Conspiracy nation: 37% Americans think climate change a hoax; 30% fear a New World Order; 27% think Obama is the anti-Christ

images

The prevalence of conspiracy theories within a society or nation can have a profound effect on its politics. Indeed for the last several decades scholars of conspiracy culture have been signalling the growing acceptance of conspiracy beliefs across the globe and their potential to distort political debate.

As Kathryn Olmsted notes in her work, Real Enemies: conspiracy theories and American democracy from World War 1 to 9/11the prevalence of conspiracy theories can lead the ordinary citizen to become:

“… less likely to trust the government to do anything: to conduct fair elections, say, or spend their tax money, or protect their children or the planet. The result is a profoundly weakened polity, with fewer citizens voting and more problems left un-addressed for a future generation that is even more cynical about the possibility of reforms.’ (page 238)

And while there has been a growing acceptance of conspiracy theories, there are some that are particular to what is called American “New Right”.  There can be no doubt they have been influencing the tone of political debate within the United States (even spilling over into Australia and across the globe thanks to the Internet).

George Johnson in his text Architects of Fear: Conspiracy Theories and Paranoia on American Politics notes the New Right emerged in opposition to liberalism and the perceived incursion of the state beyond what was necessary: 

“Since the 1970s, New Right leaders have been building a well-organised political force whose members are motivated by the conviction that their beliefs are rooted in the absolute truth of the Bible or in old-fashioned American morality based on individualism and laissez-faire capitalism.” (page 163)

[For a brief overview of the New Right, start with the Wikipedia article; see also a the history of conservatism in the United States.]

For some time I have argued we should stop viewing climate change sceptic movement as simply a tool of big oil. We should also stop viewing climate sceptics as cynical shills, funded by the polluting industries to prop up their bottom lines for as long as possible by delaying action on climate change.

Most sceptics are genuine in their belief climate change does not exist . For many evidence exists of a vast, overarching hoax involving scientists, the UN and even international bankers. Nor did they simply come these conclusions themselves: much of this conspiratorial thinking has come from the New Right and were formulated decades ago.

A recent survey conducted Public Policy Polling in the United States lends weight to this argument.

Conspiracy nation: fear of the coming New World Order, Obama the anti-Christ and climate change as a hoax

Recently the group Public Policy Polling (PPP) looked at 20 “widespread and/or infamous conspiracy theories” and surveyed their acceptance or rejection by >1240 registered Republican and Democrat voters.

The results were telling, as far greater number of Republican/conservatives held conspiratorial beliefs. Here are some of the numbers (see the full survey here):

  • 37% believed global warming a hoax while 51% don’t - Republicans a 58-25 margin; Democrats a 11-77 margin
  • 21% of voters say a UFO crashed in Roswell – More Romney voters (27%) did so than Obama voters (16%)
  • 28% of voters believed a “secretive power elite” where planning a New World Order – 38% of Romney voters feared the NWO
  • 27% believed Obama was the Anti-Christ – 22% of Romney voters believed that and – would who believe it – 5% of Obama voters?

On a few issues Democrats and Republicans were roughly equal (19% of Democrats believed vaccines caused autism, as opposed to 22% of Republicans). As they note:

“There is an intense partisan divide on whether or not global warming is a hoax: 58% of Republicans agree that it is a conspiracy, while 77% of Democrats disagree. 20% of Republicans believe that President Obama is the Anti-Christ, compared to 13% of independents and 6% of Democrats who agree. 51% of Americans believe there was a larger conspiracy at work in the JFK assassination, while 25% think Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. 29% believe aliens exist and 21% believe a UFO crashed at Roswell in 1947…” – Public Policy Polling

In nearly every conspiracy theory, Romney/Republican supporters seemed to be more readily accepting of conspiracy theories. The question is why?

Much of this I think has to do with the history of conservatism in the United States and the emergence of the New Right in the 1970s.

From the New Right to climate sceptics movement: the lineage is plain to see

The climate sceptic movement is but one subset of a broader movement whose agenda includes the propagation of libertarian values, advocacy for limited government, conservative or explicitly Christian morality and the free market: the New Right.

Fears of a New World Order emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, but were particular to the Evangelical movement from the 1970s onward. Militia groups also feared the coming NWO, and there was a great deal of cross-over between these two groups, as they exchanged ideas about who was behind the NWO – usually a mixture of the UN, bankers and communists.

While the fossil fuel lobby helped seed the climate sceptic movement (pace Oreskes and ConwayWashington and Cook) it’s true heritage lies with the emergence of the New Right and its tendency to accept and propagate conspiracy theories.

The results of this can be seen in the PPP survey results and the clustering of conspiracy beliefs among Republican/conservatives. This is why political debates – not just in the US – but across the world are becoming intractable.

If you’re primed over decades of conspiratorial thinking and paranoia about a coming NWO, then the idea that climate change is a hoax will come naturally. Indeed, these two ideas are often folded together. 

If climate change is a hoax perpetrated by that Anti-Christ Obama in collusion with New World Order types about to herd you into a FEMA concentration camp, why do anything?

About these ads
Tagged , , ,

183 thoughts on “Conspiracy nation: 37% Americans think climate change a hoax; 30% fear a New World Order; 27% think Obama is the anti-Christ

  1. [...] Conspiracy theory is central to fascism and supporters of UKIP follow this trend. Lord Monckton is a leading UKIP member and believes everything from Obama faking his birth certificate to Climate Change Hoax to the greatest New World Order plot of ‘Agenda 21′.  There are a lot fringe thoughts floating about on the internet including David Icke’s 12 foot lizard people but the similarity between the fringe and the mainstream like James Delingpole [who is now a UKIP supporter] is remarkably close with James being happy to be more open about his conspiratorial beliefs with fellow investigator Alex Jones [...]

  2. John has visited my blog and ask for examples of commentors on this blog asking why I am not following the science, since my comment said “this” blog. I will amend my comment to say “some” blogs, since I do not have the time to go through all the comments on both blogs to provide an example.

    • zoot says:

      So your whole reason for entering this thread is basically bullshit.

      (I’m really sorry, I can’t think of a more polite way to put it no matter how hard I try and I’ve tried and tried, honestly, I’ve tried so hard.)

  3. Tell me what part of bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes is inaccurate? Plus, I am describing a device, not a person. I allow descriptions of devices to be as accurate or inaccurate as one wishes. One may refer to coal plants as killers (which John did and is not being censored) and so forth.

    It’s fine that you feel I am a hypocrite when you don’t understand why a description of an inanimate object is not an insult. Of course, if the turbines are part of a religion and I have inadvertently insulted part of the worship accutrament, I do apologize and will respect your religious beliefs from here on out.

    (Thank you for pointing out you are not committing an ad hominem attack. Not that I would have said so, but you seem to think I would have so it was worth your time to note that.)

    • zoot says:

      You didn’t mention accuracy, only politeness.
      Since crucifixes are central to the spiritual beliefs of a large proportion of your population it’s impolite to denigrate the term in this way (even if it is technically accurate). Crucifixes are symbols of renewal, not instruments of destruction. You should have used a different word to describe the cruciform nature of wind turbines if you did in fact “like polite speech”.
      You claim to like polite speech but you use speech which is impolite. This is hypocritical.
      Hence you are a hypocrite.

      • The turbines are white–virtually everywhere. They are symbols of the eco movement that atones for our misuse of the planet. They represent a return to the natural state humans have lost while using fossil fuels. We are being called to sacrifice and renew our lives for the sake of our grandchildren. The turbines are the most visible of the changes we are making. Thus, the term “crucifix”.

      • zoot says:

        Still not polite speech. I am deeply offended by your ill informed and contemptible exploitation of the suffering of our Lord and Saviour in your grubby pursuit of political point scoring.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      And yet you do not allow people’s to use the term “denier” on your blog..I have explained repeatedly that I only use the term for people who refuse to accept any information that supports ACC and refuse to be critical of any information that does not support it. Your windmill description is so slanted and clearly propaganda that it fits perfectly into your description of a religious belief. Yes windmills do kill birds, bats, and there are surely people who would support them in any situation or location no matter what the effect. But that is not the “reality” of windmills. Is that ALSO your description of airplanes ? Do you describe plate glass windows as bird brain scramblers? I have actually seen birds killed by windows and I bet they kill many more birds than windmills. Will you now start lobbying against windows?
      Your choice of a name “reality check” implies an interest in presenting reality, whereas here all you are doing is distracting from the point of the post and other comments and. Presenting one sided arguments that are not representative of a full reality, and then complaining about being attacked.
      I just looked up copd and found a huge number of studies that showed it was caused by coal mining, yet you flat out deny the evidence. And then you insult someone who insulted you. It is understandable psychology but not consistent with your portrayal of yourself.
      I too prefer polite non insulting discussion. Yet I have been the subject of literally hundreds of ad hominem attacks on denier websites, and I just ignore them, or use sarcasm to emphasis the logical fallacies that are often used against me.
      As was pointed out no one here ignored any content you have posted they just insulted you for saying things they though were foolish. It is not how I like people to respond but this has become quite polarized so it is hardly surprising.

  4. “we know that you do not like freedom of speech there so it is all yours”
    I like polite speech.

    If my comment were an ad hominem attack, I would have said “Don’t you know the difference or is your IQ below room temperature?” That would be ad hominem.
    I see no straw man at all. I am fascinated with warmist’s love for claiming logical fallacies were none exist and the counter claims of deniers to the same effect. I guess that avoids a lot real sciency questions.

    Maybe I’ll do a post on claims made and polite people can let me know what they think of it.

    • john byatt says:

      you seem to believe ad hom is about insult

      An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

      Person A makes claim X.
      Person B makes an attack on person A.
      Therefore A’s claim is false.
      The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

      Example of Ad Hominem

      Bill: “I believe that abortion is morally wrong.”
      Dave: “Of course you would say that, you’re a priest.”
      Bill: “What about the arguments I gave to support my position?”
      Dave: “Those don’t count. Like I said, you’re a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can’t believe what you say.”

    • john byatt says:

      Honestly RC cares nothing about children dying from COPD due to Coal power pollution

    • zoot says:

      I like polite speech.

      Which is why your favourite term for wind turbines is “Bat-chomping, bird-slicing Eco Crucifixes”.
      Hypocrite.

      (Please Note: this is NOT argumentum ad hominem)

  5. john byatt says:

    RC does not have a clue about strawman fallacy and apparently does not have a clue about ad hom

    zoot says:
    April 7, 2013 at 4:07 pm
    Title of blog: Watching the Deniers.
    Their psychology is a fit subject for discussion.

    Not sure about your psychology though.
    Do you have another neuron somewhere? You might be able to form a synapse.

    Reply
    Reality check says:
    April 7, 2013 at 4:18 pm
    Sure, I get the title. However, I get slammed by this blog’s followers for “not following the science” when I digress to psychology, so I figured why not throw it back? By the way, your nasty ad hominem attack will fit well in my “why climate change advocates are just as clueless as they accuse deniers of being”.
    I appreciate your making this clear as I have explained over and over again and people just don’t get it. Thank you.

    Reply

    RC that was a straight out insult,

    to be an ad hom zoot would have said that you are a complete moron so nothing you say is worth anything,

    while that might be true it would be an ad hom as well

    as zoot only implied that your mentality was a few sandwiches short of a picnic without further comment

    why don’t you write a blog post about it ?

    we know that you do not like freedom of speech there so it is all yours

  6. It would be a wasted talent in some cases.

  7. An assumption that I don’t know logical fallacies (and an admonition to use Wikipedia?) “Do you have another neuron somewhere?” can only be interpreted as an insult. It is calling me “stupid”. I ask if this blog knew the difference between psychology and climate science. Not the same thing.

    If you don’t use ad hominem attacks, you are one of the few commentors that doesn’t on this blog.

    • zoot says:

      Asking if this blog knew the difference between psychology and climate science is calling the author of the post stupid.
      Is English not your first language? Or are you stupid?

  8. Sure, I get the title. However, I get slammed by this blog’s followers for “not following the science” when I digress to psychology, so I figured why not throw it back? By the way, your nasty ad hominem attack will fit well in my “why climate change advocates are just as clueless as they accuse deniers of being”.
    I appreciate your making this clear as I have explained over and over again and people just don’t get it. Thank you.

    • zoot says:

      It wasn’t ad hominem. It was an insult, an answer to your insult (your second sentence).
      Ad hominem is a form of argument which I don’t use – check it out on Wikipedia.

  9. This is psychology, NOT climate science. Do you not know the difference?

    • zoot says:

      Title of blog: Watching the Deniers.
      Their psychology is a fit subject for discussion.

      Not sure about your psychology though.
      Do you have another neuron somewhere? You might be able to form a synapse.

  10. john byatt says:

    at WUWT

    re frackin/earthquake

    Mycroft says:
    April 6, 2013 at 12:40 pm
    Question to ask is why Germany has not had these problems with fracking including earthquakes,methane gas pollution in water when they have been doing it since the early 60′s!!

    http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/fracking-in-germany-nein-danke/12543

    • Nick says:

      Watts again humiliates himself after seeing the red mist over Tamino. Standard ‘retort’ from Watts: red herrings,misrepresentation,misdirection,more questions that he won’t answer. More questions is good,but he is only interested in their apparent rhetorical value. Since there are few intelligent bystanders there,they remain rhetorical.

  11. Sou says:

    Lots of conspiracy nutters on WUWT. Put your head in a vice then read the comments under any of the 26+ WUWT protest articles about Marcott et al.

    Changing the subject: Willis E ignores the water cycle and disdains computers. I’ve put up a poll to see which ‘tool’ deniers turn to for climate projections.

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/04/willis-is-drip-again.html

    • Nick says:

      Which ‘tool’ do they turn to? The disposable latex glove…for plucking their ‘work’ from you know where.

  12. john byatt says:

    Understatement of the year

    how clever is roy specncer “it looked suspicious, I decided to investigate”

    just suspicious roy?

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Aqua-AMSU5-drift-after-mid-March-2013.png.

    • john byatt says:

      Track record – satellite temperature data
      Spencer and colleague John Christy “published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated…”; but the discrepancy turned out to be an artifact of their having applied incorrect adjustments to their UAH satellite temperature record data.[37], [38]. As Ray Pierrehumbert at RealClimate put it:
      “Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done[39]“

  13. Eric Worrall says:

    I’ve got a question which I would like you to all consider. The question is meant sincerely, so please take the time to consider it in the spirit in which it is meant.

    There are solutions to reducing emissions which don’t require massive government intervention, which don’t offend the sensibilities of right wingers – such as nuclear power.

    Why do you left wing environmental activists persist with pushing what we believe are non solutions, “solutions” such as wind turbines, which, regardless of their efficacy (which we dispute), will never win our support?

    Why is winning the political debate more important to you than actually reducing CO2 emissions? Why can’t you guys meet us in the middle ground, ditch “solutions” which we find politically unacceptable, and focus on solutions which would win, if not our wholehearted support, at least our acquiescence?

    If, at the end of the day, it turns out you were right all along, you will surely share some of the blame for inaction. Instead of playing political games, calling people names, you could have reached out and tried to forge a political consensus for action.

    Instead you have wasted this opportunity – the political games, the name calling, the accusations of conspiracy, your insistence that while CO2 emissions have to be reduced, that it has to be on their terms, have created a right wing backlash which will ensure inaction for years to come.

    • zoot says:

      Stop it Erric. You’ll go blind.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        zoot – the question is meant seriously. I’m genuinely curious what goal you think your current course will achieve, and why you rejected the consensus approach I’ve described.

      • john byatt says:

        eric and reality don’t mix

        poll
        Support for considering nuclear was strongest among Coalition supporters (58 per cent),

        and opposition was strongest among Greens voters (62 per cent).

        ALP voters were evenly divided, with 46 per cent in favour and 46 per cent opposed

        So “which don’t offend the sensibilities of right wingers – such as nuclear power.’;

        it offends 42% of right wingers , but hey it is the rhetoric that is more important than fact with eric

      • zoot says:

        The goal has always been to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases produced by our carbon based economy.
        This has been opposed by people like you Erric, who have attacked with religious fervour the idea that greenhouse gases pose a threat to our species.
        No matter how reduced Arctic ice becomes, no matter how much glaciers retreat, no matter how many hottest decades on record we have, no matter how many species of flora and fauna move their habitats polewards, you have the nerve to come here, again and again and again and again to tell us that temperatures stopped rising 15 years ago.
        You regale us with your considered opinion that climate scientists are all skewing their data and you’ve got an app to prove it which draws on emails which have been investigated 9 times (that’s nine times) and found to be evidence of no such thing.
        And you do all this because the only solution you will consider to AGW (which isn’t happening) has to be nuclear power? Despite the enormous subsidies nuclear needs to be a viable option. Despite the fact that nuclear is not renewable. Despite the fact that renewable technologies are rapidly maturing and are already in use in many parts of the world.
        You can’t even concern troll convincingly.

        Stop it Erric. You’ll go blind.

      • zoot says:

        And a quick answer to Erric “Our economy will be wrecked by a carbon tax and you’ve got to get the Chinese on board to make a difference” Worrall from Peter FitzSimons:

        Just supposing the best scientific brains are all but united in the view the planet faces a crippling phenomenon that will change life as we know it. And just supposing that in response to this, Australia pioneered a scheme aimed at countering it. You would think confirmation the scheme was actually working might be the occasion for national breast-beating, even some dancing in the streets?

        So how is it last week’s news from the Australian Energy Market Operator that carbon emissions fell by 8.6 per cent throughout Australia in the six months after the introduction of a carbon price produces barely a ripple? And will the Libs, when they likely get elected in September, really dismantle a scheme that is working? A scheme so good, Chinese officials were here last week looking at the lessons it offers for the emissions trading schemes they are implementing. Of all the things for which we could take a deep bow, surely helping inspire the model the Chinese embrace to combat climate change would be near the top? I mean, not quite an Ashes victory, or an Oscar for one of ours, but still not bad.

      • Nick says:

        No.this is not a serious question,it’s just a pretext to frame environmentalists as guilty alongside Eric’s mob,for whom winning the political debate is paramount…given they only do rhetorical science.

        Nuclear power does require serious government intervention: we lack the skill base here,thus have to hire it. Approval for locations takes time,and so it should. The government will be expected to put money into it/co-own. Building will not be a quick process.

    • ‘Greens’ or rather those with concern about AGW are split 50/50 in the UK, our problem is no one can afford to build them. Companies will but only if they are spared a huge number of costs, and the Tory government is not prepared to spend the money.

      My concerns are several although operational safety seems to be good, in principle they are better than AGW, but cost is huge, the centralised nature of control could be a problem where as solar and wind are local and individually owned and no one has thought of what to do with the waste after 50 years. Our society may collapse so if we bury it under a huge lump of rock in a warning shape like a big pyramid what do you think people are going to do in the future?

    • john byatt says:

      Cliff actually replied with a reference to The Australian story re Pachauri

      how the hell did these people ever get beyond first grade?

  14. john byatt says:

    I follow the science daily so from my point of view when i heard claims that the world had stopped warming over the last 16 years my reaction was, what the hell are they talking about?

    Even if we ignore the Arctic melt, the Three Antarctic ice sheets melting, the glaciers melting, the sea level rise and just look only at the surface temp record then these things tell the real story

    So here are a few things that are all equally true, :

    The linear trend in HadCRUT4 from August 1997 to August 2012 (181 months) is 0.03ºC/decade (In GISTEMP it is 0.08ºC/decade,

    .
    The trend from August 1975 to July 1997 is 0.16ºC/dec and the trend to August 2012 is 0.17ºC/dec

    The ten years to August 2012 were warmer than the previous 10 years by 0.15ºC, which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17ºC, which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17ºC, and which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17ºC
    .
    The continuation of the linear trend from August 1975 to July 1997 would have predicted a temperature anomaly in August 2012 of 0.524ºC. The actual temperature anomaly in August 2012 was 0.525ºC.

    ,

    • Nick says:

      It’s just a phase of the moon,John…a Deniers Moon. A chorus of utterly shameless idiots have declared up to be down,the chorus has reached a critical mass,and more idiots join in. Of course reality is at variance,but then again it’s the IPA’s 70th birthday,so bullshit is in the air.

      So far the spivs have not shut down research,though they will censor scientists public utterances and vandalise environmental legislation. We will have the dead zone of the Abbott years, possibly two terms,but just as likely one given the man’s unappealing and frankly a bit slow. The next El Nino will put the fear up ‘em,quite possibly even a neutral ENSO year.

      • john byatt says:

        we have had the warmest el nino year and the warmest la nina year,

        a new warmest neutral year will be a sure thing.

        we need 50% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020 to have any chance of the 2Degc boundary,

        not optimistic that we will even manage to prevent a 3degc rise, all over then we head into the unknown

    • Eric Worrall says:

      0.03c / decade, even if it is the real trend, and not just noise caused by observation error, yields a terrifying hundred year rise in temperature of 0.3c.

      Interestingly though, 0.03c / decade is not far from the rise in temperature we would expect, if Lindzen’s climate sensitivity estimate of 0.5c / doubling is correct.

      So we might, finally, be seeing what CO2 is doing to the climate.

  15. I reblogged this intersting article and it and subsequent denier comments are interesting although disturbing.

    I am wondering if the at the core of denial [and new right thinking] is individualism- not in the sense I practise it in the spirit of personal responsibility- more a pandering to people’s ‘gut instinct’ as being as valid as facts. One thing that stands out as humanities great leap forward, to me, is the concept of the rule of law. The point in cultures history when the law became supreme over rulers and religion. All were equal before it and in a Platonic , Republic type world we acknowledge the wisdom and independence of philosopher kings.

    America is kind of odd in that you can vote for your judges- a nod perhaps to the importance of the individual. The system of handing over decision making to judges [in many aspect of life beyond law as well] has problems and the need of democracy to fine tune it but it generally works well. corrupt or disfunctional societies tend to have a corrupted judiciary at its heart.

    The other extreme is theocracy [and the 'Arab' world is another society where conspiracy theory is also rampant. In each case those wishing to have power or retain it exploit people ignorance which is easy given people need something to confirm their gut feeling rather than those pesky facts.

    Which comes down to the voice of reason- presenting the facts that say wind turbines don't kill more birds than gas power, or immigrants are not stealing your jobs, or bankers are not run by a Jewish elite [most of American power is in Celtic ancestory!] the subject is avoided or tiny detail that supports their view is grown into a principle component.

    I think the other problem in the real world is that it is full of uncertainty, science tends to offer new questions faster than it answers them and this is disturbing to people who believe in certainties. The hardest thing in my life is questioning and reversing long held belief. It is painful.

    Recently my view of international aid has been modified and my personal politics is coming to terms with it. Liikewise the slow rate of warming would raise my view on AGW if not for the fact the Arctic is melting and climate extremes even in the UK are growing as the years go by.

    • Nick says:

      Yes,your penultimate para especially raises a vital point about science: it is always in flux,under revision often, even while being the most diverse source of reasoned guidance. This ‘flux’ annoys the hell out of one dimensional thinkers who are usually reductionists of a ‘settled question,therefore settled answer’ nature. It’s tough enough for scientists themselves.

  16. And most pro-wind fanatics believe that 100% of people raising their voice against wind turbines are climate change denialists…

    • john byatt says:

      No george , that is not correct

      many are climate change denialists and then there are people like yourself who fully accept climate change science but have a problem with the noise,

      • john byatt says:

        Motivated anti-wind enthusiast George Papadopoulos claims it can be perceived up to 100 kilometres away from wind turbines.

      • john byatt says:

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378595507001918

        george you are probably one of a tiny minority who are affected by infrasound causing discomfort

        just sell up and move, most are not so affected and even have them on their properties

        I suppose that everyone telling you that you are a nut case is not helping
        just move george,

        • Nice advice John. Move where? To Antarctica or Alice Springs (especially if a 20% RET is implemented with wind turbines)? Any thoughts for other living organisms, particularly bats which appear affected by low frequency also? The numbers on my property have crashed since about 2009…

          Such are the symptoms of pro-wind turbine syndrome – all faculties of rationale and critical thinking clouded by conspiracy theories and the obsession of the conspiracy theories others believe…

      • Well John, let communicate that to the graceful wind turbine “pontiff” Chapman. He seems to identify all complaints with nocebo, the power of suggestion, coal mining interests, climate change denialism etc.

      • john byatt says:

        come to Queensland george, none of those bat munching new fangled devices for the newman government. we even got indoor plumbing

        • John, one reason why the NSW Southern Tablelands WAS so peaceful was because there was little industry and mining. Newman may not like wind turbines, but I would rather live in a world that didn’t host the most useless and destructive machinery ever invented for the sake of “saving the environment”. In theory you need 6000 or so wind turbines to close down one large coal plant. That means onshore and offshore wind turbines here there and everywhere, including one for Sydney University outside Chapman’s office…

      • john byatt says:

        George i appreciate that the wind noise affects you but there is no need to try to claim that they are inefficient as well, Japan is currently building the largest off shore wind farm on earth, the japanese are not stupid

        your position is not helped by going beyond your condition, claiming both noise problem and inefficiency does not help your cause , you will just come across as a luddite

        • Oh that “Luddite” word – a convenient label for when we can’t justify the outlay of tens of thousands of wind turbines all over the whole state and perhaps offshore, leaving nothing untouched except for a few national parks. Sounds like raptors, bats and George Paps will have something in common if the wind turbine mania goes ahead – a want of safe habitat to live in!

      • john byatt says:

        What energy sources would you like to see being used to tackle climate change george?

        • John, I don’t systematically preoccupy myself with the availability of technologies. All I can say is that I don’t hear or see any serious problems with solar thermal.

          However, I do see lots of problems with wind and CSG and ironically wind relies predominantly on gas energy back up in Australia. An evil duet?

      • john byatt says:

        I would go for wind, solar and small nuke back up if required

        for small nuke plants see bravenewclimate

      • john byatt says:

        George there does not seem to be anywhere on the planet to escape infrasound, it comes from a modern world

        http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/03/14/research-finds-wind-farm-health-concerns-probably-caused-anti-wind-scare-campaigns

  17. Reblogged this on bollocks2012 and commented:
    I have reposted Watching the Deniers blog because it makes for interesting yet disturbing reading, there are also some nice links. If the numbers are correct and a third of Americans are just plain barking mad then this is obviously disturbing. As humanity enters into a new post industrial age when we have to deal with both AGW and diminishing oil and growth people need to turn to logic and not faith. Yet I fear past experience may signal a future road map where faith whether religious fundamentalism or fascism will stifle the words of reason that need to be so desperately heard.

  18. john byatt says:

    Ray r the sook cries “you are trashing me” having al;ready posted “but the rabid few who invested way to much in a tribal cause”

    another hypocrite .

  19. Debunker says:

    The Right Wing in the US were skeptical about the polls predicting an Obama victory as well. They didn’t like the reality that was unfolding, so they tried to create their own reality. Suspicious of the mainstream polling experts, they made up all sorts of reasons why they were wrong, and appointed their own experts who told them what they wanted to hear.

    From SKS:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/2012-election-climate-change-denial.html

    In the lead-up to the 2012 election, there was also a denial regarding the accuracy of polling data and associated conclusions amongst many of the same individuals who deny the accuracy of climate-related data and associated conclusions. Outlying data which showed convenient results were cherrypicked to support the desired conclusion. Some went so far as to remove imagined biases from the data to create the desired outcome. Those who considered all the data were mocked and dismissed, and the math and models were labeled as “voodoo”, and the sound mathematical basis of their results was outright denied. The similarities to climate denial are striking.

    The difference is that global warming is a relatively slow change, and so it will be many decades before climate denialists are conclusively proven entirely wrong by the increasing temperatures. Elections on the other hand are one-time short-term events in which predictions are immediately tested. As it turned out, the data- and model-based predictions were spot on (particularly those of Nate Silver at The New York Times, whose presidential predictions were darn near perfect), whereas the alternative reality and gut-based predictions were conclusively, undeniably, proven very wrong.

    The question is whether the denialists will learn anything from this. As former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum asked,

    “Horrible possibility: if the geeks are right about Ohio, might they also be right about climate?”

    ———————————————————-

    So Eric and the like minded denialists, using “gut” based thinking, imagine an alternate reality where the planet will flip into a cooling, mini ice age phase, whilst providing no physical mechanism why it should do so, apart from their own, well rounded “gut”.

    It would take several decades of below average temperatures in the Arctic (which has been running up to 4 degrees warmer lately due to the well known Polar Amplification effect), to replenish the 80% ice (by volume), which has been lost.

    Where is this cooling going to come from? It’s no use bleating on about natural cycles, when these regular cycles work on the scale of millennia. Also no use bleating that temperatures have varied in the past on decadal time-scales. One needs to look at the forcings that caused these, Humongeous glacial lakes emptying into the sea, asteroids striking the Earth or massive volcanic out-gassings. None of these seem to be imminent at the moment.

    Surely Eric is not pinning his hopes on an asteroid strike to bring on the “little ice age”, which his “gut” is telling him will happen any time soon in the next decade?

    • The core of your point is I think the core of the issue- gut feeling- but that internal certainty is fostered when we are young. People accept a vengeful-loving god looking over their lives because it is indoctrinated from birth but the belief is not the issue it is that we are told that if we feel it it must be true. I think it is subtle conditioning- words like ‘what you know in your heart to be true’- ‘it wasn’t to be’ – everything will workout in the end’. A human response to an uncertain universe where the next moment is unknown. The sun might not rise, the harvest may fail, we may suddenly get ill. Life is scary without the comfort of certainty, which cause denial, and then requires conspiracies to account for the lack of facts.

  20. john byatt says:

    reading bob irvine guest post at WTFIUWW about sensitivity.

    me thinking ” why does he not mention the ocean”

    at the bottom

    The simple experiment, attributed to Tallbloke, that proves that GHG increases do not significantly warm the oceans.

    So in the watts wonderworld global warming from increased greenhouse does not warm the ocean,

    the warming of the great sandy straits during the day must be illusion, can get to bath water temperature

  21. zoot says:

    Re Ray R.:
    Here comes another one! (apologies to Monty Python)

    • Ray R. says:

      “So far you have stated three indications of your ideology” Is not science oblivious of ideology? do not facts count above all else? Failed AWG theory is the issue. Not me not you. Trashing me and everyone else who disagrees with you is pathetic. GW has fallen off the radar in all but the most sketchy sects.

      • john byatt says:

        where have you been trashed? and your cryptic comment “neglecting to post uncomfortable replies” might make perfect sense to you but is weird

        .

      • john byatt says:

        do not facts count above all else?

        rhetoric from dyson who accepts his limited knowledge of the subject are not facts

        so the ball is your court to provide some of these facts ray

      • john byatt says:

        if GW has fallen off the radar in all but the most sketchy sects

        are you using a translator ray ?

    • john byatt says:

      logic and rational debate would be fine but so far the only offering from ray is a newspaper article and a bit of rhetoric from dyson who admits to knowing SFA about the science

      • john byatt says:

        ray may be using a translator , fine

        fallen off the radar is usually used in this context

        Health concerns may prevent the recycling of human waste, meaning that we spend …. reasons, a health issue, if they cross a state border they fall off the radar. … If we divided this money between Australia’s hospitals, they’d each receive an …

        and he may have meant a word equivalent of superficial but ended up with sketchy sects instead

        ???

  22. john byatt says:

    ray “for Christ Sake, (condescending comment) dung beetles deserve our respect and attention”

    well ray you obviously believe that you are more worthy than dung beetles

    http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=dung+beetles+ecology&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

    most of the ecological work we do is trying to correct past mistakes as we go forward destroying more of the worlds ecology without learning from those mistakes

    QLD government has just removed many environmental safeguards to mining and development as they promote the oxymoron of never ending growth,

    • Ray R. says:

      Classic #1 Idiot, neglecting to post uncomfortable replies. Great job, you must be proud of yourself.

      • john byatt says:

        So far you have stated three indications of your ideology

        #1 “I am an Atheist” as if that mattered
        #2 “Christ Sake, (condescending comment)” why the brackets?
        #3 “dung beetles deserve our respect and attention?” you consider humanity more worthy then all other life on earth

        These alone start to build a picture but then you go to

        “neglecting to post uncomfortable replies”

        something that I would expect from realitycheck at watchingthewatchers

        how we going so far ?

  23. Ray R says:

    #1 Idiot, didn’t you just point out my referring to opinion pieces in newspapers as having worthless authority?

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/05/1826331/april-5-news-a-millennium-and-a-half-of-ice-melted-in-25-years/

    Think Progress/ Freeman Dyson…Think Progress/Freeman Dyson, oh who do does the world listen to?

    Oh what fun!

    • john byatt says:

      Ray r the think progress link is about lonnie thompson’s paper which finds that 1600 years of ice build up has melted in just 25 years , that is science, your reference to dyson is opinion,

      that you think a view from some one who accepts they no little of the science is the equivalent authority to a peer reviewed paper tells me more about your lack of logical reasoning than anything.

      the link to the paper is there, people like to read a briefing to what the paper is all about

      you did not even bother to read it did you?,

      now ray where is your science?

  24. john byatt says:

    Then we have Ridleys nonsense that yes the world is warming, yes it is due to humans but as it has not yet been catastrophic then it never will be.

    basically, the flood waters headed our way have not yet reached the city so what are we worried about?

    irrational thinking

    • Ray R. says:

      So you’re point is ( as seems to be the case worldwide) not a problem?

    • Nick says:

      The privileged Ridleys brand of tissue thin Cornucopian idiocy is particularly galling considering his Northern Rock dereliction. He also made a global temperature prediction twenty years back that has proven to be clearly wrong….I find it offensive that he is given any platform.

      • Ray R. says:

        Marcott and Mann. Care to address those overhyped fiascoes?

      • Sou says:

        Ray thinks that facing global surface temperatures heading up 2 degrees and more above the entire Holocene period, facing a climate and extreme weather never before dealt with in human civilisation is “over-hyping” things.

        Master of understatement is Ray (or is it the alternative, he’s just another of the 8% dismissives and can be ignored from here on in).

        http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/03/fooling-bottom-8-oh-its-just-another.html

      • john byatt says:

        AT WUWT

        Willard “My comment to this unlawful presidential action spurred on by irrational fearmongering activists like Bill McKibben and 350.org is simply “Up yours, Mr. President“.

        to which Ray R comments that it was and elegant and appropriate response.

        strange being

      • Nick says:

        Ray R ,Marcott simply groups 73 proxies with a known location and general timing. The sources have their margins of error..after all to investigated the past you have no direct observation,only proxies with issues that are explored as much as possible. We can all accept that we want to get a handle on the past and over a coherently large area.

        Marcott’s methodology is laid out. There is nothing remarkable about their approach–though the perturbation approach is neat– or subject matter or insights.

        Yes, there is the ‘shape of the Holocene’ as developed over decades of study. It ties in very well with what we know from glacial fluctuation evidence and sea level reconstructions.

        Some people want to tear it down,but they have done a very poor job,clearly motivated by bad faith. The suggestion that the smoothing technique will completely mask big excursions has been tested and found lacking…you have to remember that you really have to be realistic about what physically underpins temperature excursions on a large scale. It’s not plausible to say ‘maybe GT rose one degree in fifty years then subsided equally quickly’;what could cause that,and if it is possible why are we not seeing it more often.

        It is not an ‘overhyped fiasco’ : the fiasco has been the crappy ‘sceptic’ response [twenty or thirty whingeing posts from McI and Watts],and their claims are the overhyped ones. Sorry,but that should be obvious.

        Too much time is spent strawmanning over these papers.They are what they are,not what McI wants them to represent. Ignore them if you want and just look at what glaciers are revealing: perishable material is seeing the warmth for the first time in 6,300 years at Quelccaya.

  25. Ray R. says:

    I am an atheist and being accused of labeling Obama an antichrist seems sorta funny but weird, but a fair enough bargain to continue. Global warming, climate change, climate disruption (shitty weather?) as an issue is over for all but the rabid few who invested way to much in a tribal cause.

    We all do that, tis the nature of the human beast.

    Lets learn from this. strict science rules! Value to humanity and those things we love, not only energy but food, medicine, wildlife, our future and children’s future and a pleasant existence for Christ Sake, (condescending comment) dung beetles deserve our respect and attention. The AWG crowd failed to make that point!

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/04/03/global-warming-was-it-just-a-beautiful-dream-after-all/

    http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2013/04/climatologists_are_no_einstein.html

    Again, as an issue AWG is over. Try to use your head next time.

  26. john byatt says:

    let us read your rational arguement then

    Recent sceptic claims of 16 years without warming can only refer to UK journalist David Rose and his article in The Australian claiming no warming for the period 12 August 1997 to August 2012.
    The period covers 15 years not 16. We might also note Rose’s mislabeling of the temperature scale which was out by a factor of ten and rather than as stated, “based on tenths of a degree above and below a 14DegC world average” it is clearly based on whole degrees above the 1961/1990 global average. Continuing this ineptitude, Rose then draws the start date on the graph from September instead of August.
    Had Rose started his period a few months later he could have claimed cooling, Starting a few months earlier and he then could have claimed significant warming. That you can do that makes it obvious that drawing a line from any date on a graph to any other date is not a measure of an actual trend. It is of no scientific value whatsoever.

    These articles in The Australian have only one purpose, to spread confusion and cause delay, a dangerous game that will have dire consequences.

    If we use Rose’s start date of August 1997, then plotting the known warming trend from 1975/1997 on to August 2012, it would have predicted a temperature anomaly of .524DegC for that month. The actual anomaly for August 2012 was .525DegC. The warming continues in line with model projections

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Those cruel surface temperature stations tell a different story John.

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/trend

      Its all very well to torture the data to produce the result you want, adding guesstimates of different forcings, saying what you think the result should be, but the fact remains that surface temperatures are at a standstill, and NH winters are getting very cold.

      • john byatt says:

        see you have just repeated the “draw a line from any date to any other date gives the trend , I could give you dozens of trends over the last decade which confirm cooling or even a decadal warming trend of .6DegC , so as i stated your wft graph is quite irrational

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Not so – according to climate hero Ben Santer, a period of at least 17 years is required to distinguish between noise and signal when considering climate change. By this reasoning, the most recent trendline is near zero.

        https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html

        They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.

        Of course, you could argue Santer was talking out of his @rse – I’m happy to agree to that POV.

      • john byatt says:

        you ignore that 2010 and 2005 are both warmer than the 1997/1998 record, you ignore that the heat records outnumber cold records by two to one, you ignore that the spring thaw is earlier and that both insects and plants now have earlier activity dates,and you ignore the warming since last year.
        you see the loss of the Arctic as compensated for by Antarctic sea ice while ignoring the net loss of the Antarctic 200gts loss of ice per year and I have already proved beyond doubt that the actual temperature for august 2012 is exactly what would have been predicted by the long term trend going back to 1975, yet you persist in wanting to draw this line between two dates, are you really being irrational “or if you’re just trying to wind me up. Either way, its tiresome”.

      • Nick says:

        Eric,what is the difference in meaning between “at least” and “at most”?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        If the moon was made of green cheese, Astronauts wouldn’t have had to take so many consumables on the Apollo missions.

        Its all very well to try to retrofit predictions to past data, to try to show you could have been right all along. But actual prediction is what counts in science.

      • john byatt says:

        It was actual prediction eric the trend from 1975 to 1997 continued to august 2012 would have predicted exactly the temperature for august 2012,

        that is what prediction is

        your appeal to “torture the data” is at least consistent with your One world government hoax view from revelations. so you have another view also in common with the creationists.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        You can’t point to one prediction from the spaghetti of possibilities you guys produce, and say “see that proves everything”.

        Last time you produced a graph of predictions, it was embarrassing – your heroes covered everything from zero to +0.8c temperature anomaly with your 95% confidence band, and said “see, this proves we are right”.

      • john byatt says:

        Yes I can, Sou has an excellent post on Watts and your claim that the warming is due to UHI, aircraft landing at airports and two guys in the Antarctic heating the instruments one thousand kms away,

        then you claim no warming for 17 years as if all the UHI aircraft and human heat vanished in 1996

        that eric again is irrational and again confirms citizenschallenge’s observation that deniers cannot coordinate their claims into a cohesive logical explanation.

        you have to ignore the claims of both UHI and aircraft contamination of the record to now claim no warming for 17 years , not only irrational but insane

      • zoot says:

        Erric.
        Read and inwardly digest http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes

        You’re making a fool of yourself … again.

      • john byatt says:

        and start your 17 years from 2010 which was the hottest year to date

      • Nick says:

        You want a prediction,Eric? Look at Wally Broecker’s projections from the 1970s. Really, this issue cannot be stifled by your ignorance.

  27. john byatt says:

    eric ” I am not irrational”

    eric “The difference is I believe the increasing NH climatic instability is due to the early stages of a substantial drop in global temperatures.”

    eric that is beyond irrational and requires you too ignore numerous lines of empirical evidence.

    early stages in drop of temperature would be announced by a changed ratio of cold and warm records, by winter snow remaining longer through spring and summer, the evidence is the exact opposite and that is being irrational

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Lets say the next decade will be interesting. Surface temperatures have been at a standstill for at least 16 years, despite a massive rise in atmospheric CO2 levels.

      If temperatures suddenly start soaring, I suspect climate alarmism will carry the day. If, instead, temperatures start plummeting, things will get very interesting indeed.

      • Nick says:

        “If temperatures suddenly start soaring,I suspect climate rationalism will carry the day”….fixed it for you. It is NOT ACCURATE to characterise the IPCC as ALARMIST,particularly as you have not read AR4 . If you’d like to go into chapter and verse about language choice in that report I’m only too happy to help.

        As JB has mentioned the suite of indicators does not indicate either a pause or a fall in GT

      • zoot says:

        Surface temperatures have been at a standstill for at least 16 years, …

        Nope. That bloody upward trend is still there Erric:
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/trend
        And before you replay Groundhog Day for us, the margin of error adds no weight to your quoted statement. You are wrong (and irrational, since you keep repeating this BS).

      • john byatt says:

        the notes,

        After many requests, I finally added trend-lines (linear least-squares regression) to the graph generator. I hope this is useful, but I would also like to point out that it can be fairly dangerous…
        Depending on your preconceptions, by picking your start and end times carefully, you can now ‘prove’ that:
        Temperature is falling!
        Temperature is static!
        Temperature is rising!
        Temperature is rising really fast!

  28. john byatt says:

    protesting too much again eric

    • Eric Worrall says:

      I can’t work out if you genuinely believe I’m a closet creationist, or if you’re just trying to wind me up. Either way, its tiresome.

      • john byatt says:

        No you get it wrong, I am pointing out that your world view is exactly the same as creationists with regard to climate change, accept that is the fact,

        cue. climate change is in keeping with a terrorist world view

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Even a stopped watch is right twice a day.

        A creationist worldview doesn’t mean you are wrong about everything, it just means your are more likely to respond irrationally to evidence.

        See – I resisted the temptation. But I’m glad you recognise that trying to discredit an argument by pointing out that some of the people who support it are lunatics is a valueless exercise.

      • john byatt says:

        well I might point out that I am speaking of every creationist on earth while you give one or two guys, irrational eric

  29. Berbalang says:

    So, of the people who believe Obama was the Anti-Christ, 18% of them still voted for him over Romney.

    • john byatt says:

      27% believed Obama was the Anti-Christ – 22% of Romney voters believed that and – would who believe it – 5% of Obama voters?

      • john byatt says:

        interesting but some think that it is part of god’s plan for the armageddon,

        strange people

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I’ve got to admit I would probably find living in America to be a rather uncomfortable experience. Having to side with the God botherers on a number of issues, while being totally opposed to them on other issues, such as their nasty stance on abortion, would cause me a real headache when it came to election time.

      • Nick says:

        Well,Eric,we’ve got that clown show coming here; a Coalition government with its pious buffoon Abbott,strings pulled by Rupert the Awful, and the special interest perception managers the IPA.

        The ignorant spivs were all down in Melbourne pissing in each others pockets last night,celebrating their imminent ascendancy. Climate change and ecological concerns in general will be disappeared by decree,environment departments subsumed by minerals and energy.

  30. Steve says:

    Eric, Do you prefer the idea pushed by myself and many other people of removing all direct and indirect energy and fuel subsidies?

    • john byatt says:

      The fossil fuel subsidies direct and indirect around the world are over one trillion dollars,

      eric will stay silent?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        We have a very different idea of what constitutes a subsidy.

        I have no problem with a level playing field – if fossil fuels get a tax break, I’m happy for alternative energy to receive a similar tax break. As a right wing libertarian, I think everyone should receive a bigger tax break.

        What I oppose is the government trying to pick winners – direct transfers of public money to private businesses, to encourage solutions favoured by politicians. This IMO is a poor use of taxpayers funds.

        Look at how much money was wasted when Solyndra collapsed, shortly after Obama provided over USD 500 million of taxpayer guarantees for her debts.

        Solyndra is hardly alone – government funding of specific companies has a long and embarrassing history of failure and wasted public money, stretching all the way back to the Australian Wheat Board and beyond.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AWB_Limited

        Government has no business spending taxpayers money trying to prop up industry – they have a long track record of getting it wrong.

      • They’re both handouts. Investment funds are handouts. Tax breaks for profitable companies are handouts – larger still. Allowing polluting companies not to carry the cost of clearing up is a handout – largest of all.

        Governments fund all the time. There’d be no defence industry to speak of without such. There’d have been on internet (was Arpanet).

      • Eric Worrall says:

        There is an important difference between a tax break and a handout.

        For a company to make money from a tax break, it actually has to turn a profit. I don’t believe most alternative energy projects are capable of turning a profit, in the open market, without government help such as fixed price tariffs, and renewables obligations.

        Electricity produced from an intermittent renewable source cannot be sold in the forward market, because the risk that the energy wouldn’t be available, and would have to be purchased from another source, at a ruinous loss, is too great.

        Intermittent renewable energy can only safely be sold on the spot market. And the spot price for electricity often drops to zero. So much of the money renewables currently make would disappear if the government had not tilted the market so far in their favour.

        An efficient, high capacity energy storage might change all this, but this technology is not yet available – which is why I’ve said on several occasions that renewables are not “ready”. Concern about intermittency is also the reason James Hansen has pushed the nuclear power route to decarbonisation on several occasions.

        e.g.

        http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/04/Nuclear-Power-Prevents-Deaths-Causes.html

        Working with Goddard’s James E. Hansen, Kharecha set out to explore the benefits of nuclear power. … Because large-scale implementation of renewable energy options, such as wind or solar, faces significant challenges, the researchers say their results strongly support the case for nuclear as a critical energy source to help stabilize or reduce greenhouse gas concentrations.

      • john byatt says:

        You obviously do not understand that we are paying squillions for health care for problems created by the fossil fuel industry without them shelling out one cent. That is also part of the fossil fuel subsidy.

        your arguments are always based on your own ignorance

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Its a little more complex than that. How many people would die without modern energy – without energy intensive fertiliser, without warmth in winter, without cheap hygienic modern food preparation?

        But as an asthmatic who has to take potent medicines to stay alive, whose main trigger is car exhaust, I’m very much aware of the need to reduce pollution.

        I just don’t think windmills are the route to achieving this.

        I was surprised how much I agree with Hansen on this issue – nuclear power is currently the best option for reducing pollution. Of course, Hansen and I have a different idea of which components of exhaust from combustion of fossil fuels we would most like to reduce.

      • john byatt says:

        You are aware of the need to reduce pollution but excuse those who cause it any responsibility to pay for the consequences,

        you whole argument is based on energy needs not fossil fuel needs

        Japan is building the largest off shore wind power farm in the world, they are going to dump nuclear,

        your objection to natural non polluting forms of energy production is because you see it as a greeny solution rather than a technical solution.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        My objection to wind power and to a lesser extent solar power is that it is incapable of delivering energy in the form modern civilisation requires. Until an efficient, high density energy storage system is devised, wind and solar power will require fossil fuel backup.

        This means, not only do the wind turbine people have to be subsidised, the fossil backup people need a subsidy, to compensate them from having to switch off their plant every time the wind blows. Worse, this means running fossil plants in a horribly inefficient way – instead of providing a relatively steady baseload, the fossil plants have to be continuously scaled up and down, from zero to 100% output, second by second, to match every gust of wind, to keep the grid stable.

        Nuclear power, by contrast, provides a steady, high energy density baseload, regardless of what the wind or sun is doing. It doesn’t require fossil fuel backup, which means it is more effective at reducing CO2 emissions. And, if Thorium reactors go mainstream, nuclear fuel is abundant enough to last thousands, possibly millions of years.

        So my arguments against alternative energy are nothing to do with it being a “green” solution. For example, I have no objection to hydro power, though I believe it will only ever offer a limited amount of the power we need. My objection to wind and solar are solely because I think they are ineffective and ruinously expensive.

      • Nick says:

        This is just rote repetition of ideologically driven superficiality via Watts. A couple of start-up failures and the WHOLE concept of government investment becomes questionable. It the gubmint what failed! Never mind the Chinese miracle flooding the market.

        …of course,it was always thus; the government’s very existence is interfering with your freedom to maintain your delusion of independence,your self-idolisation as a master of the universe,an ugly reminder of obligations and unequally distributed blessings….interfering with your right to decide unilaterally which industrial by-products are important and which are not..and to unilaterally declare valid your nonscience.

        “I think everyone should receive a bigger tax break”…’everyone’,as in all?…OK,just expect more toll roads,private police forces,fly to Asia for medical,and what deal are you going to cut for defense? Who’s going to monitor our ocean zones? How are you going to fund the collection of the diminished tax base? Oh,more indirect taxation? Who is going to fund its collection? What, the defacto collectors have to add on those costs to their goods and services? What the government will have to raise money by selling more of the commons? We all know –or should know–what that does.

      • john byatt says:

        Hydro power is not as you claim a greeny solution, it is a technical solution that the greens oppose due to habitat loss. that is an absurd claim unless you never read a newspaper,

      • Nick says:

        Your objection to solar and wind is irrational. Solar,apart from maintenance and system life, is FREE: no transformation costs, excavation costs,mineral royalties, transportation to point of generation, intractable and tractable wastes–no need to rip off mountain tops,or ‘rehabilitate’ wastelands to a shadow of their former diversity. No centuries of saline or acid groundwater,no fencing and security,land subsidence. NO enhanced GH effect. Panels can be recycled.

        We are going solar big-time,leaving network providers with a few headaches about how to change their product models.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Hydro power is not as you claim a greeny solution, it is a technical solution that the greens oppose due to habitat loss.

        Yet bird and bat chopping windmills are a green solution? How interesting.

        http://tribune-democrat.com/local/x345569257/Windmills-to-shut-at-night-following-demise-of-rare-bat

        Your objection to solar and wind is irrational. Solar,apart from maintenance and system life, is FREE: no transformation costs, excavation costs,mineral royalties, transportation to point of generation, intractable and tractable wastes–no need to rip off mountain tops,or ‘rehabilitate’ wastelands to a shadow of their former diversity. No centuries of saline or acid groundwater,no fencing and security,land subsidence. NO enhanced GH effect. Panels can be recycled.

        No, it is not free – as I said, as James Hansen said, intermittency is an issue with renewable power systems like solar and wind power.

        Households might be able to cope with the occasional blackout (though an extended blackout in the middle of a cold winter can kill people), but many industrial processes cannot run on intermittent power – for example, a power blackout for an Aluminium smelter is an expensive disaster, requiring difficult and expensive removal of the solidified melt from the smelter pots.

        Aluminium Oxide only conducts electricity when it is molten. Normally it is kept molten through electrolysis – the waste heat from electrolytic separation of the metal from the ore keeps everything hot and runny. But if a power blackout causes the contents of the electrolysis pots to cool and solidify, the electrolysis units cannot operate, and the solidified ore has to be manually removed from the pots before the plant can become operational again.

        Until the intermittency problem is solved in an effective way, say by the development of an efficient high density energy storage solution, solar and wind cannot be the answer to substantial decarbonisation of the economy.

      • Nick says:

        With masses of intermittent wind and solar over a wide geographical area, the sum of the whole becomes less intermittent. And with frequent periods of great excess we have perfect opportunities in a smart grid to develop pump-storage hydro,at existing hydro sites and in entirely new areas, which are quite close to existing transmission infrastructure.

        There are extensive plateaus above large reservoirs like Wivenhoe, Eildon, Hume,Wyangala, Burrendong and Tallowa Dams—[Tallowa currently feeds a pump-storage set-up,likewise Wivenhoe]. There is considerable potential as yet unexplored,which will be explored inevitably. I’d like to see it explored a little sooner than later.

      • zoot says:

        Until an efficient, high density energy storage system is devised, wind and solar power will require fossil fuel backup.

        Why fossil fuel backup Erric? There are many things that can be burned to provide the heat to boil the water to make the steam to turn the turbines. An increasing number of places are incinerating garbage.
        And look! We have the technology to back up solar power with molten salt (a technology that has been around for 18 years, making it statistically significant): http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/04/crescent-dunes-solar-thermal-plant-passes-another-milestone/
        I ask again, why fossil fuel backup?

    • Sou says:

      Eric, if you stuck to discussing policy directions and energy options, there is less risk of you coming across as ‘irrational’. It’s when you talk about climate science that you appear most irrational.

      There’s much less wiggle room in earth system sciences for political nuances. I’m not saying it’s totally divorced from world views. The way people structure information so that it can be turned into ‘knowledge’ has to be influenced to some degree by view of the world. However, it’s much more likely that people having differing world views will agree on how best to organise scientific information than they would on associated policy responses.

      On the other hand, when it comes to policy direction and various business incentives or disincentives – things like ‘government picking winners’ or government subsidies or taxation policy or R&D investment incentives – that’s where there is need for lots of debate and discussion. Lots of room for discussion about the pros and cons of different energy solutions too.

      The problem is that there are too many people who want to continue down the fossil fuel path without acknowledging the disastrous implications. Many of them work tirelessly with the sole aim of stifling discussion, development and implementation of policy frameworks that will allow a smoother transition to 21st century energy (and beyond).

      • zoot says:

        There are people who see the danger in continuing our carbon based economy as an opportunity to innovate, develop new technologies and reap the economic rewards of their innovation. Then there’s Erric. Stuck in the mud, don’t try anything new, “Here’s an argument I found on WUWT” Erric. Dear, dull Erric.
        When the buggy whip manufacturers, hay salesmen and stablehands of the late 19th century were faced with the advent of the horseless carriage, the stick-in-the-muds moaned about how they’d all be rooned! And they attempted to block the development of the automobile with arguments logically similar to those now spouted by Rev A Watts.
        The smart ones retrained as mechanics.

      • Nick says:

        Part of Eric’s problem is his demand for “nice tidy stories”. One of those stories he’s polishing here is that Hansen in promoting nuclear is anti-renewables…no matter how often this fiction is noted,Eric still tries it on.

        Another ‘story’ is that renewables’ intermittancy issue is insurmountable or near enough to. Only furious avoidance of real world experience can justify that one.

  31. Sou says:

    Oh, that’s okay Eric. You’ve made it perfectly clear over the past few weeks/months that you are a fully paid up member of the scientific illiterati. You don’t understand science, don’t like the implications therefore you don’t accept it. Your loss.

    Given that as you say, you are one of the 8% dismissives, I wonder if you fall into the 11% in the PPP Poll who either believe in lizard people or are ‘not sure’?

    • Eric Worrall says:

      I find it intriguing how alarmists like you and John seem to find it necessary to invent other beliefs I might have, such as John’s ridiculous assertion that I am a creationist, to justify your theory that I am irrational.

      Is it because you can’t face the possibility that a rational person might disagree with your views on climate change? Why can’t I simply be wrong – why do I also have to be irrational?

      • john byatt says:

        Most people can be wrong and then look at the evidence, you cannot do that being irrational

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Your assumption is that your view is the rational one, or that there is only one way of rationally assessing the evidence. If your view is actually irrational, then it could only be so because you were unaware of the irrational gaps in your own logic.

        The alternative, that there is more than one rational way of assessing the evidence, is a little more difficult and subtle.

        At the base of every system of logic are a set of unprovable axioms. I suspect that our difference of opinion is based on slightly different starting point assumptions. Which of these assumptions are irrational, and whether there are irreconciliable axioms, is something perhaps we shall both discover.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

      • Sou says:

        Eric, occasionally, like here, you give the impression that you are indeed capable of rational thought (and it’s quite likely that you are. You appear to have a reasonable master of literacy which is a good start.)….

        …then you revert to science denial, with no rhyme or reason :(

        (Hint: If you want to come across as rational about climate, then learn to explain yourself using reason. Better yet, build some capability – learn basics physics, chemistry, biology, develop your numeracy skills and learn how to read a chart, or at least how to view it more critically. See if you can get a basic text on stats and learn about probability and uncertainty. Finally, become familiar with what the science itself is finding – read some science papers. Many (not all) of them are written so that an educated layperson can understand them.)

        Examples of how you come across as irrational: science isn’t built on Delingpole’s interpretations of the interpreters’ interpretations of stolen emails; an eye-catching line (or parabola) on a chart might seem enticing, but if you don’t know the significance of it or lack thereof, it makes you look ignorant – and irrational for holding unshiftable views despite obvious ignorance (Dunning-Kruger).

        Talking about very cold weather somewhere is interesting, particularly if you’re exploring the reasons. But extrapolating that earth is heading for an ice age when 2/3 of places on earth are heating up would make you seem like a bit of an idiot. (I’m not saying you’ve done that, but from what I’ve read it’s the sort of thing you’d not be averse to.)

  32. mgm75 says:

    Reblogged this on 2012 And All That… The Fight Against Nonsense and commented:
    Sad, I feel, that a significant portion of any nation’s population is so driven by paranoia and conspiracy theory – especially in view of overwhelming scientific evidence.

  33. Eric Worrall says:

    The ambivalence or even hostility of many greens towards “solutions” to the climate “crisis” which don’t involve deeper government intervention in people’s lives must take some of the blame for this situation.

    Instead of trying ever harder to push hard left political solutions to the “crisis”, such as greater regulation of the economy, why don’t you put your effort into finding some middle ground? Why does winning the political debate take precedence over reducing CO2 emissions?

    If you guys had put CO2 reduction first, had wholeheartedly embraced the nuclear route to decarbonisation, I would probably have never questioned the science. It was the hostility towards the obvious “right wing” friendly solution, the insistence that only left wing changes to society could save us, which first motivated me to look deeper at the issues. And what I found wasn’t pretty.

    Climategate Email 0837094033.txt

    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0837094033.txt

    Britain seems to have found it’s Pat Michaels / Fred Singer / Bob Balling / Dick Lindzen. Our population is only 25% of yours so we only get 1 for every 4 you have. His name in case you should come across him is Piers Corbyn. He is nowhere near as good as a couple of yours and he’s an utter prat but he’s getting a lot of air time at the moment. … He’s not all bad as he doesn’t have much confidence in nuclear-power safety.

    If you want to understand what had triggered the anxiety and backlash against your cause, all you need to do is look in the mirror. There is no big oil conspiracy, and never has been – you people are the architects of your own failure.

    • Sou says:

      What a strange post. Eric seems to be blaming people who are pushing for a faster shift to clean energy for not shifting to clean energy quickly enough. And saying he questions science based on some of the proposed policy responses to the science. Nothing to do with the science itself.

      That qualifies him being labelled a fake sceptic, if not “just another nutter’ who gets his ‘science’ from deniers’ interpretations of disinformers’ interpretations of stolen emails.

      In Australia it just happens that it’s the current Labor government that introduced a ‘right wing’ policy response (market-based carbon pricing), while the conservative government wants a ‘socialist’ policy. They wants to get rid of the ‘free market’ elements and use general taxation revenue, to divert taxpayer funds from consolidated revenue to finance the shift to clean energy.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Sou, you’ve completely missed the point of what I posted.

        My main point was that mismanagement of the issue by left wing activists is what has created the backlash. If you had reached out and tried to find some middle ground with people who didn’t agree with your views, instead of trying to trample them, call them names, and force through your left wing agenda on the back of a politically convenient crisis, we wouldn’t be having this debate. I would have accepted nuclear decarbonisation of the economy without ever questioning the science.

        I have no idealogical bias against the theory that CO2 might cause dangerous warming, because there are solutions to reducing CO2 emissions which do not offend my right wing ideology – such as embracing nuclear power. Its the science behind alarmism which I think is cr@p.

        And if you think carbon markets are a “right wing solution”, you really don’t understand us – we despise carbon markets as being corporatist shams, circuses created by governments to try to hide a new tax. We don’t like Abbott’s solution either, we hope it is a promise he plans to break, like Gillard broke her promise about carbon pricing, but at least Abbott’s solution is less offensive to us, because it is more honest – it doesn’t insult our intelligence by trying to pretend to be something other than what it is.

      • Isn’t that counter-factual? Exxon’s funding of false scepticism is well documented. The “black money” of Donors Trust is well documented. The secrecy behind the funding of the like of Heartland and the GWPF is well documented.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I’ve no doubt some rich people, like the Kochs, have encouraged the Tea Party, and right wing skepticism of climate alarmism. In a previous post I suggested I agreed the Kochs probably started the Tea Party movement.

        My point is though that the Tea Party is powerful, not because of the Kochs, but because of a groundswell of genuine anger and disaffection, caused in part by the way left wing activists have mishandled the climate issue.

        To put this into perspective, is the climate movement powerful because of the vast fortune organisations like Greenpeace and the WWF put into promoting alarmism? Is climate alarmism a Greenpeace plot, the product of a well funded alarmism machine? Or is it a genuine movement created by scientists who believe in the alarmist science they promote – with Greenpeace and the WWF simply helping to spread the message?

        Its very easy to see a conspiracy when you see powerful, well funded figures wielding influence in the opposing camp – but I put it to you that settling too quickly for the simplistic explanation can blind you to the real issues.

        • Watching the Deniers says:

          Eric, some interesting points – I’m going to disagree with you on some of the details, however you do make a valid point: viewing any complex issue in simplistic terms leads to misunderstanding the reality of a situation.

          In my mind the Tea Party has been less concerned with climate “alarmism” and more concerned with a) their view of limited government b) their opposition Obamacare and c) an expression of conservative values/worldview.

          The last few years have been a tumultuous time in America with the economy tanking, many people losing their homes and jobs (employment almost reached 10% if I recall) while at the same time they witnessed the massive bail out of banks and the auto industry. Coming off the back of two, long and protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were a drain American lives and resources and you have a period of extended crisis. In addition the polorisation of American politics: as some have suggested, Americans have not been this divided since the civil war: http://www.squidoo.com/americancivilwar2010

          Throw in the climate crisis – the lack of response, the divided politics and events like Sandy, the Texas drought – and the debate gets even more heated (no pun intended).

          Two popular movements arose at the same time in response to the same events but at very opposite ends of the political spectrum: the Tea Party and Occupy Movements.

          Broadly I agree you, both were a genuine expression of popular rage; and why not? Many people looked around and asked themselves “What the hell is going on?” I’m sure many of those active in the Tea Party are/where genuine in there sentiments. As were those participating in the Occupy movements. I’m actually sympathetic to the rank and file members of the Tea Party, many of whom are poor or marginalized in a rapidly changing world. I just think their anger is misdirected. Holding conspiracy views hurts their political efforts. We need debate, and for conservatives and liberals to bring good ideas and critiques to the policy realm.

          My point is this: historically conspiracy theories thrive in times of crisis: there is a known pattern. They were rampant during the French Revolution (many thought the Illuminati were behind it), US Civil War and after WW1. During the Cold War conspiracy theories flourished.

      • Nothing about the tea party. You stated big oil isn’t behind the false sceptic movement. The facts speak otherwise.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Why would big oil oppose something from which they stand to make so much money?

        I mean, no one is going to stop using their products anytime soon. And climate alarmism offers real opportunities to make even more money – for example, once worthless depleted oil or gas wells can be reinvented as valuable carbon sequestration reservoirs.

        A number of big oil companies, such as BP, are heavily invested in climate change initiatives, and stand to lose a lot of money if it all goes away. With their deep pockets, and ability to control both the supply of energy and the sequestration of carbon, and their experience dealing with corrupt third world dictators, some of whom control potentially valuable carbon sinks such as large tropical forests, they would have done really well out of a global carbon market.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Mike, I think we’re on the same page on this issue, to a large degree – though obviously we disagree about some of the details.

        I agree with your assessment of the Occupy movement and Tea Party movements.

        And I agree superstition and conspiracy theories rise in times of adversity.

        One area where we disagree of course is over whether suspicion of alarmist climate science is justified.

        But you must admit, recent historical examples of major pseudoscience crisis which even scientists and academic institutions supported, such as Eugenics pseudoscience crisis, mean that such events are possible – even if we disagree about whether climate alarmism is a genuine issue, or a false crisis based on pseudoscience.

      • john byatt says:

        Bp are selling their American wind assest to pay for the gulf oil disaster

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Given the recent disastrous financial performance of renewable investments, thanks to faltering government support for CO2 emissions curbs, anyone who doesn’t sell out is risking even heavier losses.

        http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/01/private-equity-flees-clean-energy-as-investment-falls1

    • Nick says:

      A confusion from Worrall as usual. What’s motivating it? ‘Left wing activists’ do not manage the issue,it’s sociopaths like Murdoch who own swathes of media,refuse to adhere to standards of quality,employ journos WHO MAKE STUFF UP, and cheerfully demonise activism that does not suit their entrenched interests….you are a complete patsy… Murdoch swanned into Oz the other day,uttering blandishments about a ‘northern economic zone’ and heading for the IPA”s 70th birthday bash…The secretively funded lobby-group and the media mogul !!!! You can rest assured that you will not hear a thing about their agreed propaganda paths for the next year.

      A desire to demonise scientists rather than address the science. An insistence on a left/right dichotomy to explain policy failure.A loathing of a strawman cartoon leftism,which you fully intend to blame for what you basically cannot explain.

      “If you guys had put CO2 reduction first..” The science HAS. ..”wholeheartedly embraced nuclear power” …nuclear power is put forward by many climate scientists as a necessary part of the mix.

      “Why does winning the political debate take precedence over reducing CO2 emissions?” Good God,are you seriously asking that of science and reality based participants in this conversation?? You bring the politics and ideology,we respond pointing out where you regularly depart from discussion of the physical. Most of you clowns,on failing to make a physical case, gain perverse satisfaction by saying there is no political support for fixing environmental issues or making economics account realistically,and thus discussions of the physical world issues are irrelevant ie ‘Arctic sea ice is rapidly changing,and weather:Yawn… tell me when it’s melted’

      I utterly reject that carbon pricing or taxation options are ‘hard left’ The principles of taxation are non-ideological,they are reality based: you want a high-infrastructure,safe society, you run a money economy, then axiomatically you must raise money by some accepted understood collective means to deliver it. Or do we go cap in hand to the world’s bandits in the British Virgin Islands?

      “There is no big oil conspiracy” This is a claim of,at best,utter naivety,at worst …it’s dishonest. A LIE. Big Oil funding of disinformation is thoroughly documented after the fact,and has even drawn statements from oil companies saying that they would no longer fund such activities [usually honored in the breach]. Big Oil use secretive trusts to anonymize their investment in disinformation. Why wouldn’t they?

      BIg Oil and Coal publicly campaign for their perceived interests,as well as secretively act for same…this activity cannot be assumed to be always in the general communities broader interest. After all they have a first ‘duty’ to their shareholders ..not the community. Big Coal in Australia is NOT INTERESTED in nuclear power usurping or taking even some of their market share.

      Once again,you fail to understand that entrenched interests are doing what they always do: using the power and connections they cultivate to frame the issue as best they can control it. That usually involves dumping on opponents of their policy stranglehold through their lobby groups and media connections.

      I find your ‘I would have accepted nuclear decarbonisation..’ argument basically ridiculous. If you had,you would not be a sucker for stolen emails ,and the mendacious spin put on them by professional disinformers. You would not be presenting clearly inadequate alternate explanations for climate change. You would not be citing incompetent bloggers like Watts.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Email from Phil Jones, head of the CRU:-

        http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0837094033.txt

        Britain seems to have found it’s Pat Michaels / Fred Singer / Bob Balling / Dick Lindzen. Our population is only 25% of yours so we only get 1 for every 4 you have. His name in case you should come across him is Piers Corbyn. He is nowhere near as good as a couple of yours and he’s an utter prat but he’s getting a lot of air time at the moment. … He’s not all bad as he doesn’t have much confidence in nuclear-power safety.

        So your suggestion that the science has wholeheartedly embraced nuclear power is BS. Yes, scientists like Hansen are starting to swing behind the nuclear option, now that alternative energy has proven to be such an embarrassing failure, but this is quite possibly too little, too late, to undo the political polarisation which lefty intolerance for right wing solutions to CO2 emissions has created.

        I utterly reject that carbon pricing or taxation options are ‘hard left’ The principles of taxation are non-ideological,they are reality based: you want a high-infrastructure,safe society, you run a money economy, then axiomatically you must raise money by some accepted understood collective means to deliver it. Or do we go cap in hand to the world’s bandits in the British Virgin Islands?

        But you are a left winger – that is why you don’t find heavy handed, top down regulation intrusive or objectionable.

        “There is no big oil conspiracy” This is a claim of,at best,utter naivety,at worst …it’s dishonest. A LIE. Big Oil funding of disinformation is thoroughly documented after the fact,and has even drawn statements from oil companies saying that they would no longer fund such activities [usually honored in the breach]. Big Oil use secretive trusts to anonymize their investment in disinformation. Why wouldn’t they?

        The Climategate archive contains evidence of big oil trying to get into bed with the CRU from over a decade ago, talk of interesting meetings with Shell Oil, etc. Big Oil simply doesn’t care where its money comes from – its happy to sell oil, but its also happy to make money out of selling carbon credits by using previously worthless depleted oil and gas wells to sequester CO2.

        Yes organisations like the Koch Brothers have opposed emissions reduction measures. But a lot of big oil companies, such as BP, have wholeheartedly embraced them. Given that a lot of big oil companies were until recently hoping to make a lot of money from carbon markets, I would argue that the Koch Brother’s opposition to emissions reduction measures is more a matter of personal ideology, than a belief they couldn’t make money from filling their old wells with sequestered CO2.

        Once again,you fail to understand that entrenched interests are doing what they always do: using the power and connections they cultivate to frame the issue as best they can control it.

        This argument could equally be applied to the efforts of Greenpeace and the WWF. Activist grey literature even manages to make its way into IPCC reports, for example Pachauri’s ridiculous 35 year assertion about Himalayan glaciers (look up “Glaciergate” on Google).

        I find your ‘I would have accepted nuclear decarbonisation..’ argument basically ridiculous.

        Mike saw my point – maybe you could make an effort to understand what I am saying as well.

      • Nick says:

        Hey,you’re a Corbyn fan…doesn’t his caution about nuke power make you think…after all he’s a fizzicist!

        I didn’t say that nuclear power was ‘wholeheartedly embraced’…the BS is actually your absolutists conditionality as usual…anyone who embraces nuclear power without caution is an idiot…and no Hansen does not embrace N Power unconditionally. It’s a lesser of two evils deal.

        Nuclear power is not a right or left wing solution.It is a costly–and rightly so- technical one,one that has been opposed by environmentalists [apparently axiomatically winged on the left], apolitical nimbyists and opportunist amoral fossil fuel interests/ It has been opposed by the bread-heads because it is expensive,not for any other reason. But with…ahem…’top-down’ decision making we could get into it reasonably quickly as did the socialist French. We’d have to pay them a lot for expertise and training.

        I have never argued for ‘heavy handedness’…stop the strawmanning.Your dependence on strawmen cripples your arguments. Such that they are arguments.

        Big OIl is making billions a week…I’d suggest that defending that windfall is highly motivating,and the directions of defence can be many. They have money to splash around playing both sides against the middle with chump change. They spend money publicly playing along with politicians on CC,they spend money on buying loyalty from legislators in campaign donations,they trickle money via third parties to useful idiots like Watts and Heartland to continue obfuscation.They wanted to cosy up to science to boost their credibility,so they could continue the hope industry on carbon capture,maybe had real hopes for it then…whatever,it’s all well spent on squid ink. Some actually real things may come from their tiny investments in new technology,but let’s not hurry because we do not want to see our assets be realistically priced too soon. Climate change is happening [so far] slow enough for them to be surfing out front.producing cosy documentaries about their indispensibility

        However,the longer we leave the industrial leisure class to swan along preserving their bubble and setting the agenda,the more likely a top down solution will have to be imposed –once suitable compensation is negotiated of course. I’m not arguing for it,I’m just wonder how it is to be avoided.

        Grey literature was in WG2 by specification. No secret,though a surprise to those who never read what they found so offensive….and Himalayan glaciers are in retreat sure enough,but for a few in the Karakoram/

      • Nick says:

        Mike saw your point…indeed he gently held it up as a mirror for you. Whose reflection did you see?

  34. It would be interesting to see the results for a similar survey here in Australia. I suspect you wouldn’t see as much enthusiasm for NWO or anti-Christ nuttiness, but it does seem that Australian conservatives warmly embrace climate change denialism. That said, at least here the conservative political party has to at least pretend to accept climate change science. It’s comforting that a position of denial will still hurt a political party, and the more prominent Coalition MP’s are generally quite keen to say they accept the science and their area of disagreement is in how to respond. Of course, if the Coalition wins in September as it seems they will, I wouldn’t be too surprised if the more passionate denialists get more air-time.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      I suspect the Coalition is treading carefully on this issue because it is divided. If the UK experience is anything to go by, by now a number of wealthy land owners are starting to make real money from siting wind turbines or solar systems on their properties, so there will be significant voices inside the coalition arguing for more subsidies for alternative energy, and a more aggressive push to reduce CO2 emissions.

      Defusing this mess will be difficult and politically risky for anyone who has the balls to attempt it.

      • john byatt says:

        The senate

        the nationals in the senate , nearly all creationists,

        Boswell a confirmed creationist who thinks that climate change is as silly as evolution

        http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/election-2013-senate/

      • john byatt says:

        like eric this guy believes that god knows what temperature the world should be

        http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/our-idiotic-politicians-john-forrest/

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I told you before John, I’m a fundamentalist Pastafarian – except on nights with a gibbous moon, where I dream of Cthulhu in his watery lair…

      • john byatt says:

        It matters not what you believe eric, what I stated was that your world view that the planet is capable of self regulating the temperature to the level of human preference is exactly the same as the creationists belief,

        that is clearly your position,

      • Eric Worrall says:

        In 4 billion years, the Earth has been shoved by some pretty drastic forcings, some of them abrupt and powerful – huge meteors which dropped burning ash across the entire world, vast GHG and ash belching volcanic eruptions like the Siberian traps, massive redistribution of land and sea due to continental drift. For almost all of this time, global temperature has stayed relatively stable, in a band of temperatures around +/- 10c from today’s temperature.

        If that isn’t evidence for potent natural climate stabilisation mechanisms, I don’t know what is. Compare the Earth’s climate to say Mars, which once had liquid water, but is now a frozen hell with an atmosphere around 3% as dense as Earth. Or compare our climate to Venus, which did suffer runaway greenhouse heating from natural causes. I put it to you that nothing we are likely to do to the Earth’s atmosphere can compare to natural extreme events which the Earth has already survived.

      • Nick says:

        Ah,but can we homo sapiens survive in the manner to which we have become accustomed outside a quarter of the range you cite [which contains a lot of guesstimation BTW]?

        That has always been the issue. Can we continue to play fantasy economics and peddle the cruel limitless growth myth? Will regional climatic instability emerging in the NH depress net agricultural output, increase infrastructure wear and tear and add heavily to living costs? . Fortunately we actually have plenty of wealth to apply to rising social costs if we could only pry some of it out of super-rich tax-dodging sociopaths hands.

        Clearly,a sustained large scale regional volcanic rifting /outpouring in the NH of ‘traps’ scale would render large areas uninhabitable,depress agricultural output enormously and somewhat inhibit life’s prospects,all the while the Earth stays within your crypto-Gaian exhortation/definition of Goldilocks climate. IOW,touting your temperature range as survivable is a simplistic superficiality.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Nick:-

        Ah,but can we homo sapiens survive in the manner to which we have become accustomed outside a quarter of the range you cite [which contains a lot of guesstimation BTW]?

        Given that humans evolved in one of the hottest places on Earth, we’re already well adapted to thriving in a substantially warmer world. Away from the most extreme tropical environments, only our technology allows us to survive. In any climate where the minimum temperature drops around 20c or so, we need clothes to stay warm.

        That has always been the issue. Can we continue to play fantasy economics and peddle the cruel limitless growth myth?

        Even Uki admitted that adding the expansion of space technology to the question of what the carrying capacity of the Earth is removes the limits, though Uki accused me of wriggling out of my original position.

        I don’t agree that there are any firm limits to growth.

        Will regional climatic instability emerging in the NH depress net agricultural output, increase infrastructure wear and tear and add heavily to living costs? .

        Quite possibly, which is why I moved back to Australia, and am well on the way to convincing my lovely lady to move to the far North.

        The difference is I believe the increasing NH climatic instability is due to the early stages of a substantial drop in global temperatures.

        Fortunately we actually have plenty of wealth to apply to rising social costs if we could only pry some of it out of super-rich tax-dodging sociopaths hands.

        Wealth and money are very different things. Be careful that you don’t “pry” so hard, the super-rich stop doing whatever valuable service they performed to achieve such wealth.

        Don’t forget, most wealth comes from voluntary purchase by ordinary people of a service or product people want or need. Discourage provision of such services at your peril.

        I would have thought the bread queues, poverty and want in the former Soviet Union were enough of a cautionary lesson in what happens if you try to rid society of the rich, but I guess some people never learn.

        Clearly,a sustained large scale regional volcanic rifting /outpouring in the NH of ‘traps’ scale would render large areas uninhabitable,depress agricultural output enormously and somewhat inhibit life’s prospects,all the while the Earth stays within your crypto-Gaian exhortation/definition of Goldilocks climate. IOW,touting your temperature range as survivable is a simplistic superficiality.

        Of course its simplistic – there are obviously temperatures within that range which would probably be seriously uncomfortable, and would make it extremely difficult to maintain current levels of agricultural output.

        My point though is that Hansenkan theories of a true, runaway greenhouse effect which renders the biosphere totally uninhabitable is unsupported by the historical evidence.

      • Nick says:

        Eric.a lot of the super rich provide the valuable service of inheriting money, benefiting from insider trading,owning monopolies enabled by gamed regulation….or inside running on asset carve ups…very valuable. I see your argument…for what it is: tosh. ‘Don’t complain or the ‘service’ will be withdrawn.’ Hope you’re getting your cut for spreading the threats

        A lot of simple banditry is being excused by the general admiration of high net-worth

      • Nick says:

        Hansen’s thought bubble on what it takes to get a para-Venusian runaway is NOT the issue.it’s what you would do with it… the consequences of BAU can be marginalised if we can isolate such a thought and reframe it as the science communities view. ‘Look.EXTREMISM! They’re nuts!”

      • john byatt says:

        would like to see a post about the venus syndrome, though it is moot because we would all be dead even before it ever got started,

        and no eric the Antarctic would not have to completely melt before it became possible

        that would assume that both Antarctic waters and tropical waters have the same temperature

    • ihatenexus2013 says:

      Margaret Thatcher attended at least one Bilderburg conference.

      Christopher Monckton was Margaret Thatchers’ policy adviser.
      Did Monckton go to the Bilderburg with Thatcher?
      Did Monckton advise Thatcher to attend Bilderburg conference?
      Did Monckton ever criticise Thatcher for attending Bilderburg?
      If not, why not?
      Given that Bilderburg are pro industry/manufacturing/business, then it stands to reason that Monckton, Thatcher
      and Bilderburgers are all on the same side.
      The same side who claim there is no climate change because
      pollution equals business profit.

      Monckton is a climate change fraud and a tool of the Satanist / Scientologist NWO.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 769 other followers

%d bloggers like this: