticism?
Or do you consider anything which detracts from your alarmist narrative as “propaganda”, regardless of whether it is true?
Aren’t you ignoring the point of the SciAm article, Mr 9TL?
Sadly you can’t ignore us. We’re winning, you’re losing. I mean, did anyone notice Earth Hour this year? Did anyone give a sh*t?
You’re shrieking into the wind. Deniers are on the wane. Those left are the craziest.
How will you prepare for your Muller moment?
What Muller moment?
http://prn.fm/2012/08/01/green-front-dr-richard-muller-080112/#axzz22R4YezCa
Muller on Katrina (13 minutes 20 seconds into the recording)
16:30 minutes – Muller thinks Al Gore is a denier, because his exaggerated views are so far removed from the science.
18:50 minutes – Muller on Climategate:-
The data they used in Climategate was proxy data. I wrote a book on the using of that. What they did was, I think, shameful. And it was scientific malpractice. If they were licensed scientists, they should have to lose their licence. What they did is they held back the discordant data. Now, their data had to do with the temperature older than 400,000 years – I’m sorry, older than 400 years. That’s what the main thing they were producing was.
Plenty of other gems in the interview. I could send you a written transcript on WUWT, but you don’t read WUWT because you think it is propaganda.
OK, here’s the WUWT transcript:-
I’ll accept the verdict of nine investigations into Climategate, each of which vindicated the science, over that of a man who recognised the climate was warming due to man, just two decades late. Yes. I’ll do that. Too right.
You continue to flog the dead horse that is CG1. CG2 was a damp squib. CG3 was final proof that you lot are intellectual dumpster drivers.
I notice you avoided answering my question “what Muller moment?”.
Muller is not really one of you, is he? Even though he thinks CO2 is responsible for global warming, he thinks your heroes are a bunch of charlatans, undermining trust in climate science by purveying lies and exaggerations.
Perhaps you hadn’t noticed that before you raised Muller. But what do you expect, if your “science” comes from a site like RealClimate?
SciAm blocks Watts. Yale uses SkS. I guess you’re the one whose sources suffer from chronic credibility disorder.
I’m not a Muller proponent. He’s an unpleasant little man who pissed on everyones chips. Then found he was wrong and they were right. But he’s still an unpleasant little man, and a sore loser. That said, he was a true sceptic. The true ones can change their minds. The ones who claim they are sceptics and can’t change their minds are the devotees.
And that’s how you come to be a nine times loser. Nine verdicts against you and you still think you have a case. Dumpster diving may be your true calling.
Muller’s claims to have been a skeptic are more than a little iffy. He was making statements back in 2003 about the dangers of CO2. If he “converted”, it must have been a long time ago – so your story about him being a sore loser doesn’t add up. But even he saw through Mannian extremism.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/402357/medieval-global-warming/page/2/
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. I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium.
Love to believe? My own words make me shudder. They trigger my scientist’s instinct for caution. When a conclusion is attractive, I am tempted to lower my standards, to do shoddy work. But that is not the way to truth. When the conclusions are attractive, we must be extra cautious.
And lets not forget, Muller wasn’t alone in criticising Mann’s hockey stick – Prof. Keith Briffa of the CRU also disputed Mann’s claim that the current warmth was unprecedented, in a Climategate email I’ve cited several times.
Lots of egg on that face
It shows what a bunch of fanatics you guys are – someone who basically agrees with your views, but criticises a few of your prophets, is unacceptable. To you, only the narrow fundamentalist alarmist doctrine is the truth.
Muller’s yesterday’s man. You just like to quote him because he’s nasty. He caught up with the science a couple of decades late. This is not news
You’re only saying that because he said something bad about the CRU.
No, I’m saying it because he’s two decades behind the times and not a nice man. You only use it as he’s changed his mind, against you, and still talks about, stifling his yawn, Climategate. Only losers still talk about it.
Let me try my hand at “tornado denial”.
Note the clockwise rotation of the winds in that Southern Hemisphere tornado (vs counterclockwise in most NH tornadoes). So if we average the maximum wind *velocities* (speed+direction) of the most powerful SH and NH tornadoes, we’ll get average wind-speed numbers that aren’t very scary at all.
Do the calculations like that and you will realize that the globally-averaged F4 tornado wind-speed isn’t high enough to do serious damage, and that reports of tornado damage have been exaggerated by “tornado alarmists”.
And yes, all that video footage of tornado destruction was faked just like the NASA Moon-landings were.
Tornadoes happen, its called “weather”.
If Tornadoes were getting substantially worse, or more frequent, it might be interesting to ask why.
But they aren’t, according the the chief meteorologist of NSW – so why the fuss?
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/06/04/2918660.htm
While we are getting better at recording tornado activity, there’s no evidence to show an actual increase in the number of tornadoes around Australia, says Hanstrum.
nothing about getting worse or not
you verbaled Hanstrum on that didn’t you.
every major scientific body on earth accepts the NASA science
eric ” but but we have a few letters from some old deniers “
Every major scientific body accepted the urgency of the 1920s Eugenics crisis.
Proves nothing.
You are left with pure nonsense now, tell everyone when the Arctic goes, I am sure that it will impress everyone
Abbott’s a eugenicist. Be afraid.
No, I’ve refuted your nonsense claim that because a bunch of scientific institutions say something is so, then it must be so.
In any case, the Russians, Japanese and Canadians seem to be veering away from the alarmist line.
Putin refused to ratify the Kyoto treaty – probably because leading Russian scientists are disputing alarmist predictions.
http://www.pop.org/content/global-monitor-russia-puts-global-warming-1822
Bullshit.
The report of the 3rd International Eugenics Congress.
Click to access decadeofprogress00inte.pdf
Check the list of papers in the table of contents – representatives from major scientific institutions across Europe, Canada and America.
Eugenics was a huge global pseudoscience movement, with enormous political support. Influential people including H G Wells, author of “War of the Worlds” and “The Time Machine”, Winston Churchill, and various Presidents of the USA were fervent supporters. The Cold Springs Harbour Research Institute (which still exists today) was set up specifically to research the Eugenics crisis.
Noone knows for sure how close the entire world came to building NAZI style death camps – America committed its share of abominable acts, such as forced sterilisations.
But ordinary people in America and Britain refused to heed the warnings of academics – they recoiled from the brutal policies of the Eugenicists. The movement lost ground in the West, as votes for pro-Eugenics candidates dried up.
So the Eugenicists decided to create a showcase for their beliefs, to prove to the world that their science was valid, to restore their declining fortunes. They mustered their declining but still enormous wealth and power, groups like the Rockafellas, and pumped an irresistable tidalwave of funding and influence into the hands of Adolf Hitler, to help him build his perfect state. And we all know how that ended.
Your denial that the Eugenics pseudoscience crisis had widespread academic and political support is not supported by the evidence.
As I have said elsewhere, one conference (or even three) is not evidence of wide spread scientific consensus. For example, the Heartland conferences.
Don’t want eugenics? Don’t vote right wingers into office. Job done.
Sir Keith Joseph, one of Maggie’s men, from 1974:
The balance of our population, our human stock is threatened. A recent article in Poverty, published by the Child Poverty Action Group, showed that a high and rising proportion of children are being born to mothers least fitted to bring children into the world and bring them up. They are born to mother who were first pregnant in adolescence in social classes 4 and 5. Many of these girls are unmarried, many are deserted or divorced or soon will be. Some are of low intelligence, most of low educational attainment. They are unlikely to be able to give children the stable emotional background, the consistent combination of love and firmness which are more important than riches. They are producing problem children, the future unmarried mothers, delinquents, denizens of our borstals, sub-normal educational establishments, prisons, hostels for drifters. Yet these mothers, the under-twenties in many cases, single parents, from classes 4 and 5, are now producing a third of all births. A high proportion of these births are a tragedy for the mother, the child and for us.
Yet what shall we do? If we do nothing, the nation moves towards degeneration, however much resources we pour into preventative work and the over-burdened educational system. It is all the more serious when we think of the loss of people with talent and initiative through emigration as our semi-socialism deprives them of adequate opportunities, rewards and satisfactions.
Yet proposals to extend birth-control facilities to these classes of people, particularly the young unmarried girls, the potential young unmarried mothers, evokes entirely understandable moral opposition. Is it not condoning immorality? I suppose it is. But which is the lesser evil, until we are able to remoralise whole groups and classes of people, undoing the harm done when already weak restraints on strong instincts are further weakened by permissiveness in television, in films, on bookstalls?
Eric Worrall says:
March 24, 2013 at 10:53 am
According to Wikipedia, Buzz is a Presbyterian.
The Presbyterians were one of the first religious groups to challenge the power of the Pope, to question that which they were forbidden to question. They believe in education, and rationality, and have a long track record of funding education charities. Although in the past they’ve had a few issues with the theory of evolution, the modern church presents the following eloquent theological defence of the theory of Evolution, and admits its past mistakes:-
have mentioned this before because it also applies to the catholic church.
their awakening to science is fairly recent, most of their followers over the age of thirty were already indoctrinated into creationism and god will look after us mentality , thus many of the local climate denier letters come from both catholics and presbyterians
Abbott is a perfect example, as is Pell
There’s a possibility that they disagree with alarmist climate science because its cr@p. But why let facts interfere with a good smear?
No, because they are fundamentalists
What is your evidence that their religious belief interferes with their objectivity about science? Something other than the fact they disagree with you about the climate.
Here
Elizebeth Flower said:
Thank you, Ross, for sharing your thoughts and views. I respect your expressions of faith and acknowledgement of the sovereignty of the Lord Jesus Christ. With the majority of your statements, however, I must beg to differ.
I have long been a student of theology, having embarked at an early age on a ‘search for truth’. I remain an independent thinker, however, and cherish my spiritual and intellectual freedom – the right to think and evaluate for myself. There are many branches of theology, and it is just as important to be discerning in one’s theology as it is in the field of climate science.
It is important to remember that Jesus said, “The truth shall make you free.” One of hallmarks of a cult, however, is the engendering of fear and bondage. I have come to view AGW alarmism as but another ‘religious’ cult, with its hallmark sign of promotion of fear and bondage. Its devotees, in their religious fervour, wish to enslave us all in their ‘worship’ of the false god of the environment.
It is the subversive agenda of this false religion that distinguishes it from true environmentalism. “By their fruit ye shall know them’, Jesus said. False religion engenders fear. Jesus asks us to have faith, including faith in God to oversee the natural realm. I am privileged to have experienced God’s miraculous, supernatural deliverance in times of crisis, in ways that, on occasion, have defied scientific explanation. Hence I have absolutely no doubt that He who created the natural laws can act outside those laws if He should choose to do so. Therefore I have complete faith that God in His omniscience and omnipotence is more than able to ‘save the planet’ if the need should arise. What we as Christians should guard against, however, is any complicity in the evil agenda of global domination, which the Holy Scriptures actually long ago foretold.
I believe that ‘the earth is the Lords’ and I have always seen it as my duty to care wisely for my little part of His realm
The Arctic/Polar bears are the Achilles heel of the denier movement.
They do not wish to talk about either, thus mention the death spiral of the Arctic and they only want to refer to the Antarctic, heavens know why though
talk about the imminent crash of Polar bear numbers and they do not want to know about it until every bear is dead.
When the Arctic crashes to zero, they will be exposed as deniers to all.
they see it coming, how will they respond,
what is left of their credibility will vanish in an instant.
Could be sooner than they think
But Watts and Goddard tell us it will recover. Don’t you believe, Elder Byatt?
Been through that. It’s not surviving the period, it is surviving the rate of change.
Yawn. Let me know when they’re all dead. Because I think the “death of polar bears” is nonsense.
They survived the Eemian. As the Wiki article explains:-
The warmest peak of the Eemian was around 125,000 years ago, when forests reached as far north as North Cape (which is now tundra) in northern Norway well above the Arctic Circle at 71°10′21″N 25°47′40″E. Hardwood trees like hazel and oak grew as far north as Oulu, Finland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian
Hazel nuts need pretty warm conditions to flourish – they’re normally grown in places like Turkey. They don’t grow in Finland.
Who knows, perhaps if conditions get as warm as the Eemian, polar bears will eat Hazelnuts.
The Arctic survived the Eemian , it is not surviving the Anthropocene and it won’t survive the Dumbassic
Been through that. It’s not surviving the period, it is surviving the rate of change.
I see – so you’re suggesting polar bears evolved in a few thousand years to survive the Eemian Optimum, then evolved back again to ice age conditions. Thats pretty rapid evolution. I wonder if there have been any studies into the genetic fingerprint of this extraordinary event?
plenty of studies that Arctic melt during the Eemian did not effect the full arctic as it is currently doing
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=Eemian+Arctic+sea+ice+&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2013
Groundhog day with Eric. We pointed him to many studies on the Eemian. Significantly he has forgotten the stuff about the warming being restricted to summer,with winter and spring perhaps a little cooler,i.e. a wider seasonal variation. Ice cover would not have been as reduced as you’d imagine.
Every day is Groundhog Day where Erric is concerned.
The hoax just keeps growing, even the military are in on it
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-25/climate-change-a-threat-multiplier-for-defence/4591676
The CIA documented the global cooling threat in the 1970s. Read it and you can see what a cut and paste job the global warming scare is – famine, political unrest, drought.
Oops, the link 🙂
Watts, what a surprise
The media got the story wrong. The CIA got the story wrong. The scientists, huzzah, got the story right. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
Nine times loser loses again.
I doubt the CIA just made the story up – they surely consulted some prominent 1970s scientists to produce their position paper, which means the cooling crisis was real, at least to some people.
Or perhaps the CIA did make the story up – in which case, your defence multiplier paper counts for nothing, because you can’t rely on military position papers for accuracy.
Or perhaps the CIA makes things up, but the Australian military doesn’t?
All interesting possibilities.
We deny it, ignore the facts
but you confirm it with the cracks.
slippin away
2007
http://www.sunjournal.com/node/113970
As none of Eric’s interesting possibilities have any supporting facts they must be his “interesting” hallucinations.
eric the conspiracy theorist
“Or perhaps the CIA makes things up, but the Australian military doesn’t?
All interesting possibilities.”
especially when one looks for conspiracies in all things
Looks for conspiracies everywhere – ignoring those under his own feet. Donors Trust, anyone?
The awakening
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-25/mcdonell-chinasmog/4591584
Exterminate Exterminate
http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/eliminate.html
That’s just beautiful Eric. You say:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eric Worrall says:
March 24, 2013 at 6:14 pm
Actually your quote from a propaganda site doesn’t include the study I cited – the table was last updated in 2009, with “some updates” from 2010. The Nanavut study was performed in 2012.
But using out of date or incomplete data to push a narrative seems to be normal practice in the alarmist community.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And then offer a post from ClimateAudit.org ?
~~~~~~~
Eric,
Do you really believe that McIntyre’s science out of a vacuum chamber is valid ?
You do appreciate that anything can be argued convincingly if done in a window less venue ?
Do you know that’s why the bare knuckles world of real science has peer review ?
~ ~ ~
When will McIntyre or Watts offer up something that can stand up to the review of actual experts rather than their audience of scared, angry (dare I say Republican – when speaking of the USA) folks, desperate to hear that nothing is wrong and no changes need to be made.
cheers,
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com
Eric ” i put up my climate audit crap about he 2012 assessment”
Andrew Derocher is one of many who do not agree with this assessment. Derocher is Professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta, he has studied polar bears for 40 years. As he explained in a phone interview with The Star.com, the study actually revealed substantially reduced numbers of cubs and yearlings.
Derocher believes that two to five times more cubs were born in the 1980s through to the 1990s.
In recent years, Derocher and others have documented a decline in body weight of the bears, leading to less cubs being born and a smaller number surviving to adulthood.
“The science of the effects of climate change on polar bears in Hudson Bay is absolutely profound” Derocher said, “the loss of sea ice reduces the body conditions of bears and bears with lower body condition produce fewer cubs and the bears collectively have lower survival rates.”
Being on land where there is no prey, females end up being 30 to 40 kilograms lighter than they were in the early 1980s and they are producing fewer cubs.
“When you put it all together it summarizes a population that is not reproducing sufficiently to maintain the current abundance and that means the population is in decline,” Derocher said. He concludes by saying that the pattern observed in western Hudson Bay is being replicated in other parts of the Arctic.
This summer, in addition to less ice, the polar bears near Hudson Bay had to contend with high heat and even wildfires. As reported by Reuters, these fires encroached on areas where females make their dens.
A polar bear scientist named Steven Amstrup is concerned about the loss of habitat. Amstrup is a former polar bear specialist with the U.S. Geological Survey and now chief scientist at the nonprofit cons
What a load of crap, sad yes, but does every single anomaly in the weather have to be because of global warming? I think not. I’m a denier and refuse to be brainwashed by this stinking government who use this hysterical rhetoric as a vehicle for increasing our taxes and utility bills.
Thanks for comment Craig, I think you’ll find I made no such claim. I noted this extreme weather as it impacted my home state. While I did not mention it, I spent part of my childhood in that region.
Utility bills are set by state regulators who basically rubber-stamp industry demands. Price on carbon contributes very little. Craig,look up ‘gold-plating’ incentives in the electricity business.
Folks want better health care and infrastructure but they don’t want to pay more tax,perhaps wanting business to pay more. Business says stuff you,we’ll go overseas. You can see how a tax base can shrink.
So much for eric ” let me know when it starts warming again”
okay eric, reality time ,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/new-research-confirms-global-warming-has-accelerated.html
Eric will have to wait for watts to find a squirrel before commenting.
Gillard merges climate change with Industry
Greens leader Christine Milne was critical of the decision to change the climate change portfolio.
“The Gillard Government is in retreat on addressing global warming and is one step closer to Tony Abbott’s policy of abolishing the department all together,” she said.
But the Prime Minister said she made the change because the intense policy work was over.
“We are well into implementation now,” she said.
“Carbon pricing is working well, so it is inevitable, natural, logical that the number of people you need for the task has been reduced.”
good lord if she thinks that the hard work has already been done they are in for a rude shock
CC is awkward crosses generations and electoral cycles,they are not interested,so they create something token to wedge the opposition and they’ll claim job done.
We’re in the coal business ,and don’t you forget it.
We are going to have to reinvent the wheel after the COALition has done its denial job on sustainability economics. They will let transnational capital have more of their way,and climb on board the gravy train on retirement from public office…oh,wait,some of them are already on board despite holding public office.
More coal for the Watts’ quote mining industry. http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/new-research-from-early-2013/
Eric Worrall says:
March 24, 2013 at 11:02 pm
if you knew anything about it you would know that the odds were even,
Are you trying to say the Oregon petition is stuffed full of high profile signatories?
no but they are the ones featured on the OISM website from where PBS obtained them
see front page of their website
OISM – nutters and liars. Perfect company for some. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine#Case_Study:_The_Oregon_Petition
Have read it before but it is still a hoot
In reality, neither Robinson’s paper nor OISM’s petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a “review” in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)
Craig Bennett says:
March 25, 2013 at 5:46 am
“What a load of crap, sad yes, but does every single anomaly in the weather have to be because of global warming? I think not. I’m a denier and refuse to be brainwashed by this stinking government who use this hysterical rhetoric as a vehicle for increasing our taxes and utility bills.”
~ ~ ~
Talk about a text book example of how paranoia, rather than the pursuit of learning, drives denialist’s thinking. {so sad}
~ ~ ~
PS. there’s been an interesting study that addresses Craig approach to this topic:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Recursive-Fury-Facts-misrepresentations.html
Conspiracy theorists are those who display the characteristics of conspiracy ideation
Yep, just stating the obvious, right? Recursive Fury establishes, from the peer-reviewed literature, the traits of conspiracist ideation, which is the technical term for a cognitive style commonly known as “conspiratorial thinking”. Our paper featured 6 criteria for conspiratorial thinking:
Nefarious Intent:
Assuming that the presumed conspirators have nefarious intentions. For example, if person X assumes that blogger Y colluded with the New York Times to publish a paper damaging to X, then X presumes nefarious intent on the part of Y.
Persecuted Victim:
Self-identifying as the victim of an organised persecution.
Nihilistic Skepticism:
Refusing to believe anything that doesn’t fit into the conspiracy theory. Note that “conspiracy theory” here is a fairly broad term and need not involve a global conspiracy (e.g., that NASA faked the moon landing) but can refer to small-scale events and hypotheses.
Nothing occurs by Accident:
Weaving any small random event into the conspiracy narrative.
Something Must be Wrong:
Switching liberally between different, even contradictory conspiracy theories that have in common only the presumption that there is something wrong in the official account by the alleged conspirators. Thus, people may simultaneously believe that Princess Diana faked her own death and that she was assassinated by MI5.
Self-Sealing reasoning:
Interpreting any evidence against the conspiracy as evidence for the conspiracy. For example, when climate scientists are exonerated of any wrong-doing 9 times over by different investigations, this is reinterpreted to imply that the climate-change conspiracy involves not just the world’s climate scientists but also the investigating bodies and associated governments.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Mike I hope you don’t mind me tossing in a portion of another conversation over at SkepticForum.com. Maybe some of the folks around here would find it interesting – if anyone here has a deeper understanding of Marcott 2013, please check it out.
====================================================
Re: McIntyre working Marcott 2013
Post #72 by citizenschallenge » Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:55 am
Yes, yes, yes.
Dear dear SP. you continue to amaze with your ability to compartmentalize and isolate one issue from another.
DIVIDE AND CONQUER!
right,
that’s the strategy
Manufacturing Doubt as opposed to struggling towards learning and understanding.
~ ~ ~
You know you’re playing with quote mining and careful editing – that’s the stuff of fiction writers and NOT of the scientific endeavor. Which is in a struggle with all the unknowns and confusion of real biosphere evidence… trying to extract some genuine usable knowledge. To youz all that’s just a joke, to be derided and scorned – to me your attitude is a disgusting tragedy.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
P, you practice that denialist’s art of compartmentalizing and pretending one matter/factor can be isolated from another. Does the term holistic mean anything to you? Biosphere? Web of existence? . . .
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=19847&p=325529#p325529
“, you practice that denialist’s art of compartmentalizing and pretending one matter/factor can be isolated from another.”
that hits the nail CC, we see that every day,
I like your strap line, “One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial”.
[…] 2013/03/23: WtD: Tornadoes devastate Northern Victoria: hundreds homes destroyed, dozens injured […]