Power to the people: reborn Climate Counicl raises $400k in 24 hours

Many of you would have heard of the wonderful news that the Climate Commission has been reborn as the Climate Council:

Within 24 hours the CC raised $400,000 through crowd funding. 

That speaks volumes – there are millions of Australians concerned about climate change. Tens of thousands are prepared to support good science. 

The Gosford Anglican Church summed it up nicely:

BU42pR2CAAAeqHC

In response to the vindictive actions of the Abbott government, the Australian public has responded in kind by breathing new life into the CC.

Andrew Bolt was instantly dismissive of the CC, gloating about the lack of interest:

ABC Melbourne is furiously promoting a fund-raising drive for this new Climate Council. Flannery boasts that a huge grass-roots reaction has produced $1000 overnight.

If my grass had roots like that it would be a dust bowl.

Err, not $1000 Andrew. $400,000 in a single day.

What does that tell you and your denier mates?

Without the backing of News Corp and fossil fuel funded think tanks climate scepticism would wither on the vine.

Bolt and the sceptics wouldn’t know a true grass-roots cause if they tripped over it and fell on their face.

A little John Lennon to celebrate the continuing work of the Climate Council:

61 thoughts on “Power to the people: reborn Climate Counicl raises $400k in 24 hours

  1. john byatt says:

    This means that we will get an honest appraisal of AR5 without the misinformation from the Murdoch press and Greg Hunt spin

    • Nick says:

      Yep, and they are hanging in just when needed most: AR5 is a one big document that will need Steffen and Hughes efforts in interpreting for the public.

  2. john byatt says:

    That gosford church is right in the middle of the climate sceptics party heart land and giving them shit

    http://anggos.com.au/

  3. john byatt says:

    this is actually good, Bolt “Climate Council. Flannery boasts that a huge grass-roots reaction has produced $1000 overnight.
    If my grass had roots like that it would be a dust bowl.”

    many reading that will go to the council website and donate

    bolt is a f***wit

    • SPM says:

      “bolt is a f***wit”

      Please John, don’t build him up into something bigger than he actually is!! He’ll get a big head.

      Bolt the Clown couldn’t even remember a woman to whom he was once engaged until she wrote him a public letter.

  4. jasonblog says:

    “Without the backing of News Corp and fossil fuel funded think tanks climate scepticism would wither on the vine.” Great sentence & one suspects the more that attention is drawn to this situation, the more critical thinking is applied by more people, the less political influence they will have down the track.

    In a perverse way axing the Climate Commission may have done some good in harnessing action & demonstrating that people want spin-free information regarding this crucial issue. As the present government becomes increasingly secretive people power will come increasingly to the fore. Thank god for new media and technology.

    It’s always good to have morning tea with a little John Lennon!

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Indeed Jason, the Government’s actions have highlighted the issue. They’ve tried to silence the scientists and bury the issue, but instead they’re actions have backfired.

      • Blog of Greg says:

        And it is about time it has backfired. With lobby groups funding political campaigns, the only action that occurs in inaction and manipulation of facts.

        Just like the new hidden facts from Sovereign Borders bull! We will never actually know what is happening, now it is all secretive!

  5. Dr No says:

    Lets face it. This is war in the same sense as the US Republicans declared war on
    women,climate change, health-care, gun law reform, immigrants, etc etc.
    The time for careful educating and debating is over.
    The scientists have done the best as they can for decades, but it is time for the rest of us to take off the gloves and push back much harder.
    Lets call a spade a spade, Bolt a dolt, Greg Hunt useless, Murdoch a Goebbels, Monckton mad, Bob Carter a joke, Plimer a disgrace, Turnbull a coward, …..

    i.e. there is no more point in being polite

    • john byatt says:

      Yes, me no more mr nice guy

      • Bill Jamison says:

        Yeah john you should start insulting people and calling them names! Maybe stalk them on Facebook too.

        Oh wait, too late. Apparently you just got a head start on everyone else!

        • john byatt says:

          piss off stupid

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I think that may be the nicest name you’ve ever called me. I should start making a list of all the names you call people on this board.

        • john byatt says:

          don;t miss creationist

          klem says:
          September 23, 2013 at 6:37 pm
          “In NZ the door has been opened for charter schools to teach Creationism..”

          I have no sympathy for you greenie leftys, none whatsoever. You people bad mouthed traditional religion for years, mocked creationism, humiliated creationists at every opportunity, screamed that the earth was dieing from the demon carbon dioxide, and attempted to create a UN controlled world government based on carbon controls. You awoke the conservative beast is what you did.

          When people began to see the religiosity of anthropogenic climate alarmism, many began to ask the questions “if their religion is being taught in schools, why can’t my religion be taught in schools?” And now they are getting their way.

          This your bed, you made it, now you get to sleep in it. Nice work. Enjoy.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Nice random post you quoted. Is there a point? Was the poster responding to one of your insults?

        • john byatt says:

          “idiot”

          “i think that may be the nicest name you’ve ever called me”:

          Synonyms for cretin
          creep
          fool
          idiot
          imbecile
          loser
          moron

          lol

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Hey john can you help me out by listing some synonyms for “stalker”?

        • zoot says:

          Define “stalker”.

  6. Bernard J. says:

    Andrew Bolt never was any good at properly framing the numbers, was he? He must be spitting chips that Tim Flannery has shot from the block as quickly as he has.

    Watch in the future for Bolt to take every opportunity he can to diss the Climate Council. He won’t have the courage though to stand face-to-face with real, live, actual scientists – those beasties are just too dangerous…

    I have a dream where Flannery invites Bolt to come for an interview, bringing his best science and ‘experts’ with him, and where Bolt is placed across from half a dozen climatologists and told to explain to them why there is no such thing as global warming.

    I’d pay to see that.

    • Blog of Greg says:

      I have to say, that is perhaps the most brilliant idea that I have heard for a while. Bring in a panel of denialists, with their “facts” and face off with the real scientists.

    • antipodeanspecies1 says:

      I hope the development of the Climate Commission causes Andrew Bolt to choke on his own ego.

      • Nick says:

        That’s not possible, I’m afraid. He has no gag reflex. Had it removed, the surgery was part of his News Ltd salary package. There’s nothing he won’t swallow for the cause.

        • antipodeanspecies1 says:

          That explains it all. There appears to be nothing he won’t do to kiss uncle Rupert’s nether end.

    • astrostevo says:

      @Bernard J. :

      “I have a dream where Flannery invites Bolt to come for an interview, bringing his best science and ‘experts’ with him, and where Bolt is placed across from half a dozen climatologists and told to explain to them why there is no such thing as global warming. I’d pay to see that.”

      Me too

      Marvellous idea. .

  7. BAC says:

    Unfortunately the denialists would win a debate hands down. Their great advantage is that they can spew forth a litany of lies while the scientists would have to stick to facts. No contest. Debating someone who believes in a flat earth is a waste of time. These people are impervious to facts.

    • Bernard J. says:

      BAC, if it was the typical media-style debate I’d agree, because they’re not focussed and competently moderated.

      I’m thinking of a forum where Bolt and his ‘experts’ say something like “no warming for 15 years”, and are given every opportunity to lay out the basis of the claim, and then the real climatologists respond with, say:

      1) 1998 is an outlier cherry-pick, if 1997 or 1999 is selected there is a statistically significant warming trend (and point out that if there is warming over 14 years, why is there no warming over 15 years?)

      2) the concept of statistical significance is defined such that the definition applies when there is a 95% probability or greater that the null hypothesis (of no warming) does not explain the data. If the actual probability as derived from the data is considered, there is a greater than 90% (~92-92 actually) probability that the null hypothesis is refuted. What is the practical implication of such a small difference?

      3) the Earth’s climate system is inherently noisy, and it takes 12-20 years at any arbitrary point in the temperature record to discern the anthropogenic signal that overlays the background temperature trajectory

      4) one reason that there is noise in the temperature record is because heat is moved differentially around the planet over time. At the moment there seems to be an unusual sequestering of heat into the deep oceans, masking the retention of heat that is being caused by the presence of additional greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere

      5) solar irradiance is lower than expected over the long term, and is contributing to the lowering of the rate of anthropogenic warming, as is the masking effect of sulphate aerosols and similar pollutants.

      As long as the discussion was kept on the topic, and as long as every claim required reference to primary literature to be accepted as a substantive point, it would be interesting to see how the deniers might try to wriggle out of their inevitable discomfiture. If Gish-galloping was prohibited and evidence was essential I reckon that it would make for a very interesting discussion.

      If it was up to me I’d start with a preliminary session where the deniers were allowed simply to present each and every of their talking points, followed by as many sessions as would be required to address each point with sufficient substance as required to put it to bed, and then by a revision of what stood up to science and what didn’t, and what might be concluded from this. If the Denialati put their best people forward for making their case, and if it was seen to wither under testing, it might just be different to the media circuses that have masqueraded as reasoned debated to this point in time.

      • J Giddeon says:

        “1) 1998 is an outlier cherry-pick, if 1997 or 1999 is selected there is a statistically significant warming trend (and point out that if there is warming over 14 years, why is there no warming over 15 years?)”

        Which dataset shows a statistically significant warming since 1997 or 1999?

        • john byatt says:

          This is tiresome arguing whether it is warming or not.

          do they really think that enhanced greenhouse will not just continue to warm the planet while we keep pumping greenhouse gases out?

          whether you look at el nino years, neutral years or la nina years,

          the common trend is effin warming, wake up to yourselves, grow some balls to match your donger and face the reality

        • J Giddeon says:

          So no dataset shows statistically significant warming using 1997 or 1999 as a start year as Bernard J asserted without contradiction? So the assertion that using 1998 is cheery picking is also without foundation?

          And your response is…shut up, I don’t want to talk about it. Very grown up.

        • john byatt says:

          well it is a bit stupid,

          next el nino record year and your rhetoric will switch to it was just natural variation
          well natural variation does not produce an upward trend over a century

          so what will you say come next record/ not planning on it happening?

          you can go through the data and find warming cooling nothing happening or whatever, I prefer to accept the science,

          I look at

          last decade warmest on record
          2010 record hottest year since 1880

          so start planning now for the next record year,

          and you are a hypocrite as well

          “And your response is…shut up, I don’t want to talk about it. Very grown up”

        • J Giddeon says:

          JB,
          I really can’t tell if you are incapable of following the logic of a thread or are determined to never get anything that challenges your fondest held beliefs.

          But this is really very simple and even someone of your limited capacity ought to be able to follow it. Bernard J. said (and I quote – note the funny squiggles) ” if 1997 or 1999 is selected [as the start year] there is a statistically significant warming trend”. I simple asked which dataset showed such a thing. (still with me?).

          To this point no one has advised which is this previously unknown dataset which shows no statistically significant warming for 1998-2013 but ss warming for 1997-2013 and 1999-2013. Instead all I’ve got is increasingly strident assertions from you that you don’t want to talk about it. Fine don’t talk about. I wasn’t asking you I was asking BJ.

          But I couldn’t let this piece of idiocy pass uncommented…..

          “well natural variation does not produce an upward trend over a century” (note the funny squiggles – they denote that I’m quoting you).

          So according to you, there’s never been a century before the 20th century AD that had an upward warming trend or if there was it was caused by unnatural variations? Now there’s the very definition of a logic fail.

        • john byatt says:

          well natural variation does not produce an upward trend over a century” (note the funny squiggles – they denote that I’m quoting you).

          So according to you, there’s never been a century before the 20th century AD that had an upward warming trend or if there was it was caused by unnatural variations? Now there’s the very definition of a logic fail.

          so you do not know the difference between natural variations and forcings,

  8. john byatt says:

    15,000 founding members

    Climate Council ‏@climatecouncil 2h
    We are getting very close to $500,000, can you be the one to tip us over? #peoplepower
    Expand

  9. john byatt says:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

    The increase in the amount of heat in the oceans amounts to 17 x 1022 Joules over the last 30 years. That is so much energy it is equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima bomb every second in the ocean for thirty years.

    The data in the graphs comes from the World Ocean Database. Wikipedia has a fine overview of this database. The data set includes nine million measured temperature profiles from all of the world’s oceans. One of my personal heroes, the oceanographer Syd Levitus, has dedicated much of his life to making these oceanographic data freely available to everyone. During the Cold war that even landed him in a Russian jail for espionage for a while, as he was visiting Russia on his quest for oceanographic data (he once told me of that adventure over breakfast in a Beijing hotel).

    • Nick says:

      “10 the power of 22 Joules”.., or 1022 an html. toolbar?

      I really don’t like the use of ‘Hiroshimas’ as an aid for putting this ocean accumulated energy figure into a context. Sure, it is a ‘cut-through analogy’, but it is superficial: who can genuinely understand it, rather than simply recall a photo of devastation? The energy accumulated in the ocean will not be released as an explosion, obviously, but there is an implicit invitation to consider that imagery,which is diverting rather than informative.

      It would be better and less manipulative to use units light-bulbs or kettles or air-conditioners numbers

      • john byatt says:

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/billions-of-blow-dryers.html

        that was just for the abyss,

        yes a common measurement would be an advantage

        one uses hiroshima bombs and gets it wrong anyway (see comments @RC)
        another uses hair dryers (SKS link)

        It would have to be something which we can all relate too,

        suggestions?

        • john byatt says:

          this one relates to boiling sydney harbour dry but not everyone would have any idea about that,

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/Breaking_News_The_Earth_is_Warming_Still_A_LOT.html

          I like the boiling dry aspect, just need a globally commonly understood body of water

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I’m sure you do like the analogy because if they gave you the actual amount of warming in degrees Celsius it’s incredibly small. In fact I’ve asked you here previously if you even knew how much the oceans are claimed to have warmed over the last 20 to 30 years.

        • john byatt says:

          [Response: Changing a unit to have a small sounding number doesn’t actually change anything; neither the significance nor the accuracy. But if you want to play rhetorical games, go right ahead – though perhaps not here. – gavin]

        • Nick says:

          Bill, the same source [Levitus et al. 2012] as the figure in Joules gives a mean warming of the whole mass of water 0-2000m depth of 0.09C, period 1955-2010…think about it. That is not a small number.

          All the numbers are ‘small’, aren’t they? But what do they mean? By 2040 with BAU, 3 sigma heat events [the kind that cripple agricultural output] become much more frequent. The mean temperature of the coolest summer month becomes the same as the hottest summer month now. All tiny numbers with big implications for the practical realities of our lives.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Nick if all of the warming continues to go into the ocean then why would three sigma events become more frequent?

          I do find it funny that you guys think we can actually measure ocean temperature to that degree of accuracy. The number I read was 0.06c not 0.09c but it’s not much of a difference. At this rate it will take many decades of the “missing heat” going into the oceans to have a major impact on climate. First that “missing heat” will have to come back to the surface. At depth the most it can do is contribute a miniscule amount of sea level rise.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          From the link john posted:

          “the observed increase of 0.3 degrees in the deep Greenland Sea is ten times higher than the temperature increase in the global ocean on average.”

          So they’re claiming the average temperature increase in ocean on a global basis is 0.03c or 1/3 what Nick posted.

          Pretty fascinating that the source of the warmth is actually the arctic ocean!

        • john byatt says:

          Could someone translate 10^23 joules into degrees, for those of us afraid to slip a digit figuring the volume of the ocean?

          Thanks!

          [Response: 10^23 J in the ocean = 2.8 x 10^8 J/m2 = 1.4 x 10^5 J/m2 over 2000 m depth ~= 1.4 x 10^2 J/kg ~= 0.04ºC (averaged over the whole depth). Much bigger changes are near the top though. – gavin]

          problem or point ?

        • Nick says:

          There you have it. Levitus et al. 2012 states 0.09C over the top 2000m, averaged over the entire volume it’s 0.03 or 0.04C….but we do not know how much the layer below 2000m has warmed, so that figure is more rubbery when smearing the data that way.

          I don’t know what to make of that articles comment. May simply be a conversational figure,maybe an error.

          “If all the warming continues to go into the ocean…” That would be quite a surprise. What, ENSO and the PDO will cease to play out? Is that at all likely? Nah. The ocean will get warmer,won’t it, if it all goes into the ocean?

          As for the heat event frequency, I’m relaying to you the findings of a recent paper [Coumou and Robinson 2013] that looks at the CMIP5 ensemble under various emmissions paths. These ensembles hindcast well the distribution of heat events…despite the crap that some want you to believe about modelling.

        • john byatt says:

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-Looming-Climate-Shift-Will-Ocean-Heat-Come-Back-to-Haunt-us.html

          “The late 1970’s climate shift is an appropriate analogue for the near-future because, based on the modelling in Meehl (2013) and other peer-reviewed scientific papers not discusssed here, the current negative IPO (cool surface ocean-warm deep ocean) trend is likely to come to an end sometime soon. The NCAR climate model suggests that these phases can last up to 15 years, but are generally around a decade in length. This climate model-based IPO cycle length is shorter than the IPO cycle length observed during the 20th century, however the reasons for this disparity are not yet clear.

          Whenever this phase reversal does kick in there are likely to be significant changes in global rainfall patterns (Dai [2012]), drought, mass coral bleaching and fish catches (caused by change in the wind-driven upwelling of nutrients in key areas of the ocean). Just how significant this is will depend on how much heat remains in the surface ocean during the next positive phase of the IPO.

          So to answer the question posed in the title – will ocean heat come back to come to haunt us? Yes, but perhaps not in the way some might think. Heat buried in the deep layers of the ocean will not re-surface any time soon. Instead, when the subtropical ocean gyres spin down, they will no longer be efficiently removing heat from the tropical surface ocean. The transport of ocean heat to depths, and to the poles, will drastically slow down, and this will allow the surface of the tropical oceans to warm rapidly. That heat is very likely to haunt us”.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          It’s entertaining watching you guys trying to make 0.09C into some kind of significant problem. Even more entertaining watching you trying to make 0.03C into anything at all. It sounds like you don’t even understand how they came up with these figures. Of course all jb can do is cut and paste in a lame attempt to look like he actually knows and understands any of this.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Even the wanna-be nazis over at SkS admit that OHC measurements are suspect:

          “the degree of accuracy of OHC measurements is still quite uncertain: the ARGO network is relatively new, and doesn’t measure the deep oceans, and short-term noise in the data remains a concern ”

          Lucia has a nice chart showing the change in temperature over time:

          http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/alternate-units-average-temperature-change-over-layer/

        • john byatt says:

          so all your comments were for nothing then the ocean is warming however you measure it and all the analogies are spot on even your own link confirms that,

          now what was your original problem or point?

        • john byatt says:

          now bill comes up with the uncertainty factor, the one that always points to the lower end

          IPCC

          On a global scale, the ocean warming is largest near the surface, and the upper 75 m warmed
          by 0.11 [0.09 to 0.13] °C per decade over the period 1971–2010. Since AR4, instrumental
          biases in upper-ocean temperature records have been identified and reduced, enhancing
          confidence in the assessment of change. {3.2}

        • Bill Jamison says:

          john said “a common measurement would be an advantage” and I suggested you post the actual increase in degrees C. When you look at that number it’s not very scary…0.06C. Not even 1/10th of a degree C increase. Not a big scary number no matter how they try to twist it so instead they compare it to nuclear bombs because that does scare people. But then you realize if that many atomic bombs can only raise the average temperature of the oceans by less than 1/10 of 1 degree C then they really aren’t all that powerful compared to the energy received from the sun every day of the year. Compared to that anything we do is absolutely trivial.

        • john byatt says:

          which brings us back to the start

          [Response: Changing a unit to have a small sounding number doesn’t actually change anything; neither the significance nor the accuracy. But if you want to play rhetorical games, go right ahead – though perhaps not here. – gavin]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: